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-
noun be taken into consideration, it is evident that James does not
affirm generally that faith cannot save, but that it cannot save
Mm whose faith, on which he trusts, is destitute of works, for
auton refers back to the subject Us, that is, to the person whom
James has introduced as speaking James illustrates
the idea that faith is dependent for its proof on works, otherwise
if these are wanting it is dead and profits nothing, by an example
of compassion. . . . From the fact that James calls faith dead
if it has not works, it is evident that by these works is not meant
something which must be added to faith, but something which
grows out of faith ; the erga here treated of are works of faith, in
which are the germs of faith. . . . No one can make himself
a righteous person by his works, but only can prove himself to be
such. James says nothing else than that Abraham was declared
righteous (by God) ex ergon (out of works). By ex ergon the rea-
son is specified, on Abraham's part, on account of which a declara-
tion of righteousness was granted to him. ... In this James
oould rightly recognize a formal recognition of Abraham's right-
212 FIRST PROPOSITION.
eousness on the part of God. . . . Certainly the meaning of
James cannot be that faith hitherto incomplete was completed by
works, as something which was externally added to faith, since
faith is the impulse to the works. . . . For as the power of
love grows and is completed by the practice of works of love, so
does faith grow and is completed by the practice of works in which
it manifests itself. Thus was Abraham's faith only completed
when he stood the severest test, and brought his son as an offer-
ing upon the altar. It is true, God regarded Abraham as hisphilos
(son) . . . the instant he reckoned his faith to him for right-
eousness, but he was called so at a later period, namely, only at
the time that he was declared righteous by God on account of his
works. . . . The former was imparted to Abraham purely on
account of his faith, but the latter only when his* faith was com-
pleted by works, thus on account of his works, so that thereby
that Scripture was fulfilled. . . . The declaration of righteous-
ness, which James intends, is not that by which the believer on
account of his faith receives the forgiveness of sins, but, as is evi-
dent from the connection of the whole section, that which occurs
to the believer who has proved his living faith by works, at the
judgment, and by which he receives sooteria. . . .
"Rahab, namely, was a pornee, nevertheless, on account of the
works which she did (namely, her works of faith) she was declared
righteous. Thus, by the addition of this example, the truth that
a man is justified ex ergon is yet further confirmed. The correct-
ness of the assertion that Eahab was justified on account of her
works, consists in this : that, according to the narrative contained
in Josh. ii. and vi., life was on account of them granted to her, she
was formerly delivered from that punishment which befell Jeri-
cho. Thus James could with right appeal for the truth of what
was said in verse 24 to this fact, since also the future declaration
of righteousness will be an acquittal from punishment. In Heb..
xi. 31 the deliverance of Kahab is ascribed to her faitli, but so that
her action is likewise mentioned as the demonstration of it. . . _
It has with truth been maintained that, according to the doctrinal
system of Paul, a justifying efficacy is denied not only to works of
law, but also to works of faith, since these last do not precede, but
follow justification. . . . Even the justification at the last
judgment is in itself not more perfect than that by which God in
this life absolves the believer from his sins; the distinction con-
sisting only in this, that by the former he obtains salvation as a.
J. B. MOODY'S TENTH SPEECH. 213
present blessing, and that in all its fullness, which by the latter
was conferred on him as a blessing yet future. . . . James
here evidently says nothing against the Pauline doctrine of justifi-
cation, since his ex ergon does not refer to being placed in a new
relation to God, of which there is no mention. The inquiry, by
what this is conditioned, is not discussed by James in his Epistle
at all, yet it is to be observed that to him the foundation of the
Christian life is faith, and that he designates the new birth (chapter
i. 18) as a work of God, which only takes place through the will of
God, and, indeed, so that God implants the word of truth in man.
That James in this asserts something which is not in contradiction,
but in agreement with Paul's doctrine of justification, requires no
proof. . . . It is to be observed that God very definitely dis-
tinguishes the justifying act of God, by which the forgiveness of
sins is adjudged to the believer for the sake of Christ, from the
judicial act of God by which sooteeria will either be adjudged or
denied to the justified. Justification (so called by Paul) is condi-
tioned on the part of man only by faith; the future sooteeria will
only be adjudged to him in whom faith has proved itself to be a
working principle.
"From these passages, which might be greatly multiplied, it is
not to be denied that Paul, as he definitely excludes every co-op-
eration of human works in justification, so he. no less definitely
represents the future salvation as conditioned by the practice of
works of faith. The reason of justification is not the ethical
nature of faith, but solely and entirely the merits of Christ, or
Christ himself, with whom faith, that is, faith in Christ, places us in
connection. We are justified not for the sake of faith, but through
faith for the sake of Christ; thus it holds good for the justifica-
tion which is by faith alone that every reference to works is en-
tirely excluded."
Or, as Beza jmts it, "It is one thing to say faith without works is
dead, and another to say faith is dead without works ; as if faith
derived its life and power from works, which is not less absurd
than if we should say that the body is dead without sense and mo-
tion, as if sense and motion were the cause of life; whereas we
should say that the body which is- without motion is dead, for the
cause is understood from the necessary effects, and works are the
evidences and effects of living faith, not the cause of it."
James does not say that faith is dead without works, but that faith
without works is dead. A body without motion is dead, but a
214 FIEST PROPOSITION.
"body is not dead without motion. My body may be motionless
apd yet alive, but if it is characteristic of my body to be without
motion, then it is dead. Motion is here used in the sense of spirit
or life, and this is the sense in which James here uses it. An eye
without sight is blind, but an eye is not blind without sight, for it
may be dark. One without sense (as his characteristic) is a fool,
but one is not a fool without sense, for he may be dead, or uncon-
scious. Or, as Henry says, " The justification Paul speaks of is of
persons being justified before God ; the other, of our faith being
justified before men. Our persons are justified before God by faith,
but our faith is justified before men 'by works. 7 Or, it may
mean : Show me thy faith, that faith you say you have, but which
has not works ; show it to me without showing it by works. Apart
from works it is not possible to show it to man, who can only see
outward appearances. It is helpless, idle, dead to such an impos-
sible requirement. If you cut off the only possible way of show-
ing itself to you, then how .can it show itself? Here faith is the
subject on trial, before men, 'by works;' there, the sinner is the
subject on trial, before G-od, i by faith.' Paul speaks of the condi-
tion of a sinner before God ; James of the conduct of a believer
before men."
Time expired.
J. A. Harding's Tenth Reply.
Dear Friends:
The speech to which you have just listened is, I believe, the
most respectable one the gentleman has delivered. In it he has
not crossed his own path nor misrepresented us as often as usual,
and I think he has made a fairer effort at Scriptural argument than
usual. It affords me pleasure to reply. I will notice in the first
place some minor matters, and then will attend to what he has said
about the doctrine of Paul and James on justification.
Let me repeat what I have said before about my use of Baptist
authors. I quote them not to make the impression upon you that
I agree with them in doctrine in general, but simply to show that
they sustain me on the one point under consideration. Graves
thinks "born of water" means baptism; so do I. We agree on
that one point, but as to the design of baptism we differ as far as
the east is from the west. I quote Hovey to show that the ex-
pressions "born of water," "the washing of water," "the washing
of regeneration," mean baptism; that "repentance and baptism
are represented as leading to the forgiveness of sins;" that baptism
stands for and means "an earnest request for pardon;" that it is
"an embodied request or prayer unto God," and so on. But I
have never said that Hovey agrees with me in all points. I
read his "Appendix" carefully to see if I could endorse it all, but
I could not. Indeed, the testimony of those men is stronger for
my cause than if they agreed with me fully in all points. For
when they make these concessions now, they make them against
their own doctrine, and they would not do it if they were not con-
strained by the weightiest and most overwhelming considerations.
If they agreed with me wholly, they Would, of course, be on my
side, and I would not quote them at all as proof of the truthful-
ness of my positions. I quote my brethren to show what they be-
lieve, but not to prove the correctness of their faith. You Bap-
tists can understand that well enough, if you will remember how
you delight in quoting pedobaptist concessions in favor of immer-
sion and against infant baptism. And their concessions have all
FIRST PROPOSITION.
the more weight because they still continue to practice infant
sprinkling, since a man will not testify against his own faith and
{practice, unless he is constrained to do it by considerations that he
-cannot well resist. The gentleman says I am almost ready to sur-
render Hovey, that I have gone against his doctrine. Hovey has
gone against his own doctrine, just like these pedobaptists do
when they tell us baptteo means to immerse, but still continue to
practice sprinkling. But Hovey's teaching is a wonderful improve-
ment on that of the average Baptist preacher. The light shines,
and men are slowly, but surely, coming more and more into the
light.
The gentleman now says it is my counterfeit experience that can
be detected, and not counterfeit experiences in general. Certainly
I did not so understand him; but the matter has gone to record,
and the readers of the book can look back and see for themselves ;
then they will see which of us is correct.
The gentleman still has trouble in understanding my challenge.
Well, let me repeat it:
Show me one example in which G-od ever gave any blessing to any
one on account of his faith, before that faith had expressed itself in
any action whatever, and I will give up the debate.
Of course the action must be one of faith, growing out of a be-
lieving heart, expressing the faith of the heart. If the gentleman
can't show such an example, he might as well give up the tight,
for he is here contending that faith unexpressed, faith before it
has done any thing at all, reaches the blessing. Abraham was
justified by faith, but he received no blessing in answer to his
faith till that faith had been expressed in action. So of Abel, so
of Noah, and so of all. Joshua took the city of Jericho "by faith,"
the Bible teaches us, but the walls did not fall till Joshua had
obeyed the Lord in encompassing them seven days. Rahab was
saved from destruction "by faith," but it was a faith that received
God's messengers, and hid them, and sent them away in peace.
Find an example of your doctrine, or say plainly that you cannot
do it. In so far as the records show, faith unexpressed never has
reached a blessing. As James says, it is "dead," it is "barren."
Brother Moody claims that it is impossible for any one to state
our doctrine fairly, seeing that we have " no formulated creed."
Ah, did the apostolic Churches have any formulated creed, except
the Word of God? Can the doctrine of the apostles be stated
correctly? We have a creed (a rule of faith and practice), formu-
J. A. HAEDING'S TENTH REPLY. 217
lated by the Lord God Almighty, and we are quite well satisfied
with it just as it is. We are not disposed to "formulate" it over
:again. We are not inclined to think that we can improve upon
the Master's work. Was there any creed possessed by the Church,
except the Bible, for decades after the last apostle died? We have
.grown to be a great people, nearly a million strong on this conti-
nent, while holding to the above Creed; we stood the shock of the
late war, which divided so many Churches, and we stand as one
body to-day. But how about the Baptists? Will Brother Moody
tell us how many different and distinct bodies there are among
them? He accuses my brethren of differing from one another, of
teaching all sorts of different doctrines. It is true we are afflicted
more or less in that way, but, compared to the Baptists, our
trouble is as a molehill to a mountain. Some Baptists are Calvin-
ists, some are Arminians; some believe in preaching to sinners,
others do not; some hold to opencoinmunion, others to closecoin-
munion; while some go so far as to say the members of one Church
must not commune with another of the same faith and order.
We read of Particular Baptists, G-eneral Baptists, Kegular Baptists,
-Old School Baptists, New School Baptists, Free Will Baptists, Sev-
enth Day Baptists, Six Principle Baptists, and of how many more
I know not, though I believe there are ten different Baptist bodies
in the land. Brother Moody, I believe, belongs to the body known
as Eegular Baptists, which is much more divided (to leave all the
others out of the count) than are we. In England it is not un-
common, I have been told, for them to have unimmersed persons
in full fellowship in their congregations, and opencommunioD is
common. Divided indeed! Why, sir, how many of your ministers
in this city are not attending this debate at all, and don't intend to
ome? Every one of my preaching brethren attends, except one,
who is in bed, but who would be here if he were able to come.
But, to return to the matter of creeds, I thought the Baptists
here of late had begun to boast that they have no creed but God's
Word. I have heard some of them say it. It seems they were
mistaken, however. Will Brother Moody please tell us what is the
creed of the Baptist Church? Is it not a fact that each congrega-
tion formulates its own creed, and that you have as many creeds
as you have Churches? Will you say to me now, as you said once,
that you "take the Philadelphia Confession of Faith straight?"
Please answer, so that I may know what your "formulated creed"
is, so that I may be able to state your doctrine correctly. I have
218 FIRST PROPOSITION.
here an article from the National Baptist, written by a correspond-
ent who is deploring the divisions in the Baptist Zion. He ac-
cuses them of "Campbellizing," and quotes Hackett and Hovey in
proof of the charge. The writer says: "0, yes; we are of almost
as many minds in these days as we are many men." I commend
to my friend the old adage about the people who live in glass
houses. He would do well to heed it. Why, friends, there are
Baptists in this city who differ so widely from him in doctrine and
spirit that they scarcely regard him as a brother at all. While my
brethren, though troubled more or less in different communities
with roots of discord, are, nevertheless, I believe, as a whole,
more completely united in doctrine and in heart than any other
people in the world.
Before taking up the matter of justification, there is another
little thing that needs merely to be mentioned. I have here a
communication from Dr. Baker, of Watertown, in which he says:
"It was the judge of the Smith (instead of the DeKalb) County
Court that came to us from the Baptists since the debate. He
lives right on the line of the two counties, and spends much of his
time in Alexandria (which is in DeKalb), and this association
caused me to make the mistake." Of coufse this is a matter of
no moment, either on the one side or the other, but as it was a
mistake, I ana glad the doctor was the first to correct it. He is a
man who does not fear the light, and who wants all the truth to
stand out. When Brother Moody's Baptist committee went to see
him he cheerfully gave them all the information they wanted from
our church book. But when I ask for information about that Mill
Creek Church I am kept in the dark.
Now to the matter of Paul and James:
Paul says, "Being justified by faith (ek, out of faith}, we have
peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." (Eom. v. 1.)
James says, "Ye see, then, how that by works a man is justified,
and not by faith only." (James i. 24.)
Paul says, "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by
faith, without the deeds of the law." (Rom. iii. 28.)
James says, "Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead (nekra),.
being alone." (James ii. 20.)
He says, also (verse 20, Revised Version) : " Wilt thou know,
vain man, that faith apart from works is barren?" The word
"barren" translates the Greek word argee. This word, according
to Thayer's great lexicon, is applied to things "from which no
J. A. HAEDING'S TENTH REPLY. 219
profit is derived, although they can and ought to be productive;
as of fields, trees, gold and silver." That is, beloved, James tells-
us that faith apart from works is barren ; it is like the fields and
trees that yield no fruit, like the gold and silver of the miser,
which rust in his vaults while the owner dies of starvation. The
man who dies with such a faith goes down to hell, because he did
not use that which, when properly used, always brings one to life
eternal.
But (as Brother Moody loves to quote), Paul says, "Abraham be- '
lieved Gk>d, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now
to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of
debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that
justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness."
(Rom. iv. 3-5.) .
These statements, to the one who has not studied them care-
fully in all their bearings, seem contradictory. I believe it was
Martin Luther himself who was disposed to reject the book of
James altogether on the ground that it conflicted with the teach-
ing of Paul. But the world is moving and the light shining, and
now it is easy to make very plain what was once very obscure. I
hope to do that on these passages.
First, then, let me remark that we are not justified by law, nor
by deeds of law, either in whole or in part, but by grace. To be
justified by law, it would be necessary for a man to keep a perfect
law perfectly all the days of his life. Had a Jew kept the law
perfectly from birth to death, he would not have needed the atone-
ment of Christ to free him from sin ; he would have gone through
the gates into the city without the blood of Jesus. But no Jew
ever did that, except the great "Middle Man," the Son of David,,
the Son of God. 'He fulfilled the law (which had to be fulfilled
that man might be saved), and thus became "the end of the law
for righteousness to every one that believeth."
Christ, having thus fulfilled the law, had the power and privilege
of giving to whom he chose eternal life. If man obtained it at all r
it must be by gift (by grace), seeing that by four thousand years
of effort his inability to obtain it by works of law, "works of
righteousness," had been demonstrated. When a man commits his
first sin it at once becomes impossible for him ever to be saved by
works of righteousness that he can do, that is, by his own works
of righteousness ; for, were he to live an absolutely faultless life
for a hundred years afterwards, he would only do his duty, that
220 FIRST PROPOSITION.
which he is indebted to God to do, and hence would have nothing
with which to balance off or cover the one sin. Had Christ him-
self sinned he would have been in this condition. If ever that one
sin be gotten rid of, it must be by grace, it must be forgiven (the
very word forgive has "give" in it, and in its nature excludes all
idea of purchase, or of meritorious work). Hence, to every par-
doned soul Christ gives the pardon, without money, without price,
without meritorious words. But it does not follow from this that
there are not conditions to be complied with in order to obtain the
pardon. All religious parties (unless, perhaps, some ultra Calvin-
ists be exceptions) grant that there are such conditions. Hackett,
Hovey, and the leading lights generally of the Baptist Church,
grant it. Faith is one of these conditions ("He that believeth not
shall be damned")^ repentance is another (" Except ye repent, ye
shall all likewise perish"); obedience is required ("Being made
perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto, all them
that obey him"). These conditions are works of righteousness,
but they are not our works of righteousness; they belong to the
righteousness of God. They have no meritorious or purchasing
power in them. "When a man believes he pays God nothing, and
so it is when he repents; nor does he pay any thing when he is
baptized; he simply submits to an act of righteousness appointed
by God. Baptism no more invalidates grace than does believing
or repenting. When Paul says we are saved by grace, "not of
works," he does not mean to exclude these conditions, these works!
of God's righteousness, .for, if so, he would exclude faith and re-
pentance just as certainly as he would baptism; for they are just
as much works, and man exerts himself even more in obeying
them than he does in submitting to baptism. The very forms in
which the commands are expressed indicate this: We are com-
manded to believe (active voice), to repent (active voice), to be
baptized (passive voice). And, as we have seen before, Paul
sharply draws the line between our righteousness and God's right-
eousness, putting baptism in the latter. The baptism of John, as
Jesus teaches, was "from heaven," not "of men;" much more,
then, is his own baptism of God. Hence, Paul says of the Father,
" Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but accord-
ing to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration and
renewing of the Holy Ghost." Here the "washing of regenera-
tion" (baptism) is set over against our works of righteousness, and
{Jod is said to save us by the former, in connection with the re-
J. A. HAEDING'S TENTH REPLY. 221
lie wing of the Holy Ghost, but not by the latter. That the "wash-
ing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Ghost," the new
birth ("Except a man be born of water and the Spirit he cannot
enter into the kingdom of God"), and the faith and baptism of the
commission ("He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved"),
are equivalents to my mind does not admit of a reasonable, un-
prejudiced doubt. In each of the three passages it is taught that
we are saved through faith (wrought in the heart by the Holy
Spirit) and baptism.
That Paul does not exclude works of God that are appointed by
him as conditions when he speaks of justification by faith is
further evident from the study of the case of Abraham. That
worthy " believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteous-
ness." It was reckoned to him, not on account of works, but of
grace ; nevertheless, he had been an earnest, faithful, obedient serv-
ant of the Lord for eight years, when it was said of him, "He be-
lieved in the Lord, and he counted it to him for righteousness."
The very first words that God ever uttered to Abraham, in so far
as the Sacred Records show, constituted a command, and upon the
condition of his complying with it God promised to bless him, and
to make him a blessing. (See Gen. xii. 1-3.) He obeyed. As
Paul expresses it, "By faith Abraham, when he was called to go
out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance,
obeyed ; and he went out not knowing whither he. went." By faith
he obeyed. He went down into the land of Canaan, thence into
Egypt, fought the great battle in which he rescued Lot, came back
with the great spoil, was blessed by Melchizedek priest of God
Most High, and it was after all this that God spake of him that his
faith was counted to him for righteousness. Bead from Gen. xii. 1
to Gen. xv. 6, and you will see that my statements are correct.
But, to make the matter certain that Abraham was not justified
and blessed by faith without obedience, but that the blessing came
because of the "obedience of faith," it is only necessary to study
a revelation which God afterwards made to Isaac. It is made in
the twenty-sixth chapter of Genesis. He there renews the prom-
ises to Isaac that he had made before to Abraham, and he tells
why they were made to Abraham, and why they will be kept. He
refers to the very time when Abraham's faith was counted to him
for righteousness, and shows why it was so counted. These are
the Lord's words to Isaac: "Go not down into Egypt; dwell in the
land which I shall tell thee of. Sojourn in this land, and I will be
222 FIRST PROPOSITION.
with thee, and will bless thee; for unto thee, and unto thy seed, I
will give all these countries, and I will perform the oath which I
swear unto Abraham, thy father; and I will make thy seed to
multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all
these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth
be blessed: because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my
charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws" (Gen.
xx vi. 2-5.)
Ah, my friends, does that look as though God counted his faith
for righteousness when it was "faith only," "faith alone," before it
had expressed itself in any action whatever? No, no; it was
when Abraham obeyed God's voice, kept his charge, his command-
ments, his statutes, and his laws. His conduct suggests to me
the little school girl's definition of faith. "What is faith?" inquired
the teacher. "It is just taking God at his word," replied the child.
And that is the exact truth in the case. He who lovingly takes
God at his word, walking in his commandments, as did Abraham,
has faith, saving faith.
Abraham's fidelity gained him the exalted position of the father
of the faithful to all them who have a like faith, whether Jew or
Greek, bond or free, circumcision or uncircumcision. Who are his
children? Listen: "The father of circumcision to them who are
not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that
faith of our father, Abraham, which he had being yet uncircum-
cised." (Eom. iv. 12.) He is not the father by faith of those who
believe, but obey not, like Brother Moody's brethren, those rulers
of the Jews; but he is father to all them who walk in the steps of
his faith. The faith that pleases God has "steps."
Is baptism one of the steps by which we become Abraham's
children? Listen: "For ye are all the children of God by faith in
Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into
Christ have put on Christ And, if ye be Christ's, then
are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." (Gal.
iii. 26-29.) As sure as you live, my friends, except ye be born of
water and the Spirit, ye cannot enter into this great family.
And now, one more point with regard to Paul's teaching on jus-
tification. That he did not mean to exclude "the obedience of
faith" when he taught the Eomans that we are justified by faith is
evident from what he says to them as to the time when they were
made free from sin. In the very midst of his argument on justifi-
cation he said to them: "But thanks be to God that, whereas ye
J. A. HABDING'S TENTH REPLY. 223
were servants of sin, ye "became obedient from the heart to that
form of teaching (form of doctrine) whereunto ye were delivered;
and, being made free from sin, ye became servants of righteous-
ness." (Eom. vi. 17, 18.) It is hardly to be supposed that Paul
would tell these people, who were made free from sin after they
obeyed the form of doctrine, that we are justified by faith alone.
Nor could he do it without stultifying his own experience,- for we
know that he sorrowed in blindness for three days and nights after
he was a true penitent believer, until he was told what he "must"
do, namely, to arise and be baptized, and wash away his sins, calling
on the name of the Lord. Paul, like other people, had to be born
of water and the Spirit in order to enter into the kingdom.
While you are thinking upon Paul's statement that these Kornans
were made free from sin upon obeying the form of doctrine (which
Dr. Lofton says we obey in baptism), remember, also, Peter's
affirmation, "Ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth."
A man gets a pure soul, not before obedience, but in obedience.
My time is nearly gone. I must say a word or two about Brother
Moody's interpretation of the doctrine of James. He claims that,
while Paul was talking about the justification of the sinner in the
sight of God, James was talking about the righteousness of the
believer, the justification of the professor in the sight of men.
He claims that when James says, "Ye see, then, how that by works
a man is justified, and not by faith only," he is talking about the
justification of the professor in the sight of men the justification
in man's sight of those who had already been justified fn God's
sight. This is not so. And it seems to me that five minutes' re-
flection ought to satisfy any man that it is not so. For in this im-
mediate connection James illustrates by the case of Abraham
offering Isaac. He says: "Was not Abraham, our father, justified
by works when he had offered Isaac, his son, upon the altar?
See thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was
faith made perfect?" And then, to make it absolutely certain that
the justification was in God's sight, he adds in the next verse,
"And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, 'Abraham believed
God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness, and he was
Called the friend of God.' " Why, my friends, who is so silly as
not to be able to see that Abraham was seeking to please God to
be justified in his sight, not in man's, when he offered up Isaac?
There was not a soul in the world who knew he was going to do
it, not a man there to see him do it. He carefully, scrupulously
224 .FIRST PROPOSITION.
kept every living soul on earth from knowing what he was going;
to do. But the heavenly intelligences saw him, and a voice from
heaven called unto him, saying, "Now I know that thou fearest
God, seeing that thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son,
from me." (Gen. xxii. 12.) Justification in the sight of men, in-
deed ! [Laughter.]
Nor was James talking about the justification of Christians,
either, for his next illustration is the case of Eahab, the harlot.
She was not a Jewess, nor a professor, nor was she conscious of
justification in God's sight when she received the messengers.
She was scared, and she prayed the spies to save her and her
father's house. So it is said, "By faith the harlot, Eahab, perished
not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies
with peace." (Heb. xi. 31.) This is said in that famous chapter, .
which all admit speaks of saving faith. But she was not justified
(saved) till she had done something. Campbell, Errett, and all of
my brethren agree with me in this interpretation, in so far as I
know. If James addressed Christians, so did Paul.
Time expired.
J. B. Moody s Eleventh Speech.
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The gentleman is certainly not "past feeling," so far as anger is
concerned. I warned him against some facts that I would state,
knowing they would hurt, but he cared for none of these things.
This is my fourth debate with him, and he has spent the most of
his time in all of. them attacking my personal character ; but I
must go on correcting his errors and exposing his doctrine, caring
not as to what shall befall me personally. I was compelled to
publish certain things in my paper, because my veracity was at
stake. I hope I will not be compelled to republish them in this
debate. If he compels me I will. If he compels me I will intro-
duce some scathing criticisms from his brethren concerning him-
self. If I should, it will be not to defend myself, but the truth
which he seeks to injure through my personal hurt. I give the
following from Pikeville, a witness afcove reproach, and of recent
date. He says:
"I have never heard of any Baptist joining the Campbellites
during the meeting spoken of, except one, who has been excluded
from the Baptists for drinking and swearing, and who had not
attended the Church meeting for months before the debate. I saw
him to-day, and he said he was not convinced by the debate, and
that he had never said he was. He was raised by a family of that
faith. He has a brother who was a Campbellite a long time, but,
on being regenerated, at once denounced their faith, joined the
Baptists, and has worked there ever since. At our meeting:
following the debate two of their number were converted, and
one of them joined the Baptists, and is making us a good
member."
A letter from one of my deacons at Watertown says that Dr.
Baker asked him to witness the mailing of a letter to Mr. Hard-
ing, asking him to correct his previous statements concerning
"the results of the Moody-Libscbmb debate." I have from Dr.
Baker the name of the man as one of the list of converts from the
Baptists, but now he says he did not know that he had ever been
15
226 FIRST PROPOSITION.
a Baptist, or that lie had ever been excluded from the Baptist
Church.
As to the Church at Alexandria, hardly any Church in Tennessee
has acted more nobly in self-sacrifice than they. With almost no
outside help, few in numbers, and poor in purse, they undertook
the building of, perhaps, the finest house in all that country, and
they are progressing as rapidly as is generally done in the erection
of country church houses. They have felt unable while building
to have a regular pastor, and, having no house of their own, they
have not made the usual effort in protracted meetings. Yet several
joined them from a revival held in the town, but, having no regular
pastor, they were not baptized. The one sermon from the brother
reported for this year turns out three by the same brother, and
the year before Brother T. J. Bastes preached for them regularly a
good part of the year.
These are the facts set over against my friend's statements, and
I don't wonder that he stings when they are stated j but it is not
my fault; I did not introduce them. And so of others yet to fol-
low, if he persists.
As to the Norton letter, let me say again what I first said, and
what has been repeated. I do not indorse all of Mr. Norton's lan-
guage, nor can I know his Articular meaning until I hear from,
him, but I'll venture the assertion that he is as far from believing
what my friend believes as I am, and if he can do no better than
to fill his speech with something that occurred in my paper that I
am not at all responsible for, and that I am under no sort of obliga-
tion to indorse, then it shows that my friend is running out of
matter. I have referred him to some things that occurred in his
paper from his brethren favorable to me, and unfavorable to him,
which he has confessed. Now, what would you think of me if in
my speech I would iterate and reiterate these things against him?
I am sure my brethren would want to withdraw me from the con-
test, with a plain hint that if I had no argument I had better give
it up. I can pile as much of that kind on him as he can on me,
and if I "get out of soap" I may resort to that kind of warfare.
Our cause has been greatly advanced by all of my debates with
his brethren, and that fact will stand against all the assertions and
hearsays he can make to the contrary.
He, Harding, claims again that'Hovey is with him in doctrine. I
give the following recent letter. He says:
"In answer to your kind letter, I will endeavor to state as clearly
J. B. MOODY' S ELEVENTH SPEECH. 227
.as possible my views of Christian baptism in relation to the for-
giveness of sins. They are these:
"1. Faith in Christ, an inward and spiritual act, is the only pre-
requsite to the forgiveness of sins, according to the general cur-
rent of New Testament teaching. Men are justified by faith. Their
spiritual life is rooted in faith. He that believeth that Jesus is the
Christ has been begotten of God, and he that has been begotten of
God is accepted by him as his son. (See Bom. v. 1; Gal. iii. 22-25;
1 John v. 1, 4, 5.)
"2. Faith in Christ is frequently represented as preceding bap-
tism, and is a sufficient reason for administering this rite. (Acts
viii. 12; xviii. 8 ; comp. x. 47, 48, and John iv. 1.)
"3. Faith in Christ is also represented as a fruit of the preach-
ing of the Gospel, accompanied by the Holy Spirit. (1 Cor. xiv.
18; ii. 4; iv. 15.) Observe that in the first of these passages Paul
contrasts baptism with preaching the Gospel, and declares that he
has baptized only a tew of the Corinthians, while in all these pas-
sages he connects faith and salvation with preaching, and in the
last addresses all the believers in Corinth, as though he was their
; spiritual father. Baptism is not spoken of as in any way essential
to their regeneration or sonship to God.
"4. The whole nature of the Christian dispensation as portrayed
by Christ and his apostles forbids us to make salvation depend on
any outward or ritual service.
"What, then, does baptism accomplish? what end does it serve?
why is it so closely united with forgiveness of sin? (1) It symbol-
izes, or represents, by a visible sign, what hasbeen accomplished
in the soul. By submitting to baptism a believer in Christ testifies
or confesses that he has died to his former life of sin, and been
raised to a new life in Christ. (2) This sign was at first closely
- connected in thought and act with the change signified by it. The
former, as the divinely-appointed confession of the latter, was
made to follow it with as little delay as possible. (3) The reality
of his repentance and forgiveness would naturally be assured to
the consciousness of the persons baptized by his full avowal of it,
in the solemn and significant way prescribed. That which baptism
represents or signifies is prerequisite to forgiveness. Baptism is
the appropriate confessional manifestation of repentance and
faith. The one may, therefore, be put for the other, or may be
presumed to follow the other, as the shadow follows the substance,
as ob. Jjciice in outward act follows obedience in heart. But bap-
228 FIRST PROPOSITION.
tism is no more necessary in. order to forgiveness than is any other
equally important act of outward obedience to the Lord Christ.
These are the views which I have always believed, .... and
I have written nothing which was intended to contravene these
views."
Will Mr. Harding still claim Hovey on his side in doctrine? Is
he not here trying to prove a doctrine, and why does he quote
a man except as a witness to his doctrine? Will Mr. Harding
now retract all of his abuse of Dr. Hovey's language 1 I wait
to see.
My opponent has delivered himself in his characteristic style on
John xii. 42, and, as it deserves and requires my attention, I will
discharge that duty now.
There are three classes of interpreters of this passage. One
class, of which Jacobus is a representative, interprets it as the
language of appearance; they appeared to believe, but really did
not. Another considers them genuine believers, who had not
added to their faith the courage to confess under the dangerous
circumstances. The third class considers them genuine believers,,
but for a refusal to confess were lost. Some debaters will press
this view, as if bent upon breaking the testimony of Jesus, who-
said so repeatedly, "Whosoever believeth in (eis) him shall not
perish, but have everlasting life," "Is not condemned," "Is passed
from death unto life," "Shall not come into condemnation," "I will
raise him up at the last day," "Though he were dead, yet shall he
live," "Shall never die," should "not abide in darkness," "The
works that I do h shall do also, and greater works than these
shall he do," "Shall receive the remission of sins," "Inheritance,"
"Sanctification," "Justification," "Salvation," " Witness in himself,"
etc. Such are some of the positive promises made to whosoever
believeth eis (in), or epi (upon), him, and "whosoever" takes all the
class specified. So, to show one place where they believed eis (in),
and then were lost, would falsify Christ's testimony, and break his
repeated words of promise. Col. Ingersol never pressed a seem-
ing contradiction of Scripture with more diabolical delight than
we have heard in debate on this passage.
We think they were genuine believers, and ultimately received
the promises. The passage reads, "Nevertheless, among the chief
rulers, also, many believed on him, but they did not confess him,,
lest they should be put out of the synagogue, for they loved the-
praise of men more than the praise of God."
J. S. MOODT'S ELEVENTH SPEECH. 229
As the Ee vised Version has it, "Even of the rulers many be-
lieved on him." And, as Jamison, Faussett and Brown add, " Such
as Nicodemus and Joseph of Armathea, who afterward boldly
confessed Christ." In ix. 22 we read, "For the Jews had agreed
already that, if any man did confess that he was Christ, he should
be put out of the synagogue;" and in verse 34 they executed the
threat on the one who had been born blind, and who said, "If this
man were not of God he could do nothing."
We do not justify their neglect to confess, or their prevailing
love for the glory of men, but are there no paliating circum-
stances? Are we to jump at any excuse or opportunity to break
the testimony of Jesus? Is there any thing in the statement
irreconcilable with the Word of Truth? Rather than break the
Word of God, let us judge with charitable judgment. These rulers,
who it is said believed eis him, belonged to the intolerant, excom-
municating party. It was asked in vii. 48 especially, 'fHave any
of the rulers believed on him?" At that time they had sent to
arrest Christ. They were exceeding mad and terrorizing. Some
are more timid than others. The faith of some is stronger than
others. Faith must grow strong, and circumstances do not always
favor this. There is nothing in this statement that positively con-
tradicts other Scriptures. In 1 John ii. 15 it is said: "If any man
love the world, the love of the Father is not in him." This is the
passage that is hissed on the testimony of the Lord. But in this
passage the love of the world is such as to exclude the love of the
Father. " The love of the Father is not in him." But in the other,
they loved the glory of men, but not so as to exclude the glory of
God. They loved the glory of men more (mallori). Here it is com-
parative, and not exclusive. Christ "rejoiced more over that
sheep" does not, and cannot, mean that he rejoiced none over the
ninety and nine. To hearken unto God, and to obey God, rather
or more than men, does not mean that they did not hearken or
obey men at all, for God commanded both. "Much more, being
reconciled" (Eom. v. 10), is not exclusive, but comparative.
Now who is it that does not love the praise of men? If none
could be saved but those who loved the praise of God, to the ex-
clusion of the praise of men, then, pray, who could be saved? So,
while the passage quoted against this is exclusive, this is com-
parative, and hence there is no positive contradiction. Of the ten
lepers cleansed, only one returned to give glory to God; yet, "as
they went they were cleansed." Their faith healed them, yet only
230 FIEST PEOPOSITION.
one when he saw he was healed turned back, and with a loud
voice glorified God.
Peter lost his courage at Antioch, and dissembled. He did worse
than this on the night of the betrayal, for there he not only con-
fessed not, but he denied that he knew him, with bitter curses,
let he believed in Christ to the saving of his soul. His faith,
failed not, nor did his love.
We must consider the paliating circumstances before we rashly
condemn the Most High. Joseph of Armathea " was a disciple of
Jesus, but secretly, for fear of the Jews." Yet, in after life, "he
went in boldly and besought Pilate for the body of Jesus." So
Mcodemus, perhaps ashamed of his former timidity, comes out
at a very critical time and shows his devotion to him, and to
whom he had recently confessed in John iii. 2 that for which the
man was put out of the synagogue in chapter ix. Meyer says on
these passages that "these were the most hostile and dreaded
party opposed to Jesus in and outside the Sanhedrim. . . . They
preferred the honor of men. Theirs was thus not the faith
strengthened for a free confession which Jesus demands, with the
setting aside of the temporal interests. Augustin calls it ingresus
fidei. Where subsequently the right advance followed, the unhesi-
tating confession also was forthcoming, as in the cases of Mcode-
mus and of Joseph of Armathea. But the case of Gamaliel is not
applicable here (Godet) ; he did not get so far as faith."
The rest of the chapter confirms this view. Those to be con-
demned are those who reject Christ, and receive not his words.
Those rulers received his words, did not then confess, but they did
not reject him. Jesus said, "Yerily," as if addressing this class of
timid believers,/" I am come as a light into the world, that whoso-
ever believeth in me should not walk in darkness." The true be-
liever may walk in darkness, and does, if he prefers the glory of
men to the glory of God, but the continuance in his Word will
make them that believe on him disciples indeed, and they shall
know the truth, and the truth shall make them free.
'
In Matt. x. 32, 33, and Luke xii. 8, 9, confessing Christ before
men, and denying him before men, are set over against each other.
These rulers who believed do not fall under either class ; they are
simply believers, who are to be taught to walk in the light, and
thus be disciples. If such Scriptures as Luke xiv. 26-33 is to be
literally interpreted and rigidly applied, then who of this ease-
loving generation will be saved? "Whosoever he be of you that
J. B. MOODT'S ELEVENTH SPEECH. 231
forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple," refers to
such upon whom in the providence of God such a sacrifice is re-
quired. If this is required of this generation, then, pray, who
was thus discipled before baptism? Not one. We have as much
right to condemn all who fall short in Luke xiv. 26-33 as any one
has to condemn those of John xii. 42, 43. It still stands uncon-
tradicted by God's Word that whosoever believeth in him shall
never perish, but have everlasting life.. These rulers believed in
him, therefore they are entitled to the promises, which are "yea
and amen in Christ." So we believe, and so we preach.
I wish to notice a few more blessings of salvation that come be-
fore baptism.
PEACE.
"There is no peace to the wicked," and "the way of peace they
have not known." Carnal-niindedness is death, but spiritual-mind-
edness is life and peace. Of course I mean the peace which Christ
giveth, and which the world cannot give nor take away; that peace
that passeth all understanding, and which keeps the heart and
mind through Jesus Christ. This peace is clearly predicated of
faith. "Therefore, being justified by faith, we have peace with
God through our Lord Jesus Christ. By whom, also, we have ac-
cess by faith into his grace wherein we stand." My friend's doc-
trine requires baptism in all these Scriptures; and he is going to
put it there at all hazards, and at any cost. Paul said we have
peace in believing, and Christ said, "Thy faith hath saved thee;
go in peace." Do you think that Mr. Harding will contradict these
two witnesses? Do you think he will deny that the woman was
saved by faith, and that she went her way in peace, and that with-
out baptism? I would not be surprised if he did, for his doctrine
is contrary to all Scripture, and to prove it he must contrary all
Scripture.
JOY.
In Phil. i. 25 we have the expression, "joy of faith." In 1 Pet.
i. 8 we have, "Yet, believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and
full of glory." In Acts xvi. 34 it is said, "They rejoiced, believing
in God; " and, -if their faith begun before baptism, so did their joy.
In Acts viii. we read: "There was great joy in that city," and that
before anybody had been baptized. Eom. xiii. 13 says that God
fills us with joy and peace in believing. And, when the millions
of earth with united voice testify that this Scripture was fulfilled
232 FIRST PROPOSITION.
in their personal consciousness when they believed, for in no other
way could it be fulfilled ; and when the Scriptures warrant it, and
my friend rises up, in the name of Alexander Campbell, and in the
mighty nothingness of his modern plea, to deny all, and to over-
turn all, I pity him, as one who works greedily to destroy both
himself and everybody else. Let the Scriptures read as they are,
and mean what they say, and woe to the man who tampers with
them, and who puts the blessings of salvation where God, Spirit,
angel or saint never authorized.
DISCIPLES.
My friend takes the term "disciple" as the equivalent of a Chris-
tian; indeed, he emphasizes the fact that his people are disciples,
and he would not be content with an insufficient appellation. In
his estimation a disciple is a saved man: Luke xiv. 26-30 shows
that no one can be a disciple who does not love Jesus Christ
supremely. Not only better than father and mother, or wife and
children, and even life itself, but, if these hinder him, he must hate
them. The term is applied both before and after baptism in the
Scriptures. The great commission tells us to make disciples and
baptize them; and it is said that Jesus made and baptized more
disciples than John. All of this indicates clearly that the great
change that salvation brings takes place before baptism. Indeed,
an unbaptized man may be a truer disciple than a baptized one,
because he may have more of the spirit of discipleship, and may
err on fewer points, though he may err on baptism. Mr. Harding
will never prove from the Scriptures that none but the baptized
are disciples. The Scriptures are plain that one must be a disci-
ple before he is baptized. Then, what advantage has my friend in
calling himself a disciple?
CHILDREN.
Must one be a child of God before baptism? Must one be a
Christian before baptism? If not, there is no such thing as Chris-
tian baptism. For, if infant baptism is the baptism of infants, and
believers' baptism is the baptism of believers, so Christian baptism
is the baptism of Christians. Those who become the children of
God by faith ought to be clothed (see Eom. xvii. 12-14; Eph. iv.
24; Col. iii. 9-10), not only with Christ, but with all the graces of-
the Christian religion. Hence, Paul says, as indorsed by McKnight,
George Campbell, Doddridge, "Emphatic Diaglott," and Alexander
J. B. MOODY'S ELEVENTH SPEECH. 233
-Campbell, "For ye are all the sons of God through the faith by
Christ Jesus. Besides, as many of you as have been immersed into
Christ have put on Christ." Most other translations make the
simple clear statement that "we are all the children of God by
faith in Jesus Christ." And, while the whole Christian world urge
that these children of God by faith in Jesus Christ should be bap-
tized unto Christ, and put on Christ, yet they all hold the old
Scripture doctrine that we are all the children of God by faith in
Christ Jesus. (See Gal. iii. 6-9.) My friend is going to deny that
any unbaptized man is a child of God, though he believes in Jesus
Christ, and believes that God has raised him from the dead, and
has publicly confessed him with the mouth, and abounds in good
works that put my friend's people to shame. Here again is des-
perate fanaticism, hurled against the Scriptures of divine truth.
I am sorry for him.
* HEIRS.
Paul says, "If children, then heirs," and "that the Spirit himself
testifies with our spirit that we are the children of God." Eom.
iv. 13 states that Abraham became an heir through the righteous-
ness of faith, and that any law principle would make faith void,
and the promise of none effect, because the promise was given
before the law, and before circumcision j therefore, says Paul, it is
of faith, that it might be by grace to the end the promise might
be sure to all the seed.
Abraham got the inheritance by faith in the promise, and all of
us who are of faith are the sons of Abraham, and those of faith
are blessed with believing Abraham. But my friend must put bap-
tism in here, and in doing so he confesses and confesses that the
faith he knows of is dead before baptism, and that makes his bap-
tism of no account.
HOLT SPIRIT.
The Holy Spirit is one of God's greatest gifts, to be sure to those
who ask him. As we have a special subject for this, I will offer
now but little proof to show that he is received before baptism.
"Where the Spirit of the Lord is there is liberty," and "we are not
in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be the Spirit of God dwells in
us." The Galatians received the Holy Spirit by "the hearing of
faith;" then they received him before baptism. They "begun in
the Spirit," and baptism was not the beginning with them. (Gal.
iii. 2, 3.) Paul asked the Corinthians (Acts xix. 2): "Eeceived ye
234 FIEST PROPOSITION.
the Holy Spirit when ye believed?" It is also said that many oi
the Corinthians, hearing, believed, and were baptized. First they
heard, then they believed, then they were baptized. Paul did not
ask if they received the Holy Spirit when they were baptized, but
when they believed, or when their hearing produced faith, and,
like the Galatians, they received the Spirit by the hearing of faith.
Watch my friend charge against these Scriptures. Now read Eph.
i. 13: "In whom ye also, having heard the Word of Truth, the
Gospel of your salvation, in whom, having also believed, ye were
sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise." I have no doubt but the
Ephesians were baptized, as were the Galatians and Corinthians,,
but they, nor any one, according to the Scriptures, have ever received
the Holy Spirit in baptism. How was it with the house of Corne-
lius? "While Peter yet spake these words the Holy Ghost fell on
all them which heard the Word." This was God's testimony, that
when they heard they believed, and their hearts being purified by
faith, God testified with the like gift that he gave to the others
who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thus put no difference
between them and the apostles, purifying their hearts by faith.
In God's estimation the faith of the baptized is here made equal
with the faith of the unbaptized, and God gave his testimony that
there was no difference between believers, so the unbaptized faith
received as much of this blessing as did the other, and that showed
that God put no difference between them. Hence Peter said, " Can
any man forbid water that these should not be baptized, who have
received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" They became the chil-
dren of God by faith, and, being children, God sent forth his Spirit
into their hearts, crying, Abba, Father. And who was Peter, that he
could withstand God? But my friend and his candidates did not
receive the Spirit when they believed, neither did they receive any
of the blessings when they believed, according to his own testi-
mony, and there is such a difference between him and us that I
cannot call him "brother." Jesus said (John vii. 38, 39) that they
who believed on him should receive the Spirit; and Mr. Anderson
translates Gal. v. 5: "For we, through the Spirit, which we ob-
tained by faith, wait for the hope of righteousness." But what
are all these, and all other Scriptures, compared to my friend's
plea. They both can't stand, and we will see which my friend
prefers.
My friend indorses the diagram which puts faith after hearing,,
and before conviction, before love, repentance, confession and
J. B. MOODT'S ELEVENTH SPEECH. 235
baptism; and, while the Scriptures predicate all the like blessings
of salvation to faith, my friend insists that they are not received
until baptism. We have proved that salvation, remission, justifi-
cation, sanctification, regeneration, reconciliation, righteousness,.
Holy Spirit, cleansed, purified, purged, washed, adopted, accepted,
sealed, grafted, quickened, new creation, circumcision, death to
life, darkness to light, mercy, grace, joy, disciples, children, heirs,
and every other characteristic and appellation is predicated of
those things which are confessedly before baptism. But my friend,
despite all these Scriptures, holds a doctrine that contradicts them
all; and may God have mercy on him and all his people, who have
so erred from the truth.
Time expired.
J. A. Harding's Eleventh Reply.
Dear Friends :
It not unfrequently happens that the proper understanding of
one passage of Scripture will utterly overthrow a false argument,
or even a false system of doctrine. And my friend has at last
been compelled to notice a passage of that kind one that I have
been striving to get him to notice ever since the debate began.
As an understanding of it fully and clearly settles the question be-
fore us, completely and everlastingly destroying his position, I
shall endeavor to bring out the light from it at once, and will at-
tend to minor matters afterwards. The passage is this :
"Nevertheless, among the chief rulers also many believed on
him ; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest
they should be put out of the synagogue: for they loved the praise
of men more than the praise of God." (John xii. 42, 43.)
Here it is said that these rulers believed on (eis) Christ. Brother
Moody's position is that the moment any man believes eis Christ
he is a saved man, has eternal life, will never fall from his saved
state, and so on. Hence, he holds that these rulers were in a saved
state, God's children, redeemed, forgiven, on the train for the
celestial city, with a through ticket, and the car door locked, so to 1
speak, while refusing to confess Christ from fear of man, while
loving the praise of men more than the praise of God. Now, if I
can show that these rulers were not saved, but were resting under
the condemnation of God, hi a lost state, his theory will go to the
ground with a crash, and it will follow that something else is nec-
essary to the salvation of a man besides a mere internal, unex-
pressed faith. If I can show any thing, I can show that these men
were under God's condemnation, and, if they ever got from under
it, they changed their lives and turned to the Lord first.
These men would not confess Christ; if? is necessary that we
should confess him to be saved by him. They would not deny
themselves, take up their crosses, and follow him; we must do
these things to be saved by him. They loved the praise of men
more than the praise of God; hence, the love of God did not rule
J. A. HARDING'S ELEVENTH EEPLT. 237
in their hearts. In proof of these positions, consider the following
passages :
"Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I
confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever
shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father
which is in heaven. Think not that I am come to send peace on
earth : I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to
set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against
her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.
And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that
loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me : and
he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not
worthy of me. He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that
loseth his life for my sake shall find it." (Matt. x. 32-39.)
In this strong, clear passage Jesus requires men to confess him,
in order to be confessed by him; and he avows that if they deny
him, he will deny them. He explains that those who enter into
his service may expect war, the closest kinsmen being arrayed
against one another. He affirms that if a man's love for father,
mother, son or daughter prevails over the love for him, then such
a one is not worthy of him. And he plainly states that if a man
will not take his cross and follow after him, he is not worthy of
him; even if he lose his life, he must follow after him. What,
then, think you, in the light of this passage, was the condition
of those rulers? They would not confess Christ, would not take
up their crosses, would not follow him. They feared men more
than they feared God; and loved the praise of men more than the
praise of God. They were seeking temporal, rather than eternal,
welfare. Do you call that faith, saving faith? I thought you
agreed with me that saving faith includes trust. Where was the
trust of these men? Friend Moody charges us with advocating a
different kind of faith from that to which he holds ; and it seems
that he is right about it. For we demand of those who would
come among us that they must have a faith that loves and trusts
Jesus, and that is ready and determined to follow him, let come
what may. And we teach that without such a faith no man can
come to Jesus. Without such a faith baptism and the Lord's Sup-
per bring condemnation rather than blessing.
Jesus says: "Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and
my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also
238 FIRST PROPOSITION.
shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he:cometh in the glory of
his Father with the holy angels." (Mark viii. 38.) These rulers
were ashamed of Jesus and his words.
Paul says: "With the heart man toelieveth unto righteousness;
and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." (Bom.
x. 10.) These people did not believe unto righteousness (their
faith did not lead them to obedience), and hence they did not con-
fess unto salvation.
He says again: "If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if
we deny him, he also will deny us." (2 Tim. ii. 12.) These rulers
would not suffer with Jesus, hence they could not reign with him;
by their lives they denied him, and hence (except they afterwards
repented and turned to the Lord) they will be denied by him.
John says: "Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the
Father : he that confesseth the Son hath the Father also." (1 John
ii. 23, Eevised Tersion.)
Again he says : " Every spirit which confesseth not Jesus is not
of God." (Chap. iv. 3, Revised Version.) These rulers confessed
not Jesus ; therefore they were not of God.
Jesus says: "Whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after
me, cannot be my disciple." (Luke xiv. 27.) Notice the strong
negative, "cannot." It is impossible to be a disciple of Jesus
without bearing the cross and following him. These rulers did
not these things.
Nor did they love Jesus, for the Master says: "If a man love
me, he will keep my words." (John xiv. 23.) And then he adds
(verse 24) ? "He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings."
Hence it is settled, the Lord himself being the judge, that these
rulers did not love Jesus. Had they loved him, they would have
obeyed him.
The Scriptures say: "Love not the world, neither the things that
are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the
.Father is not in him." (1 John ii. 15.) These people loved the
world and the things of it; hence it follows that the love of the
Father was not in them. All that love will obey, Jesus says; and
hence he does not propose to save any but those who obey. Hence
it is said: "Being made perfect, he became the author of eternal
salvation unto all them that obey him." (Heb. v. 9.) This is a
verse, by the way, that I have never succeeded in getting Brother
Moody to notice, in any debate, to this hour. It shows that when
-Jesus speaks of the believer as being "justified by faith," as hav-
J. A. HAEDING'S ELEVENTH REPLY. 239
Ing passed "from death, unto life," and so on, lie means tlie obedient
believer, the man whose faith has been perfected by works. Paul
says it is "faith working through love" that avails. (See Gal. v. 6,
Revised Yersion.) Of course you know what the word "avail"
means. It shows that it is "faith working through love" that ac-
complishes any thing, that reaches the blessing. Hence the strik-
ing passage: "He thatbelieveth on the Son hath, eternal life; but
he that obeyeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of
God abideth on him." (John iii. 36, Kevised Yersion.) In perfect
harmony with all this is the statement of Peter concerning the
Holy Spirit, "Whom," he says, "God hath given to them that obey
him." (Acts v. 32.) Those rulers had not obeyed God, and hence
had not received the Holy Ghost.
And now, to cap the climax, in settling the matter concerning
these rulers, let me read to you what the great Baptist, Dr. Hovey,
whom we have quoted so often, has to say about them. In his
commentary on the passage he says: "For they loved the praise
(glory) of men more than the praise (glory) of God. By the glory
of men is meant the glory that is from men, and by the glory of
G-od, the glory that is from God. Hence these Sanhedrists were
not men who had been renewed by the Spirit of God; their re-
ligion was not of the heart, but of the head; they had very little
sense of the awful nature of sin, and no experience of the true
peace which God imparts to those who delight in him. For who-
ever cares more for human applause than for the approbation of
God is radically unlike the Savior. (Comp. v. 41, 44.). The heart
can have but one object of supreme affection. It will be found
impossible to give men the first place and God the second. Who-
ever attempts to do this will soon find that he is making a vain
and absurd attempt, working against reason and conscience, and
that he must give God the first place in his heart, or no place at
all." (Hovey on John, p. 262.)
Albert Barnes says on the passage: "It does not appear that
they had a living, active faith, but that they were convinced in
their understanding that he was the Messiah. They had that kind
of faith which is so common among men a speculative acknowl-
edgement which leads to no self-denial, which shrinks from the
active duties of piety, and fears man more than God. True faith
is active. It overcomes the fear of man; it prompts to self-deny-
ing duties." (See Barnes, in loco.}
Joseph and Mcodemus may have been of this number, but, if
240 FIRST PROPOSITION.
so, the fact that they were afterwards bold and outspoken in their
devotion to Jesus is no proof that they were saved, forgiven, be-
fore that courage and devotion was developed in them.
So, friends, we have in the case of these rulers men who would
not obey Christ, who did not truly love him, who would not take
up their crosses and follow him, who sought the glory of men
rather than the glory of God, but who, nevertheless, believed on
(eis) Christ. And to my mind this settles it that more than mere
faith is necessary to bring one to pardon and to peace. Peter says,.
"You have purified your souls in obeying the truth." This is an-
other passage I cannot get Brother Moody to notice. To suit his
doctrine it ought to read, "God purified your souls before you
obeyed the truth." That version of the matter would bring the
rulers in.
Now, that this matter is off our hands, some minor things can
be attended to.
The gentleman threatens to publish some criticisms that my
brethren have made on me. He was moved to make this threat
by my telling you what his brother, Judson Taylor, said about him.
Taylor, you remember, had a little controversy with him, in which
he accused Moody with making "unaccountable misrepresenta-
tions," with "cruel injustice," with misrepresenting him ".beyond
any kind of moral endurance," and so on. He charges Moody
with making an impression which he knew to be untrue at the
time he made it. I quoted these things from Taylor to show you
that my erring brother treats his Baptist brethren just like he
treats us, and just like he treats the Bible. As to his threats
towards me, he ought to know by this time that I am not afraid
of any thing that he can do. He can publish when he gets ready,
and, by the grace of my Father, I will attend to the case when it
comes up.
He refers again to Dr. Baker and the Watertown matter. Dr.
Baker' was charged with informing me that twenty-one Baptists
had come to us since the debate. He replied, "I never so stated;"
and he wrote to me at once, thinking that I might have misunder-
stood him. But I had not misunderstood him. I simply read you
his letter. And whoever reads the debate when it is published
can read the letter and see.
As to the Alexandria matter, let any man read Brother Moody's
first statement of the case (as those who read the debate can do),
and then read his statement in his last speech, and he can easily
J. A. HARDING' S ELEVENTH REPLY. 241
see who ought to "sting." Suppose the Baptist Church at Alexan-
dria did have a pastor a part of the time last year, and have had
several conversions of folks who have not yet been baptized, and
have had three sermons, instead of one, this year, I don't see any
thing very astounding in these facts, nor any thing calculated to
make me "sting." But, if the Baptists there are so "few in num-
bers and poor in purse" as Brother Moody says they are, I think
they were very foolish in undertaking to build "perhaps the finest
house in all tbat country," as the said Moody testifies they did.
Eead Luke xiv. 28-30, and see what the Master says about such
folks.
Brother Moody says one of our people united with the Baptists
at Pikeville (or in that region) after our debate there. I don't be-
lieve that any member of ours in good standing did it. I have
never been able to hear of such a man. But I have heard of a
man in that country who was once with us, but afterwards became
very wicked, and lived so for some years; then he attended a
mourner's bench revival, went to the anxious seat, and made a
profession; then he became wicked again; and then, last August,
he joined the Baptists. He is the man, I guess, that Friend Moody
is boasting about, as he is the only one ever connected with one of
our congregations who has gone to the Baptists since the debate
tbat I have been able to hear about; and I have inquired with
some diligence. But I know of Baptists in full fellowship and
good standing who have come to us since the debate. I am ready
to give name for name with Brother Moody when he gets ready.
He says: "Our cause has been greatly advanced by all of my
debates with his brethren, and that fact will stand against all the
assertions and hearsays he can make to the contrary." That the
cause of truth has been greatly advanced by all of our debates, I
doubt not; but that the Baptist cause has been, I have never been
able to find out. I know, at the end of our first debate, one of
our congregations in a neighboring town was represented at the
debate, and we were requested to repeat it in their house; I ac-.
cepted their invitation, Brother Moody did not. Hence the debate
did not come off. At our second debate we were invited by the
elders of two of our congregations to repeat the debate in their
houses; I accepted, Brother Moody did not. Hence these debates
did not come off. At none of our debates have any of his Churches
invited us to repeat in their houses. They have been invariably
satisfied to quit. As to results following the debates, I. have
16
242 FIRST PROPOSITION.
already given you some facts. All that you have to do is to wait
a little while, and you will be able to see some of the results of
this discussion. If we do not increase and multiply, if we do not
have many additions in this city shortly after the debate, some of
us will be much disappointed. For one, I have an< abiding confi-
dence in the power of the truth. And that we have .the truth in
this controversy I am as certain as that I live and breathe. I ask
God to guide .and bless me in his service, and that he is doing it
I doubt not.
Hear the astonishing man again, will you? He says: "Mr.
Harding claims again that Hovey is with him in doctrine." 1 have
no recollection of making any such claim, though I do most dis-
tinctly remember saying that he is not with me in doctrine, and
that his agreement with me in certain matters of scriptural trans-
lation and exegesis is all the more conclusive in our favor on that
account. In his doctrine (teaching) on many points involved in
this debate Hovey is with me ; but, being a Baptist, it is to be pre-
sumed, and doubtless is true, that the general trend of his doc-
trine is with my opponent. And, as I have said before, this being-
true, he would not interpret the expressions "born 'of water,"
"washing of regeneration," "washing of water," "the like figure
whereuuto even baptism doth also now save us," etc., in our favor
(as he does) if he were not constrained to by his honesty and his
great learning. He would not translate Acts ii. 38 "in order to
the forgiveness of sins," and say, "Here repentance and baptism
are represented as leading to the forgiveness of sins," if candor
and scholarship did not make him do it. And so, too, of Hackett
and other Baptists.
The gentleman now says that he does not indorse all of Mr.
Norton's language. I just reminded you of what took place when
he first read from Norton's letter. I had read an extract from it
the night before. He said he would read the same extract, and
that it would sound very differently from what it did when I read
it. (And it did, sure!) He said he would read it just as it was.
He would stop occasionally in his reading to shout, "Good old Bap-
tist doctrine ! " Not once did he dissent from what he read. But
four times he skipped while claiming to read it just as it was; and
you heard me call him back, and make him read it over. One of
the skipped places, however, he never did read. You heard his
moderator, Dr. Lofton, speak out, in answer to my question, and
say, "It is not Baptist doctrine." These things happened here be-
J. A. HAKDING'S ELEVENTH REPLY. 243
fore you, and you know they are so. Brother Moody now tells you
that he cannot know Mr. Norton's "particular meaning." Let me
call your attention again to two of the skipped passages, and, be-
loved, you can try your hands to see if you can understand his
"particular meaning." "Can you deny," says Norton, "without
doing violence to Mark xvi. 16, that a true profession of trust in
Christ by being immersejd is one of the things on which the prom-
ise of salvation is there made to depend? so that he who does not
>obey as well as trust, cannot say that that promise applies to
him?"
That is not hard to understand. Norton affirms, in the strong
interrogative way, that the promise of salvation is made to depend
upon immersion (Mark xvi. 16), and that a man must obey, as well
.as trust, or he cannot say that the promise applies to him. (This
is the passage that Friend Moody never did read.)
Norton inquires again: "Do you believe the truth of what Peter
.asserts, in very plain words, that as the ark saved Noah, so immer-
sion, as the means by which we seek salvation with a pure con-
science, 'now saves us?' (1 Peter iii. 23.) Will you deny the truth
of this assertion, and say that, instead of saving 'us actually, as
the ark saved Noah, it is nothing but a picture of salvation?"
The "particular meaning" of that extract seems to me also to
be very clear. Norton holds that as the ark saved. Noah, so im-
mersion now saves us; that as the salvation in the one case was
"actual," so it is in the other. No wonder Brother Moody was
tempted to skip it, as it goes square against his doctrine of salva-
tion in a figure, a pictorial, not a real, salvation. But he ought to
have resisted the temptation.
The gentleman says I rise up "in the name of Alexander Camp-
bell" "to deny all, to overturn all." He knows as well as you do,
my friends, that that is not true. He knows that I do not do any
thing in the name of Alexander Campbell. He has repeatedly re-
ferred to Campbell as the founder of our order, as the bead of our
Church. Nothing could be further from the truth. If Campbell
did one work better than all others (and he did many well), it was
to warn all against following men in religion, against belonging to
Churches founded by men. I strive to follow Campbell only as he
followed Christ; I strive to follow every other man whose preach-
ing I hear, or whose writings I read, in precisely the same way. I
ask no man to believe (in religion) that which I cannot read from
-God's Word; I ask none to do that which I cannot show that God's
244 FIRST PROPOSITION.
Word requires ; I ask none to refrain from doing that which I can-
not show that God's Word forbids. I stand on the Solid Kock,
the Bible. Put me to the test, and see if I cannot give Scripture
for my teaching and practice. I hold to no doctrine in religion,
nor practice any thing in the service of God that was not known
in the world before Campbell was born. Put me to the test, and
prove your charge, or else withdraw it* as false. You have ten
nights yet in which to find some doctrine or practice that Campbell
bequeathed to us. If this cannot be done, then your charge is
false.
My time is slipping away, and I must, in the briefest way, hasten
over my notes on the gentleman's speech.
Jesus said to a woman (Luke vii. 48-50), "Thy sins are for-
given." " Thy faith hath saved thee ; go in peace." Upon which
I remark: (1) This was before Jesus had given the commission.
He had not yet said, " He that believeth and is baptized shall be
saved." (2) The woman was Mary, the sister of Lazarus. As to
whether she had been baptized by John, or by Jesus' disciples,
Brother Moody does not know, and hence he should not affirm.
(3) Her faith did not reach the blessing until it was expressed in
action.
Peter says, as the gentleman quotes, "Yet believing, ye rejoice
with joy unspeakable and full of glory." Yes, but they did not
reach the blessing by faith only, for in the same letter he says,
"Ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth;" and a little
further on he says, " Baptism doth also now save us."
Brother Moody quotes, "They rejoiced, believing in God." Just
so; and if you will turn to the passage you will see that the state-
ment is made just after their baptism. (See Acts xvi. 30-34.) " By
works was faith made perfect." However, 1 am sure that there is
a sense of rest and comfort that comes to every man as soon as
he surrenders himself wholly to the Lord, with full purpose of
heart to follow him. But this is not forgiveness, nor any part of it.
Nor is it to be compared to the joy of forgiveness. I am happy
when I start home, but I am much happier when I get there.
He quotes, "There, was great joy in that city," and adds, "and
that before anybody was baptized.-" Miserable perversion ! for the
joy was from the curing of the great multitudes of sick people.
(Bead Acts viii. 5-8.) They did not receive the Spirit till after
they were baptized. (See verses 12-17.) Can't a sinner be happy
when his sick children are cured?
J. A. HARDING' S ELEVENTH EEPLT. 245
Friend Moody says that with me disciple and Christian are
equivalent terms; that a disciple is a saved man. Not so; I
believe in making disciples, and then in baptizing them in the
name of Jesus for the forgiveness of their sins. Every Christian
is a disciple (a learner), but every disciple (learner) is not a
Christian.
He says a man must be a .child of God before baptism. It is
certain he is not a child of God as soon as he believes, for Jesus
gave to believers "power to become the sous of God." (John i. 12.)
If we are children before baptism, then we are children while out
of the kingdom, and before birth, for Jesus says, "Except a man
be born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom
of God."
Yes, Paul says, "Ye are all sons of God through faith in Christ
Jesus." (Gal. iii. 26.) But not by faith only, for his very next
words are, " For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did
put on Christ." Through faith we are baptized, and are thus born
of water and Spirit, and thus become children of God. Is it not
strange that Brother Moody should quote this passage? Is he
trying to commit theological suicide? He need not do that; I'll
kill him, and save him the trouble.
Christian baptism does not mean the baptism of Christians.
Christian, as an adjective, is not a New Testament word, but in
current use it means "pertaining to Christ." "Christian doctrine,"
"Christian baptism" mean the doctrine given by Christ, the bap-
tism given, or instituted, by Christ.
Brother Moody says the Holy Spirit is one of the blessings of
salvation received before baptism. When did Jesus receive it?
(Matt. iii. 16.) The apostles? (Actsii. 4.) The 3,000? (Acts ii. 38.)
(See, also, Acts viii. 16, 17; xix. 5, 6.) Find one case, since Christ
died, where any one received the Spirit before baptism (except the
miraculous and exceptional case of Cornelius), and I will give up
the debate.
I do not indorse his diagram. In it he puts things after baptism
which we put before.
Time expired.
J. A. Harding s First Speech.
PROPOSITION:
Baptism to the penitent believer is for (in order to) the pardon of his past sins,
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The same point, the time of forgiveness, is still before ns ; but
our relations to the question have changed. For a week my oppo-
nent has been in the lead, striving to show that forgiveness, with
other blessings, is received before baptism ; during this week I am
to show you that baptism is in order to forgiveness. I hope to
make the matter stand out before you in its true light more and
more clearly as the days pass.
As I desire to begin at the beginning, at the bottom root, and
not only so, but also at the very seed from which that root springs, .
I shall ask your attention to-night to a discussion of the faith that
justifies. The man who understands what "saving faith" is will
have no difficulty whatever in understanding the place and design
of baptism in the scheme of redemption. And the man who does
not clearly understand this one thing is bound to be a blunderer
all the days of his life, no matter how learned he may be in other
things, nor how talented.
I have already had occasion from time to time to say something
on this point, but, being in the negative, I have not had the oppor-
tunity to be as full and clear upon it as I now hope to be. I hope
now, as far as in me lies, in the time that is allotted to me for this
speech, to exhaust the subject of
JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.
What is faith? Hear the Holy Spirit answer: "Now faith is the
assurance of things hoped for, the proving (or test) of things
not seen." (Heb. xi. 1, E. V.) In this first verse the inspired
writer tells us what faith is, and then he devotes the remainder
of the long chapter to illustrating the meaning of what he here
248 SECOND PROPOSITION.
says. Surely, in the light of his illustrations, we can under-
stand his meaning, if we will but earnestly apply honest hearts
to the work of investigation. That faith is "assurance of things
hoped for" is so plain, so easily understood, so universally admit-
ted, but few words need be spoken concerning this part of the
divine definition. The mother says to her little girl, "Now, dear,
if you won't cry, I will give you some candy when I return." The
little maiden heroically restrains her tears as the mother drives
away. She believes her mother. What do you mean by that?
Why, she is assured that she will get the candy. "Faith is the
assurance of things hoped for." God told Noah to build an ark
for the saving of his house. Noah built the ark. He believed
God. That is, he was assured that he and his house would be
saved according to the word of the Lord. God told Abraham that
Isaac should be the father of many nations ; he then told him to
offer him up as an offering unto him. Abraham believed God.
What do you mean by that? Abraham was determined to offer up
Isaac according to the word of the Lord to take his life and to
burn his body but all of the time he was so diligently and cau-
tiously engaged in carrying out this purpose he was full of the
assurance that God would raise him from the dead, and that he
would then certainly become the father of many nations. In his
case clearly faith was "the assurance of things hoped for." I
might proceed to give you many other illustrations drawn from
our own experiences, as well as from the Word of God, but it is
hardly necessary ; the matter is too plain and simple to need much
comment; our faith in every benefactor, from the little girl's trust
in her mother for the candy to the aged Christian's expectation of
a home in the everlasting kingdom of God, is "assurance of things
hoped for."
But the second part of the divine statement is not so simple,
nor is it so generally understood. Faith is " the proving (or the
test) of things not seen." What does that mean? Give me your
attention closely for a little while, and I hope to show you. The
Holy Spirit has kindly deigned to show us that faith unexpressed
is worthless. It must be completed by being embodied in works
to be of any account. Proof: "For as the body apart from the
spirit is dead, even so faith apart from works is dead." (James
ii. 26, R. Y.) " Thou seest that faith wrought with his works, and
by works was faith made perfect." (Verse 22.) " But wilt thou
know, vain man, that faith apart from works is barren?" (Verse
J. A. HARDING' S FIRST SPEECH. 249
20.) "Even so faith, if it have not works, is dead in itself."
(Verse 17.) I know Brother Moody claims that James is not talk-
ing about justifying faith in general, but only about the faith that
justifies the professor, or saved man, in the sight of men. But I
know, and have shown you, that in this he is wrong. Nothing but
the. feeling that causes a drowning man to catch at a straw could
ever have induced him, or any one else, to give such an interpre-
tation. For James illustrates by the case of Eahab. She was not
a professor, nor a saved woman. And, while it is certain that she
was saved by faith, it is equally certain that it was by faith that
worked, faith embodied. Listen: "By faith Eahab the harlot
perished not with them that were disobedient, having received
the spies with peace." (Heb. xi. 31, E. V.) The verse is so
plain comment is scarcely necessary. The disobedient perished 5
but Eahab did not belong to that class; she was saved by faith.
When? When she had "received the spies with peace." So she
was saved by faith embodied, faith perfected by works. Hence
James says: "Was not also Eahab the harlot justified by works,
in that she received the messengers, and sent them out another
way?" Eemember the apostle Paul says that in Christ Jesus it is
41 faith working through love" that avails. I ride a horse; I don't
ride merely the body of a horse; nor do I ride the spirit of a
horse; there must be body and spirit combined, or we cannot ride.
So faith must be embodied, or it is worthless. "Apart from
works," cries the Holy Spirit, it is "barren," it is "dead."
But, again, as I have shown you, James was not talking about
justification in the sight of men, for he illustrates by Abraham's
offering up Isaac. And the old patriarch, with the greatest dili-
.gence and caution, excluded every mortal eye from seeing what he
was about to do. Moreover a voice from heaven plainly tells in
whose sight Abraham was justified by that deed; for, as the old
man stood with uplifted knife, on the very verge of plunging it
into the heart of his darling boy, a voice from heaven cried:
"Abraham, Abraham;. and he said, Here am I. And he said, Lay
not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him;
for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not with-
held thy son, thine only son, from me." (Gen. xxii. 11, 12.) Now
what do you think of Brother Moody's doctrine that Abraham was
up there trying to justify himself in the sight of men? But he
had to say something; for, if .James is talking about justifica-
tion in general (as he undoubtedly is), then my opponent's posi-
250 SECOND PROPOSITION.
tion that the sinner is justified by faith as soon as it is conceived
in the heart is unquestionably false.
But let us now return to the statement: Faith is "the proving
of things not seen." It must be evident to every thoughtful mind
that more is comprehended here in the word faith than the mere
. internal action that is sometimes called faith. For such a faith
proves nothing; it is "assurance," truly enough, but it puts noth-
ing to the test. But the faith that James talks about, faith per-
fected by works, does prove "beyond the possibility of a reasonable
doubt, the existence of the unseen God.
Let us now go back to the eleventh chapter of Hebrews, and
see if the inspired penman is not there talking of the same faith
of which James speaks. At the seventh verse it is said, by faith
Noah "prepared an ark to the saving of his house; through which
he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness
which is according to faith." By faith Noah built an ark. Did he
build it by faith only? Nay, verily. To ask the question is to
answer it. He prepared that ark, and was saved from the flood
that destroyed the ungodly, by a faith that did what God told him
to do, and by this faith, perfected by works., he "became heir of
the righteousness which is according to faith." And you, my
friends, if you would become heir to the righteousness that is
according to faith, must, like Noah, hear and believe and obey the
Lord.
But what about the "proving?" Was Noah's faith at any time,
or in any way, a "proving of things not seen?" Yes, indeed; if
you will but think, nothing can be clearer. By faith Noah gathered
together the materials for the building; by faith he worked upon
it day by day, till the last beam was in its place, till the last board
was nailed, till the vast structure stood complete according to the
appointment of God. By faith he gathered together the birds and
beasts and creeping things; by faith he and his family went in;
and then his faith was completed, in so far as that matter was con-
cerned; he had done all that God told him to do. Then came the
hand of the Lord to bless. "And the Lord shut him in," says
Moses. How the hearts of that little band must have thrilled
within them as that strange, mysterious hand closed and sealed
the door ! Many years afterward that hand was seen in the hall
of the luxurious and haughty Belshazzar, writing his doom and
the overthrow of his kingdom on ,the wall. As the guilty king
looked upon the strange moving hand of the unseen penman his
J. A. HABDING'S FIEST SPEECH. 251
countenance was changed, and his thoughts troubled him, so that
the joints of his loins were loosed, and his knees smote one against
another. To him. it was the messenger of evil. But not so to the
little band in that ark. To them it was the proof of the presence
and the blessing of the mighty God: Their lives of faith had put
to the test the existence of the Great Unseen; and in what fol-
lowed his truthfulness, goodness, mercy and power were demon-
strated. The flood came; the awful tumult burst upon them; the
fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the clouds poured
out water. Wailings and bitter lamentations were heard without
as the disobedient went down in the great destruction. For forty
days and forty nights the rain continued, and then there came a
great calm. Without the ark there reigned everywhere the still-
ness of death. After many months of floating the ark rested, and
then the time soon came when Noah, his family, and the birds,,
beasts and creeping things came out and stood upon the dry
ground. Then Noah knew, beyond the possibility of a reasona-
ble doubt that God is, and that he is a rewarder of them who
seek after him. Once he was simply assured of this, but now
he knows it. Faith, when it works through love, becomes-
proof, absolute proof. It puts to the test, with the unerring cer-
tainty of a mathematical demonstration, the existence and the
goodness of God. While of sound mind, Noah could not doubt
any longer on this point. While he was building the ark, doubt-
less, doubts would obtrude themselves into the minds of his sons
and of their wives. It was hard for them to believe that father
was right and all the world wrong. " What ! " they would say, " can
it be possible that this great world, with all of its brilliancy, beauty
and power, with its kings and governors, its warriors and states-
. men, its nobles and sages, its beautiful women, grand men and
prattling babes, is to be destroyed, and that we only are to be
saved? Are we the special pets of heaven?" Then, doubtless,
Noah's daughters-in-law had their relatives; and it would go hard
with them to believe that their kindred were worthy of such de-
struction. I imagine that Noah's wife herself would sometimes
be troubled with doubts, as she saw her husband so despised in
the eyes of the mighty, the learned and the fashionable of the
earth. Ah, no doubt Satan would at times thrust the doubt up
into the very face of the old man himself, as with tearful and
bewildered eyes he looked upon the surging throngs that turned
day after day from his earnest pleadings. But if the doubt arose
252 SECOND PROPOSITION.
in Ms mind the grand old patriarch crushed it down. He trusted
in God, and he was determined to believe in his truthfulness,
though thereby he should make every man a liar. But the day of
doubting passed; assurance culminated in proof, and the apostolic
definition of faith was fulfilled: "Now faith is the assurance of
things hoped for, the proving of things not seen."
But mark you, my friends, Noah's faith did not become proof,
nor did it reach any blessing, till it was expressed in obedience.
Noah was saved from the destruction of the flood by grace through
faith, but the grace of salvation was not bestowed upon him on
account of his faith till the faith was embodied.
It is not faith only, but "the obedience of faith" that saves.
Paul says the mystery of the Gospel "was kept secret since the
world began, but now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of
the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting
God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith." (Eom.
xvi. 25, 26.) To the same people he says, "We have received
grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations,
for his name." (Rom. i. 5.) That is, he was made an apostle by
the Lord that he might lead people of all nations "to the obedience
of faith." Christ told him, at the time that he made Mm an apos-
tle, that he intended to send him to the Gentiles " to open their
eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power
of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and
inheritance among them that are sanctified by faith that is in me."
(Acts xxvi. 18.) Yes, Paul was to turn the people from Satan to
God, from darkness to light, that they might be forgiven. Christ
made Mm an apostle for that purpose. How did he do it? He
lead them to the "obedience of faith." Listen: He says, "We
have received grace and apostleship for obedience to the faith
among all nations." When, then, were the people saved under his
teaching? When were their souls purified? Let Peter answer:
He says to the saints scattered throughout Asia, Pontus, Gala-
tia, Cappadocia and Bithynia, "Ye have purified your souls in
obeying the truth." (I Pet. i. 22.) What can be plainer ! They
were not justified by "faith only," but by "the obedience of faith."
We are told expressly that their souls were made pure in their
obedience to the truth.
Friends, let me call your attention here to two examples given
in the Word of God. They stand over against each other in strong
contrast.
J. A. HAEDING'S FIRST SPEECH. 253
1. "And the word of God increased; and the number of the dis-
ciples" multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the
priests were obedient to the faith." (Acts vi. 7.) Were those priests
forgiven? Were their souls purified? Yes ; you know they were.
They not only believed, they were "obedient to the faith." They
purified their souls "in obeying the truth."
2. I want you to contrast with this the case of the rulers that
has already been commented upon at such length. "Among the
chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Phari-
sees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the
synagogue: for they loved the praise of men more than the praise
of God." Were these rulers forgiven? Were their souls purified?
No; cowardice, selfishness, the love of the world, kept them from
"obeying the truth." They would not, like those noble priests,
become "obedient to the faith." Well may we repeat with James,
" Faith apart from works is barren." " Faith, if it have not works,
is dead." "As the body apart from the spirit is dead, even so faith
apart from works is dead."
But may not some of those rulers have repented afterward? may
they not have turned to the Lord in humble submission to his
authority? Yes, that is quite possible; and, if so, such were then
forgiven.
Ah, my friends, obedience is a great thing. Christ, before he
left the world, promised his disciples that if they would love him,,
and obey him, he would pray the Father to send them the Holy
Spirit. (See John xiv. 15-17, 23.) And then after the promise had
been fulfilled, and the Holy Spirit sent, Peter said (speaking of the
resurrection and ascension), " We are his witnesses of these things ;
and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that
obey him." (Acts v. 32.)
Now I ana sure my Baptist brethren, and all others who have
been attending this debate, can see why it is that I have so often
and so emphatically asked Brother Moody for one single example
in which a blessing was granted to a man on account of his faith,
before that faith was expressed in action. In order to show you
how certain I am that such a case cannot be found in all the Book
of God, I have said that I would give up the debate if one such
case could be found. The Bible is a large book, and I know well
that no man can have all that is in it distinctly and vividly in his
memory at one time ; hence I never would have made so bold and
so comprehensive a challenge while depending solely upon my
254 SECOND PROPOSITION.
memory of the contents of the book. Had not the Holy Spirit
said, "Faith apart from works is barren," "Faith, if it have not
works, is dead," that startling statement would not have been
made by me.
But are not you Baptists getting a little restless? Do you not
say to one another, "Why don't Brother Moody come along with
his case? Why don't he show where God blessed somebody on
account of "faith only," and before the faith was expressed in any
bodily action? Ah, my friends, I will tell you why he don't do it:
It is because he cannot. During our Pikeville debate I made the
same challenge. He cheerfully accepted the challenge, said he
had the passages, and that he would produce them. Day after
day I called for them, and day after day he put me off, saying he
was keeping them "in soak," and that he was going to ruin me
with them by and by. My opinion was that he was keeping them
back for the last day, so that I would not have time to give them
a thorough examination before the audience. But, if such was
his purpose, his ruse failed him, for when he did at length bring
the matter up (on the last day of the debate, if I remember aright)
it took me but a few minutes to show that the blessing was either
granted independently of all faith (as the sunshine and the rain
upon the just and unjust), or, if it were granted to faith, that the
faith was expressed in action. I have observed, too, that Brother
Moody dees not bring the same passages on this point the second
time. Which, to my mind, is conclusive that he himself sees they
do not stand the test do not support his cause.
So, then, beloved, the faith that is approved in the Bible, that is
so fully discussed in the eleventh chapter of Hebrews, is a com-
pound, consisting (1) of internal assurance and (2) of bodily action.
When we study the examples given in that chapter, by the Holy
Spirit, to illustrate this very point, the matter is so plain I don't
see how any one can fail to understand. Abel offered his sacrifice
by faith. Noah prepared the ark by faith. Abraham obeyed the
Lord by faith, when he was called out of his country. He offered
Isaac by faith. By faith Moses was hid by his parents; By faith
Moses refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter. Through
faith he kept the passover. By faith the children of Israel passed
through the Bed Sea. Joshua took the city of Jericho by faith; or,
to put it in the words of inspiration, "By faith the walls of Jericho
fell down, after they were compassed about seven days." Kahab
was saved by faith. "By faith the harlot Eahab perished not with
J. A. HAEDING'S FIRST SPEECH. 255
them that believed not, when she had received the spies with
peace." And then the inspired writer refers to Gideon, Barak,
Samson, Jephthae, David, Samuel and the prophets, "who through
faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained prom-
ises, stopped the mouths of lions, quenched the violence of fire,
escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made
strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the
aliens." He says, "Women received their dead raised to life
again ; and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance, that
they might obtain a better resurrection ; and others had trial of
cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover, of bonds and
imprisonment. They were. stoned, they were sawn asunder, were
tempted; were slain with the sword; they wandered about in
sheepskins and goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, tormented."
And then, of all these, he says they obtained "a good report
through faith." Can any one fail to see that the faith by which
these worthies obtained the good report was faith embodied? In
every single case there was the assurance of the heart expressed
in the action of the life.
Let us consider several of these cases more in detail. Joshua
took the city of Jericho by faith. How? Was it "faith only," or
u faith embodied," that took the city? Did the walls fall at the
faith which is mere internal assurance, or at faith perfected by
works? The record of the taking of the city is given in the sixth
chapter of the book of Joshua. "Now Jericho was straitly shut
up because of the children of Israel: none went out, and none
came in. And the Lord said unto Joshua, See, I have given into
thine hand Jericho, and the king thereof, and the mighty men of
valor. And ye shall compass the city, all ye men of war, and go
round about the city once. Thus shalt thou do six days. And
seven priests shall bear before the ark seven trumpets of rams'
horns: and the seventh day ye shall compass the city seven times,
and the priests shall blow with the trumpets. And it shall come
to pass, that when they make a long blast with the rams' horns,
and when ye hear the sound of the trumpet, all the people shall
shout with a great shout,- and the wall of the city shall fall down
flat, and the people shall ascend up every man straight before
him." Thus the Lord directed, and thus Joshua did. First the
armed men moved forward; then came seven priests with their
trumpets of rams' horns; then the priests bearing the ark; and,
lastly, the great multitude of the camp. This great host moved
256 SECOND PEOPOSITION.
around the city once each day for six days; on the seventh day
they arose very early, and encompassed the city seven times ; as
they finished their last circuit the seven priests blew a long blast
upon the trumpets, and the people, when they heard it, gave a
great shout; and the walls fell. "By faith the walls of Jericho
fell down," says the Lord. Was it by faith only? Was it not by
faith perfected by works? Is there in this vast audience one soul
so simple that he cannot answer? Surely not, unless there be an
infant or an idiot here; and I am not talking to those classes.
Just here, beloved, let me call your attention to the two classes
of laws known as "positive" and "moral" laws. The moral law
is right in the nature of things, and is commanded because it is
right; as, "Thou shalt not steal," "Thou shalt not kill,"" "Honor
thy father and mother," and so on. While the positive law is not
right in the nature of things (in so far as mortals can see), but is
right because it is commanded. Baptism and the Lord's Supper,
under the new covenant, and the ceremonial law of the Jews,
under the old covenant, are illustrations of positive law. God's
directions to Joshua concerning the marching about Jericho con-
stituted a positive law. Again, the number "seven" in God's
Word, it is claimed, indicates perfection. Now in the taking of
Jericho seven priests, bearing seven trumpets, were to encircle the'
city for seven days, and seven times on the seventh day. Perfect
positive law !
Was there any virtue in the marching of the people, in the blow-
ing of the priests, or in the shouting of the multitude to throw
down the walls? Not the least in the world. What threw down
the walls? The power of God Almighty. On account of what did
he throw down the walls? Evidently on account of the faith of
his people, which was expressed and perfected in their obedience
to his directions. Would their faith have reached the blessing if
it had not been expressed? I doubt not I express the conviction
of every thoughtful mind in this house when I say if Joshua had
not followed the Lord's directions the walls would not have fallen.
Positive law differs from the moral law in that it can be obeyed
perfectly. For instance, Jesus says, "Thou shalt love thy neigdbor
as thyself." I presume that no man ever did it perfectly since the
world began except, of course, our Lord himself. Positive law
is therefore a more perfect test of faith and -love, a more perfect
test of allegiance to God, than moral law. The latter the moral
infidel will often advocate as earnestly as the Christian, but the
J. A. HARDING' S FIRST SPEECH. 257
former he sees no sense in, and he will not submit to. For these
two reasons, doubtless, God has ever been more ready to overlook
the infractions of moral, than of positive law ; and for the same
reasons the positive is peculiarly adapted to the expression and
the perfection of faith. But there is danger of my being misun-
derstood just here. I would not have you suppose that I think
God would for a moment tolerate a willful violation of moral law.
No, no; I simply mean that God, who knows so well our inherited
weakness, is patient and gentle with us in our imperfect obedience
to this law, and in our many backslidings from it. But positive
law we can obey perfectly, and he is strict and stern in demanding
that we shall do it, Uzzah, yielding to an impulse that seems most
commendable, violated a positive law, and God killed him instantly.
(2 Sam. vi.) David violated moral law in committing adultery, and
in putting Uriah where he hoped he would be killed, and God,
though he punished him severely, heard his prayer and forgave
him. Saul, the king, violated a positive law in saving Agag and
the best of the flocks and herds. He was highly elated, too, with
the idea of offering these animals unto the Lord at Gilgal. So
fierce was the Lord's wrath against him on account of it that he
ne^er did forgive him ; he never would listen to him again. In the
offering of Isaac, positive and moral law seemed to conflict; the
moral law says, "Thou shalt not kill;" the positive said, "Take
now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee
into the land of Moriah; and otter him there for a burnt offering
upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of." Abraham
did not hesitate a moment. He obeyed the positive law. And
James refers to this case as an illustration of the fact that faith
is made perfect by works. Hence Abraham is represented as being
the father of all them who " walk in Hie steps of that faith" which
he had while yet uncircunicised.
I know there are a number of passages that predicate justifica-
tion-and salvation of faith; and I know that one can take these
passages out of their connection, sometimes breaking a sentence
in the middle, and make them appear to teach the doctrine of the
justification of the sinner by faith only. That is, this can be done
if you will leave out of mind all other passages bearing on the
question. But if these very passages upon which our opponents
rely are studied in their connection, they furnish the fullest and
most satisfactory refutation of their pernicious doctrine. For
instance, we read, "He that believeth on the Son hath eternal
17
258 SECOND PROPOSITION.
life." Stop there, in the middle of a sentence, and the doctrine
seems to be proved; but finish the sentence by reading, "But he
that obeyeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God
abideth on him," and the matter appears in a very different light.
(See John iii. 36, K. V.) When the sentence is finished, instead of
teaching the doctrine of justification by faith only, it teaches
exactly the opposite. Again, Peter, in talking to the strangers scat-
tered throughout Poutus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia,
speaking of Christ, says: "Whom having not seen ye love; in
whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with
joy unspeakable and full of glory: receiving the end of your faith,
even the salvation of your souls." (1 Peter i. 8, 9.) I have heard
that quoted to show that the sinner is justified by faith only. But
how careless, or how wicked, the man who did it ! for, in the very
same chapter, while talking to the very same people, he says, "Ye
have purified your souls in obeying the truth." So we see, while
they received salvation as the end of their faith, it was faith per-
fected by works that reached the blessing; their souls were not
purified till they obeyed the truth. Truly did Paul say that it is
"faith working through love" that avails! Again: Paul says,
"Wherefore we conclude, that a man is justified by faith without
the deeds of the law." (Rom. iii. 28.) But does he exclude "the
obedience of faith," as well as the deeds of the Jewish law? Nay,
verily; for just a little farther on in the same book, in the same
argument, and writing to the same people, he says, "But thanks
be to God, that, whereas ye were servants of sin, ye became
obedient from the heart to that form of teaching whereunto ye
were delivered; and being made free from sin, ye became servants
of righteousness." (Rom. vi. 17, R. V.) So we see that, although
men are justified by faith without the deeds of the law, they are,
nevertheless, not made free from sin till they have obeyed from
the heart the form of doctrine. So the faith that justified them
was faith perfected by works "the obedience of faith." Notice
this, they obeyed from the heart. We believe in the heart; we
repent in the heart ; but we are baptized from the heart. The
first two are commands that are obeyed in the heart, while the
"third is an external ceremony which springs out of a loving, trust-
ing heart; hence in it we obey from the heart. Notice again that
they had obeyed from the heart that "form of teaching" (doctrine)
whereunto they had been delivered. Now what doctrine was Paul
accustomed to deliver to people? Listen: "Moreover, brethren, I
J. A. HARDING'S FIEST SPEECH. 259
declare unto you the Gospel which I preached unto you, which also
ye have received, and. wherein ye stand; by which also ye are
saved, if ye keep in memory what Ifpreached unto you, unless ye
have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that
which I also received, how that Chrisfcdied for our sins according
to the Scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again
the third day according to the Scriptures." (1 Cor. xv. 1-4.) So
the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus according to the Script-
ures is "the doctrine," the Gospel which Paul preached, and by
which people were saved, unless they believed in vain. Now, as
Christ died, was buried and rose again, so the sinner, when he
believes with a loving, trusting faith, dies to the love and practice
of sin; then, when he is baptized into Christ, he is buried and
raised again. Thus he obeys the Gospel, the "form of doctrine,"
and is made free from sin, dies to the guilt of sin.
But perhaps some one is ready to inquire, does not Paul say
that the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation to every one
that believeth? Yes; but the same Paul says that when Christ
comes again he will come takingf vengeance on them that "obey
not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ." (See 1 Thess. i. 8.)
Here again the faith that saves is the faith that obeys. Eemem-
ber, Paul talks about some believing "in vain." Surely he means
the faith that James calls "barren" and "dead." That is the faith
that is "in vain."
I think now it is an established fact a fact which thoughtful,
honest-hearted men, who have patiently considered what I have
thus far presented, will hardlyjcall in question that the faith which
reaches the blessing is not simply assurance, "faith only," but that
it is faith developed in action, faith " working through love," faith
perfected by works. And, having established this much, it only
remains now for me to show that baptism is a part of the obedience
which Christ requires in order to the w forgiveness^of sins. During
the whole of this week I will be presenting you argument after
argument bearing upon this point. To-night I can only begin this
part of the work; but what I present will, I think, be conclusive
in itself, if not a another argument were added.
We li ve under the new covenant which God, through Jeremiah,
promised to make with the house^of Israel and the house of Judah
in the last days ; in which he said their sins and their iniquities he
would remember no more. The law and the prophets were until
John; then came the^great^transition period, during which John
260 SECOND PROPOSITION.
and Jesus and their disciples were preparing the people for the
establishment of the mighty kingdom of God which was to stand
forever. But before the abolition of the law it had to be fulfilled
in every jot and tittle. Hence Jesus said, I came not to destroy
the law, but to fulfill. He kept it faultlessly, in every point, from
the manger to the cross. Thus he became the end of the law for
righteousness to every believer. Hence it is said: "He is our
peace, who hath made both one [both Jew and Gentile], and hath
broken down the middle wall of partition between us; having
abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments
contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new
man, so making peace; and that he might reconcile both unto God
in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby; and
came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them
that were nigh." (Eph. ii. 14-17.) In writing to the Colossians
Paul says that Christ had quickened them, and forgiven all their
trespasses; and then he represents him as "blotting out the hand-
writing of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to
us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross." (Col. ii. 14.)
The law therefore came to an end when Christ died; he nailed it
to his cross; he became the end of the law for righteousness to
every believer; he had fulfilled it to a dot in every point; hence
now there was room for the new covenant to come in force.
Therefore after his resurrection, and just before his ascension to
be crowned upon the throne of the universe as King of kings and
Lord of lords, he gave to his disciples the new covenant. The
old was given to Moses on Mount Sinai, but the new was given by
our Lord himself to his holy apostles, and was to be published to
the world for the first time from Mount Zion.
Jesus said: "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching
them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:
and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world..
Amen." (Matt, xxviii. 18-20.) Or, as Mark records it, " Go ye into
all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that
believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not
shall be damned." (Mark xvi. 15, 16.)
Looking forward to the time when he would make this covenant,
and speaking to a master and leader under the old covenant, Jesus
said, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of
J. A. HARDING' S FIRST SPEECH. 261
water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."
" Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again." (John
iii. 5, 7.) So you see, my friends, Christ has put baptism before
salvation ; the birth of water before entrance into the kingdom of
God 5 and he says we must be born again. "He that believeth and
is baptized shall be saved." First faith, then baptism, then salva-
tion. The man who believes with the heart, that is, who believes
lovingly, penitently, trustingly, is begotten by the Spirit, begotten
of God; and when such an one is immersed he is born of water;
and thus he passes into Christ, into the kingdom of God, in which
is salvation. "In whom [Christ] we have redemption through his
blood, the forgiveness of sins." (Eph. i. 7.)
Mark you, I am not discussing the absolute necessity of baptism
to the forgiveness of sins; for I know there was a time when bap-
tism as a religious institution was not known among men; yet
men who lived in that period, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, with all
others who were faithful as they were, Jesus teaches, will be
among the redeemed in the city of God. I am simply affirming
that under the new covenant baptism to the penitent believer is in
order to the forgiveness of his past sins.
But, if men were saved without it then, may they not be saved
without it now? I answer: Because men who were lovingly
obedient then were saved, can we conclude that men who are dis-
obedient now will be saved? I think not. Christ did not com-
mand those people to be baptized, else they would have been.
The man who forsook his native land and his people to go he knew
not where, and who freely offered up his best beloved sou to die,
at God's command, would readily have been baptized had God told
him to be. Obedience is required of us ; it was of him.
We have this matter strikingly set forth to us in the types of
the Old Testament. The children of Israel were much discouraged
in the wilderness because of the way; and they spake against
Moses and against God, saying, " Wherefore have ye brought us
up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? for there is no bread,
neither is there any water; and our soul loatheth this light bread."
(Num. xxi. 5.) Aud the Lord sent fiery serpents among the people,
and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died. There-
fore the people came to Moses, and said, we have sinned, for we
have spoken against the Lord, and against thee; pray unto the
Lord, that he take away the serpents from us. And Moses prayed
for the people. And the Lord said unto Moses, make thee a fiery
262 SECOND PROPOSITION.
serpent, and set it upon a pole ; and it shall come to pass, that
every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live. And
Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it
came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld
the serpent of brass, he lived. Here was something to believe,
and something to do. And not an Israelite was cured till he
looked, no matter bow strongly he believed. God's statement was,
"That every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live."
That was a large camp; 600,000 warriors were in it; then as many
women as men ; and then as many children as men, at the lowest
estimate; so that camp contained at least one million eight hun-
dred thousand souls. It was as large as eighteen cities of the size
of Nashville. Some of those Israelites had to travel for miles to
see that brazen serpent. The man that looked lived, the man who
did not died. Hence the law was, believe and obey and live; diso-
bey and die. It is not recorded that there was a man in the camp
silly enough to say, "There is as much virtue in this brass kettle
as in Moses' serpent; and, as I cannot see his serpent without
traveling ten miles, and as I am awfully afflicted and cannot move
without great pain, I will just trust in the Lord and look at the
kettle." Had there been such an one, he would have died as the
fool dieth. Now, just as plainly as God said to the Israelites,
"Every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live," just
so plainly Christ says to us, " He that believeth and is baptized
shall be saved." And just as certainly as every bitten Israelite
when he looked was cured of the deadly bite, just so certainly is
every man who believes and is baptized cured of the disease of
sin; he is saved from every sin that he has ever committed; he is
forgiven.
Faith, baptism, salvation. That is the order in which Christ put
them, and just as certainly as Christ's word is true, just so cer-
tainly is there a salvation that follows baptism. Concerning this
but one question needs be settled, viz. : Is the salvation here spoken
of present salvation (the forgiveness of past sins), or is it eternal
salvation in the home of God? On this point consider the follow-
ing: Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist, prophesied of his
son that he was to give knowledge of salvation to his people by
the remission of their sins. (Luke i. 77.) But John, when he
began his work, "did baptize in the wilderness and preach the
baptism of repentance for the remission of sins." '(Mark i. 4.)
And the angel of the Lord said of Jesus, " Thou shalt call his name
J. A. HARDING'S FIRST SPEECH. 263
Jesus : for he shall save his people from their sins." (Matt. i. 21.)
Then those who were being inducted into the Church by their
believing and being baptized were represented as "being saved."
"And the Lord added to them day by day those that were being
saved." (Acts ii. 47, R. V.) These passages are enough to satisfy
any reasonable man, it seems to me, that the salvation connected
with baptism is present salvation, the remission of sins ; but, as
if to make the matter absolutely certain, and to remove all possi-
bility of doubt, Peter has said, "Baptism doth also now save us."
(1 Peter iii. 21.) Hence God himself, through his holy apostle, has
settled the matter. "He that believeth and is baptized shall be
saved;" that is, he that believeth 'and is baptized shall be forgiven.
Naaman was cured from his leprosy (a type of sin) by faith
when he had dipped seven times ; the blind man was cured of his
blindness by faith when he had washed in the pool of Siloam; the
bitten Israelite was cured by faith when he had looked at the
brazen serpent; Joshua took the city of Jericho by faith when he
had compassed it about seven days; and just so the sinner is cured
of the disease of sin by faith when believing with the heart he is
baptized.
My time has about expired. If G-od permit, in the nights that
are to follow I will show how the apostles understood this com-
mission, and how they carried it out in bringing people into the
Church of Christ.
Time expired.
J. B. Moody's First Reply.
Gentlemen-moderators, Ladies and G-entlemen :
It affords me unspeakable pleasure to contribute what I can to
the investigation of this important subject. A little pleasantry
between my friend and myself on Saturday night after the debate
closed was after this fashion : I said to him, Well, next week will
soon be here ; and by God's help I will be here. Now will you see
that Acts ii. 38 will be here also? He pleasantly promised that
Acts ii. 38 should be here. Well, next week is here, and I am
here, but where is Acts ii. 38? Did you hear of it in that whole
speech? When he kept his side of the subject thrust into the
debate all last week, I replied that next week is the time set to
discuss that question. At this he gave the sign for you to laugh,
and you laughed, and I congratulated you on laughing in advance,
if laugh you must. The gentleman said much in his speech that I
can indorse, so far as the words go, and I am more than glad to
congratulate him on every seeming approximation to the truth.
But while he was speaking I was in a certain way forcibly reminded
of the proposition: "Baptism to a penitent believer is for (or in
order to) the pardon of past sins." When I say I was "in a way"
reminded I mean by way of contrast. It is said that there is but
one thing more conspicuous than the nose on a man's face, and
that is no nose. We are forcibly reminded of a man's nose when
there is no nose. So I was forcibly reminded of his proposition
during his speech, for it was conspicuously absent. I engaged
myself to establish my proposition last week, and my opponent
tried to prevent it by affirming his a week in advance. He did
this to force me into the negative; and it would have been a nice
little trick if I had allowed him to succeed. That was his way to
prevent the establishment of my proposition.
But I must notice some of the strange and ridiculous things
brought forth in the larbor and travail of the last hour. The gen-
tleman scatters and crosses himself on faith until it is impossible
to tell what he believes, or whether he believes any thing at all.
J. B. MOODT'S FIEST EEPLY. 265
His Tittle girl, assured of candy, is left to her assurance, which is
not bodily action. Paul's definition of faith leaves bodily action
out, and any definition that puts it in is incorrect. Action is a
fruit of faith, but not faith itself. We put m contrast two noted
definitions: "Now, faith is the confidence of things hoped for, and
the conviction of things not seen." (Paul according to A. Camp-
bell.) No bodily action in that definition. ISfow hear another, and
be silent that you may hear: "Faith is a compound, consisting (1)
of internal assurance and (2) of bodily action." (J. A. Harding.)
Substituting the definition we read, By internal assurance and
bodily action we understand that the worlds were made, etc.
These all died in internal assurance and bodily action, etc. By
internal assurance and bodily action Daniel stopped the mouths of
lions. By internal assurance and bodily action the fire was
quenched. These all, having obtained a good report through
internal assurance and bodily action, receive not the promise,
internal assurance and bodily action apart from works is dead.
Whosoever has internal assurance and bodily action in me shall
be saved. Have internal assurance and bodily action in the Lord
Jesus Christ, and.thou shalt be saved. Wherefore? Because they
sought it not by internal assurance and bodily action, but as it
were by works. (Rev. ix. 32, E. V.) He that has internal assur-
ance and bodily action, and is baptized, shall be saved. And when
they had internal assurance and bodily action they were baptized,
both men and women. And many of the Corinthians hearing had
internal assurance and bodily action, and were baptized. " Faith is
a compound, consisting (1) of internal assurance and (2) of bodily
action ! " How often has he said that faith must precede baptism,
and without it baptism is no account? And then every time he
refers to the illustrious examples of faith, if the faith does not
precede the action as in baptism, then they fail him, and if faith
does precede the action, he loses his proposition, for all the bless-
ings of salvation are predicated of faith. Who denies that faith
and love, if they be not dead, will manifest themselves in action?
The action is the test as to whether they be dead or not. If faith
acts, it is because it is alive, and if it acts not, it is because it is
dead. Such confounded confusion I have never heard as in the
last speech. I hope there will be no laughing at these sad blun-
ders of my friend, but let tearful prayers go up for his enlighten-
ment in Scriptural things. Whenever he refers to the action of
i'aith in the Old or New Scriptures, he is trying to prove that faith
266 SECOND PROPOSITION.
without baptism is dead. No difference what the phraseology is
he means baptism, unless any action of faith in the new covenant,
as he calls it, will do as well as baptism. He takes the position
that "works," "works of faith," "obedient to the faith," " obedience
of faith," "obey the Gospel," "obeying the truth," "form of sound
words," etc., mean baptism. If he does not, why waste his time
on that that does not prove his proposition? And now, once more
about his boasted challenge. I am ready to answer, and have
been, and will continue to be, as soon as I understand him. So I
ask him again, and see if he will answer :
Mr. Harding, when you say God never blessed, faith till it ex-
pressed itself in action, of course you mean that the action must
follow, and not precede, the faith. Please answer in your next
speech. And again I ask you that other question, must the act
be one of obedience or haphazard?
When will he answer these questions? I don't propose to knock
his props from under him now, because I want the debate to go
on, and because I want you to see how easily I will do it when
things get in order. He sometimes says faith must act in obe-
dience, and then again he will dodge. Now, I dare him to take a
position and stand, and I promise to tie him, hands, feet and
tongue. I wish to ask him. one more plain question : Mr. Harding,
when you used all of those illustrations, and quoted all those
Scriptures in your last speech, was it your aim to prove your
proposition by them? If not, what did you refer to them fort
To particularize : Between Noah's faith and the perfection of his
faith, as you call it, there were about one hundred and twenty
years, and ten thousand bodily actions. Do you mean to teach
that a man must do all that God commands before he can be
saved? If Noah perfected his faith when he entered the ark, was
there any farther action required of his faith? If so, was it per-
fected before it got through with the works? To apply this: If
the time intervening between faith and baptism should be long, as
it often is, and the unbaptized believer should manifest his faith in
a thousand bodily actions, as is often the case, do all these physi-
cal actions fail to bring the blessing that can only be obtained by
the act of baptism? And if baptism perfects faith, is there any
thing left for faith after baptism? I ask these questions to get at
your idea of this matter, if, indeed, you have any. Please tell
what was the condition of Abraham during the forty years that
intervened between his justification by faith and his justification
J. B. MOODY'S FIEST REPLY. 267
by works. You say faith must be perfected, and that means do
all God requires, and since no one ever did this, may we not be
saved by an imperfect faith? and, if so, may we not be saved with-
out baptism? But if I were to spend all my time on this pithless
and pointless speech it would be a waste of time. No advance
would be made in the investigation. I cannot afford to disappoint
my people either in my affirmative or negative argument. Neither
his floundering, fluttering, nor his people laughing, shall turn me
from my purpose. Whether I fulfilled my engagement last week
is a matter to be decidod by the hearers and readers. For this
week I am engaged to negative the proposition announced. I
engaged myself to disprove the proposition, together with what-
ever argument should be brought to support it. As my friend's
speech had no bearing on the proposition, then I have but to
address myself directly to the proposition ; and, since his proposi-
tion is drawn from Acts ii. 38, 1 propose to investigate first that
Scripture, to see if it justifies the proposition. I will try to prove
that it does not; and so of other Scriptures in their turn.
A rule of interpretation generally adopted, and to which I think
my friend will consent, is this: When a difficult passage is of
doubtful interpretation, it must be viewed in the light of other
Scriptures containing the same doctrine. Acts ii. 38 is resorted to
to show how and when a man receives remission of sins. Any
interpretation of the passage that conflicts with, or contradicts
the plain teaching of other and many plain passages, is to be
rejected. I claim my friend's people have thus interpreted it. At
the same time, I think the passage easily admits of an interpreta-
tion that is consonant with the general Scripture teaching on that
subject.
The first error 1 would correct, and which has been prolific of
much evil, is in the English preposition "for." It has uniformly
been used by my friend's people as he uses it in the proposition,
as though "in order to" was necessarily and invariably its mean-
ing, while the very reverse is the usual meaning. Worcester defines
it: (1) Because' of, by reason of. "The gulf is remarkable for
tempest." (Addison.) (2) With respect to, with regard to, relat-
ing to, concerning. (3) In the place of. Luke xi. 11: "Will he
for a fish give him a serpent?" (4) For the sake of, on account of.
John xv. 15: "Lay down his fife for a friend." Worcester has this
note-. "Horn Tooke believes it to be no other than the Gothic sub-
stantive fairina, cause, and to have always the same single signifi-
268 SECOND PROPOSITION.
cation, and nothing else. This derivation is adopted by Bichard-
son." This note is signed by Smart. This makes four English
lexicographers who make my friend's meaning impossible.
Webster defines it: "In the place of, instead of, because of, by
reason of, with respect to, concerning, in the direction of, toward,
during. In the most general sense indicating that in considera-
tion, in view of, with reference to More especially the
antecedent cause or occasion of an action. . That on
account of which a thing is done." So we. see that Webster is
almost entirely against my opponent.
Then, in the light of the English preposition "for," would you
ask what Baptists baptize for? Let us approach the answer
through other similar questions. What was the first Baptist
beheaded for? For the reproof he gave Herod, that being the
cause or occasion, which is the very opposite of "in order to."
He was not killed in order that he might reprove Herod. What
did Baptists in past ages suffer and die for? Answer: For the
Gospel's sake, that being the cause or occasion, not the prospective
design. What was the man hung for? For murder; not in order
to, but the very reverse. .What did he laugh for? For joy, that
being the cause. What did he cry for? For sorrow, that being
the cause. What did Christ die for? For our sins, but not in order
to our sins. Nature itself teaches us that this is the true idea of
for. If Mr. Harding has any little children, and he should ask any
one of them what it did so and so for, it would probably answer
"'cause." Even when a child cries for hunger it is. doubted
whether the child cries in order to bread, or whether the cry is to
be attributed to an antecedent cause. It would cry. all the same
before it learned that bread is a remedy for the antecedent cause,
hunger. A man repents because, under an awakened conscience,
he sees he has sinned against God, and repentance in order to any
thing is impossible in the very nature of things, and if not it
would be an abomination to God. We believe in Christ, not in
order to, for that is impossible, and if not it would be intolerable;
but we believe eis or epi the name of Christ, because there is no
other name given under heaven whereby we can be saved, and
because at the end of repentance we are in despair, and finding
all our works dead ; that is, unproductive, unfruitful, barren, there
is nothing else we can do but surrender, give up, trust, receive.
If all our service does not come spontaneously, willingly, as the
good fruit of a good tree, then it is not acceptable to God, neither
J. B. MOODY'S FIEST REPLY. 269
indeed can it be. Do you ask now what Baptists baptize for? I
answer, because Christ has commanded it, and because we love
him, and because it becometh us, and because it is the profession
of our faith and of our hope. Do you ask what we commune for?
Because we would eat and drink eis remembrance of him; that is,
because we hold him in affectionate memory, and would give
expression in his appointed way.
Don't forget that I am talking about the English "for," and not
the Greek eis, and would .not have done so but for painful convic-
tions of the palpable necessity for an exposure of a widespread
and current nonsense. For (in Acts ii. 38) has been abandoned by
Anderson, Campbell, McGarvey, Lard, and all the scholars on the
gentleman's side; also by the Bible Union, late Eevision, etc.; the
latter two having " unto," while the others, with a creed to estab-
lish, have in order to ; and you may look out for an effort by the
gentleman to prove, or rather to assert, that for, unto, to, into,,
etc., all mean in order to. He may and will assert that his propo-
sition is true, but he can never prove it. So much for translations,
all of which having for or unto are against my friend's proposi-
tion. We have seen that the testimony of for is greatly against
him, and he will never produce a dictionary giving in order to as
the or a meaning of unto. He may take all the English transla-
tions, leaving out those of his own creed, and all the English dic-
tionaries, " and he can't make out his in order to. Here is an
abridged dictionary (Craig), and the only meaning of for is "be-
cause of." Webster is about the same ; and so on generally. If
the discussion should be limited to "for," the victory would be
easy for me.
But let us now forget the English "for," and fight the battle on
the Greek "eis." I invite him to a fair and full examination of eis r
appealing first to the Greek lexicons, as my friend does in his
debates on the action of baptism. I ask, where is the lexicon
that gives in order to as the primary, secondary or even tertiary
meaning of "eis?" He will find but very few that give his mean-
ing at all, and those few, as far as I can find, and I have been on
an extended search, give his in order to as a very remote meaning;,
that is, if they are to be judged by the distance they occur from
the primary or first meaning. Mark ! he will not attempt a lexi-
con investigation on eis.
The next resort in an honest and thorough investigation is to its.
current use in the Scriptures. The New Scriptures will permit
270 SECOND PROPOSITION.
ample scope, as this preposition occurs seventeen hundred times.
The effort of my opponent and his people has been to maintain
that purpose or design inheres in the preposition eis, rather than
try to prove that the circumstances of Acts ii. 38 require it. I
am prepared and shall proceed to disprove both. Mr. Anderson,
who twice translated the Hew Testament for his people, translated
Acts ii. 38 in order to; and, to make himself consistent, he trans-
lated the first occurrence of eis with baptize in the same way,
viz. : Matt. iv. 11, "I baptize you in order to repentance." In care-
fully following this translation through, I find that he translates it
in order to about as often as he could and make a good English
sentence. If he could not in three hundred cases, then the excep-
tions are respectable; and Acts ii. 38 may belong to them. If he
failed in five hundred cases, then the matter is still worse. If he
failed in eight hundred or one thousand cases, then the exceptions
prevail, and so far as the point we are now considering, that is the
inherent meaning of the preposition itself, Acts ii. 38 should
easily go with the general teaching of Scripture. But suppose I
tell you that Mr. Anderson, who translated eis in order to oftener
than any other translator, and who translates it that way as often
as he well could suppose he failed in twelve hundred cases, in
fifteen hundred, in sixteen hundred, then you see the exceptions
are sixteen to one. Now, if I tell you he could not, and did not,
translate this in order to but fifty times, leaving sixteen hundred
and fifty against him, would not you be in favor of giving it up ?
But prepare for the worst, for it is worse than this. Twenty times,
after a careful count, with a careful assistent, is the way it stands
in the house of its friends; that is, twenty to 1,680.
Mr. Wilson, in his "Emphatic Diaglott," has five to 1,695, and he
sympathizes with the doctrine. Campbell, in "Living Oracles,"
has four to 1,696. The Bible Union has two to 1,698. Doddrige
has one to 1,699. King James, though translating it forty-eight
different ways, has no in order to. Oxford Revision has none;
Wesley has none; Sharpe has none; Sawyer has none.
Making a summary of the ten translations, we have thirty-two
against 1,666. But, as three of these believed the doctrine of
baptismal remission, and were witnesses in their own cases, accord-
ing to a common custom we will refuse that part of their testi-
mony that is in their favor, and take only that that was against
themselves, for that kind of testimony is always reliable; the other
generally unreliable. This leaves three to 1,666. Hence the gen-
J. S. MOODY'S FIRST EEPLY. 271
tleman has the short end of the lever, and so short is it that I am
sure that he will not be able to overturn the general teaching of
Scripture and the Christian experience of all ages. We strengthen
this preposition by the testimony of Professor Harrison, the great
writer on Greek prepositions. In that excellent work he treats
this preposition with a scholarship unbiased by Methodism or
sectarianism. He is not only sound on eis, but also on en, that
figures so largely in discussions with his people. He says: "The
proper signification of eis is 'within/ 'in/ with the idea of being
within a space having bounderies 'Into' is not the
simple sense of eis, but arises from combining it with the notion
of reaching some object The other seeming derivative
meanings of eis as 'for/ 'against/ 'until/ 'up to/ 'as regards/ are
really due to the accusative case with which eis is conjoined, or to
the character of the action which it qualifies, the only proper
sense of eis being 'in/ 'within.' The preposition .... has
obtained seemingly a considerable variety of meanings, as 'into/
'up to/ 'against/ 'until/ 'for/ 'to the amount of.' . . . . These
different meanings arise, not from any variation of the preposition
itself, properly speaking, but from the different uses of the case
as it stands connected with the action or motion which the prepo-
sition attends Eis does not itself contain the notion
of 'for' or purpose anymore than it does 'among' or 'against; 7
nor does the accusative of its own force express this sense; nor
yet, again, is it distinctly set forth by the combination of the
preposition eis with the action or motion attended by the accusa-
tive, although, in so far as the notion of purpose can at all be said
to reside in the terms employed, themselves considered, it is to be
found more than anywhere else in the direction of the action or
motion expressed by eis taken in conjunction with a verb of action,
or motion, and in the restriction of the action thus qualified to a
particular view which is made by the noun in the accusative.
. . . . Where eis with the accusative has the sense of a result
or effect .... the interpretation is materially the same.
. . . . For, if eis and the accusative may suggest the idea of
purpose or object had in view by making the limits within which
the direction or tendency of an action or motion is to be restricted,
they may equally suggest that of effect or result, this being quite
as obviously consistent with the notion of confining an action
within defined limits." (Harrison on Greek prepositions, pp. 210,
223,225.)
272 SECOND PROPOSITION.
The next test to which we subject the gentleman's preposition
is to examine it in all the cases where eis is connected with bap-
tize. Some prepositions govern two or three cases, so that when
the case changes it necessarily effects the meaning of the preposi-
tion. But the case never changes on eis, as it always governs the
accusative, so eis is never effected from this source. Hence it can
only be effected by changing the verb, or the circumstance with
which it stands related. So, by taking baptize eis in all its occur-
rences, ,we have in all the same case following, and the same verb
preceding. Hence we would call for a uniform rendering in all the
cases. Dr. Broadus says: "We believe, then, that it would be a de-
cided improvement to render baptize eis everywhere by unto.""
(Com. on Matt., p. 598.) In English we have baptize for remission
unto Moses and into Christ. As the Greek is uniform, the English
variety is arbitrary. I demand a uniform rendering, and challenge
my opponent to give us one. How do you like this : Baptize in order
to repentance, in order to the name of Father, Son and Holy
Spirit, in order to Jordan, in order to Jesus Christ, in order to his
death, in order to Moses, etc. Try "for," and see how utterly it
fails also. Into is still worse, for no one uninfluenced by religious
fanaticism can suppose for a moment that any one ever was' or
ever can be actually baptized into repentance, into remission in
the name, into death, into Christ or into Moses. The shortest way
to dispose of this is the way Paul disposed of the question of the
efficacy of the blood of bulls and goats to take away sin, "It is-
impossible;" and, we might add, to a rational mind unthinkable.
It is not" possible for baptism to really wash away sins, yet in one
sense it does, but not in the sense that my opponent will claim in
support of his proposition. A man may be symbolically baptized
into all these objects, but no other sense is possible. We like
"unto" in the sense of, with reference to, with respect to, and we
are glad to say that this is backed by the late Eevision and Bible
Union in regard to repentance and remission. Now if my opponent
will try to prove that "unto" means in order to, and if he suc-
ceeds, he will go that far toward establishing his doctrine. But
till he does that, I will claim that a uniform rendering of the uni-
form Greek for, "baptize eis," will overthrow his proposition. He
dares not put in Acts ii. 38 a rendering that will suit the other
case's after baptize. I await his efforts in this.
1. But suppose, for argument's sake, that in order to is the proper
rendering in Acts ii. 38. As that would leave the text eliptical,.
J. B. MOODT'S JFIEST EEPLT. 273
the dispute would then turn on the meaning of in order to. The
question then would be, in what sense are we baptized in order to
remission? In order to obtain ? or in order to declare? Some
Baptists, and many pedo baptists, hold the latter view. I refer you
for proof to the pamphlet I have just issued, " Baptist Authorities
..and Others Vindicated." For argument's sake I have granted this
as the true issue. Now I will refute the gentleman's doctrine by
proving that in that case it must mean in order to declare. But
one argument is necessary, and that is to show that it is the prov-
ince of ordinances to declare. Retrospectively they are symboli-
cal, prospectively they are typical, but in any sense they are de-
clarative. Take the Passover. (Read Ex. xii. 24-27, and xiii.
-8-10.) We capitalize the emphatic words.
Ex. xii. 24-27: "And ye shall observe this thing for an ORDI-
NANCE to thee and to thy sons forever. And it shall come to pass
when your children shall say unto you, What mean ye by this
service? that ye shall say it is the sacrifice of the Lord's Passover,
who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt
when he smote the Egyptians and delivered our houses 5 and the
people bowed their heads and worshiped." Ex. xiii. 8-10: "And
thou shait show thy son in that day, saying, this is done BECAUSE
OF that which the Lord did unto me when I came forth out of
Egypt. And it shall be for a SIGN unto thee upon thine hand, and
for a MEMORIAL between thine eyes, that the Lord's law may be in
thy mouth; for with a strong hand hath the Lord brought thee out
of Egypt. Thou shalt therefore keep this ORDINANCE in his season
from year to year."
. 2. The Passover was surely a MEMORIAL ORDINANCE, in that the
participants declared the Passover as having occurred, and they
did not procure or obtain the Passover in the ordinance. The
Sabbath is another ORDINANCE, and declarative, both in symbol and
in type. Like baptism and the Supper, it points|both forward and
backward. Read Ex. xxxi. 15-17: "Six days may work|be done,
but in the seventh is the Sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord.
Whosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely
be put to death. Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep
the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their genera-
tions for a perpetual covenant. It is a SIGN between me and
the children of Israel forever: for in six days the Lord made
heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was
refreshed."
18 .
274 SECOND PROPOSITION.
Every time the Sabbath is kept in spirit and in truth two things
are declared. First, retrospectively, "that God rested on the sev-
enth day;" and, prospectively, that there remaineth a Sabbath
rest for the people of God. "All creation may groan and travail
in pain together with us until now, but the day of adoption and
restitution and restoration will come by and by; then all will be
delivered from this bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty
of the children of God." These promises which God has spoken
by the mouth of his holy prophets since the world began are
declared in every right observance of this significant ordinance..
Mr. Lipscomb, his moderator, said in his paper of January 29th,
page 21 : " To observe the first day of the week is to commemo-
rate these great bases facts in the establishment of the Church of
Christ." It may not commemorate the things alleged above, but
it commemorates, that is my point. To make short work of this,
read Hebrews ix. and x., in which the writer takes in all the
ordinances of the first covenant, and interprets with such expres-
sions as these: "The Holy Spirit this signifying;" "which was a
figure for the time then present;" "the patterns of things in the
heavens;" "shadow of good things to come;" "a remembrance-
again made of sins every year," etc.- This is inspired testimony
on this point of ordinances being declarative. In I John iii. 12
we learn that wicked Cain slew his brother because his works
were righteous. The same doctrine of Christ illustrated: "A good
tree bringeth forth good fruit, but a corrupt tree bringeth forth
evil fruit." In faith, Gospel faith, indorsed by the Holy Spirit in
Heb. xi. 4, which he had just said was "unto the saving of the
soul," and the "substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of
things not seen ; " in other words, Abel had faith in the Lamb of
God that should take away the sins of the world, and, trusting in
him as the promised of God, his heart is purified by faith ; so when
he came with his typical declarative ordinance, thus expressing or
declaring his faith in the promise of God, God testified of his gifts
that he was righteous, and by it he being dead yet speaketh..
Abel's ordinance declared his faith in God's promised remedy for
sin. In faith, only in faith, he chose it, and caught it, and slew it,.
and burnt it. His faith did not have to wait for fire, like my friend
waits for water, to make it alive. Like all others, he was counted
righteous efe^faith, and faith must pre-exist all acceptable obedi-
ence, the first as well as the last step, and the first being taken in
faith, he had faith in the beginning of the obedience; hence was.
J. B. MOODY'S FIRST REPLY. 275
righteous in the beginning. So God testified that he was righteous,
and his ordinance did not make him so.
Pilate, though a Roman, understood the nature of ordinances
better, it seems, than my friend, for when he publicly washed his
hands (Matt, xxvii. 29) he declared his innocence, and he did not
think of obtaining innocence by his own ordinance of hand-
washing.
The leper (Mark i. 40-44) is another pointed illustration: "And
there came a leper to him, beseeching him, and kneeling down to
him, and saying to him, If thou wilt thou canst make me clean.
And as soon as he had spoken immediately the leprosy departed
from him, and he was cleansed 5 and he straightly charged him,
and forthwith sent him away; and he saith unto him, See thou.
say nothing to any man, but go thy way. Show thyself to the
priest, and offer for thy cleansing those things which Moses com-
manded for a testimony unto them." This is the Lord's testimony
on this point, and he is "the true and faithful witness" on all sub-
jects. The leper was first cleansed, and then he offered for his
cleansing the ordinances commanded by Moses, in which he de-
clared his cleansing, but did not procure it ? for ordinances don't
procure.
Now, coming to the two ordinances of this time, we find the
same design; that is, they declare the things embodied, but do
not procure them. Take the Supper (Luke xxii. 9) : And he took
bread and break and gave to them, saying, this is (represents or
declares) my body. So of the cup. This do eis remembrance of
me. Do you eat in order to remember Christ? [Mr. Lipscoml?
responds, "I do."] Well, that is the difference between us. I
don't obtain a memory of Christ in eating, but I declare, and show
forth the fact that I hold him in affectionate memory, and this
ordinance is my declaration of it, and of my interest in it. Of
course the ordinances declare also things pertaining to Christ, but
it only declares them. Eead, farther, I Cor. xi. 23-26. Here we
learn that we not only do this eis remembrance of Mm (not in
order to, for that would imply that no one could remember him
without observing the ordinance, which is absurd), but it is ex-
pressly said that we slww the Lord's death till he come. That
makes it a " show," or declarative, ordinance like all the others,
for it neither procures the death nor our memory of him.
But is baptism an exception to the general rule? By no means.
Baptism is called a "figure," a "likeness," a washing away of sin,
276 SECOND PROPOSITION.
'which cannot be literal, a clothing or putting on of Christ. John
'baptized els repentance. Eepentance here comes after baptism in
statement, but before it in fact. This will not, and cannot, be
denied. Then they were not baptized in order to repentance, yet
they were baptized els repentance ; and if repentance came before,
then they were baptized into repentance declaratively and not pro-
cferatively. What would you think of me if I were to tell you
that from the expression- baptize eis repentance it follows that
baptism is in order to repentance, that a man cannot reach repent-
ance before baptism? You would think of me, doubtless, like I
think of Mr. Harding, and that is, that I had a creed to support by
the Scriptures, and the Scriptures that 1 did not support it after a
hard effort, so much the worse for the Scriptures. You would
think that I was one of those who would strain out a gnat and
swallow a camel. Baptize eis name of the Father, Son and Holy
Spirit, eis Christ, eis Moses, is declarative subjection or loyalty, and
not in order to. Then it must be so in regard to eis remission,
unless the gentleman is disposed to beg a crumb, and then claim
the universe.
Then granting, for argument's sake, that in order to is the
proper rendering in Acts ii. 38, it follows that it could not be in
order to obtain or procure, but in order to declare, this being the
purpose and province of ordinances.
3. But granting, for argument's sake, that in Acts ii. 38 baptize eis
is in order to obtain ; then the question is, did the baptism obtain?
One thing may be for the purpose of obtaining another and yet
may not reach it, but leave an indefinite space intervening to be
provided for by something else. An education may be in order to
the obtaining of some great honor or high position in life, and yet
it may not obtain it. Let us draw some farther illustrations from
Mr. Anderson's cases of in order to. Matt. xxvi. 28 : " This is my
blood which was shed for many in order to [obtain] the remission
of sins." Did the shedding of blood obtain? My friend would
say no $ it left an indefinite space that it could not span. He will
say, no doubt, that Christ shed his blood that I might obtain remis-
sion, or one of these Methodist or Presbyterian preachers, and yet
he may himself entertain serious doubts as to whether we ever
have or ever will obtain the remission, and so might fail, as it
certainly will in many cases. Then baptism may be in order to
obtain remission, and yet never obtain it. So of Acts xi. 18. Re-
pentance in order to life, as Mr. Anderson has it. My friend says
J. B. MOODY'S FIRST EEPLY. 277
in order to obtain life 5 but did it obtain it? did it reach it? He
would say no, for there would be left no intervening space to be
filled with, confession and baptism, and these might never follow,
and he admits in many cases does not follow. So here is another
case of in order to obtain, and cannot, without something to fol-
low. The same of Eom. i. 5. Paul received grace arid apostleship
in order to the obedience of faith among all nations, but did all
nations obtain the obedience of faith by Paul's reception of grace
and apostleship? By no means. This G-ospel had after that to be
preached, to be heard, to be believed, to be obeyed, and in no case
did that obtain that was in order to obtain. The same is true
of Horn. i. 16, 17: The G-ospel is the power of God in order to
salvation ; and the revelation of God's righteousness from faith in
order to faith. Put in the obtain, and the question did it obtain
is answered like all the others. And so of the two occurrences in
Eom. x. 10. No\v will the gentleman, after seeing that in order to
obtain in all these cases failed to obtain, will he beg the question
on Acts ii. 38? And if baptism falls short, as it must, judging by
the other cases, then pray what does obtain? and where and when?
So it is clear that, granting for argument's sake (1) that in order-
to is correct, and (2) that in order to obtain is correct, even the
doctrine drawn by my friend's proposition is false, and his hope is.
delusive.
4. But I propose to go to the utmost extent of liberality, and
grant, for argument's sake, that in Acts ii. 38 baptism did obtain
remission of sins, and then I am prepared, to show by unanswera-
ble arguments that the case is peculiar, and that never before or
since has baptism obtained. If I can show that this interpretation
would make Acts ii. 38 peculiar, then I show from that very argu-
ment that this interpretation is wrong, and this I propose to do at
once and thoroughly, so as not to leave a grain of sand for the
sole of any man's foot. My friend does not stand even on a sandy
foundation. I will show him, unless he shuts his eyes and hardens
his heart, that, like Bill Arp's man with a rope around his neck,
"he stands on nothing." If baptize eis obtained remission in Acts
ii. 38, then it is peculiar, or the like expressions in Mark i. 4 and
Luke iii. 3 failed to obtain, because this law of pardon was not
preached or in operation till the day of Pentecost. If it obtained
in these other places, then the law of pardon was preached and
practiced before Pentecost. One proposition in the Brooks-Fitch
debate reads: "That with the beginning of Messiah's reign on
278 SECOND PROPOSITION.
Pentecost the law of Moses was abolished, and the Gospel in its
elements, and with its conditions of salvation, first proclaimed."
A few lines farther he says : " The principle I maintain here to-day is
one of vital importance." In this he utters the common sentiment
of his people. Then, if it is a matter of vital importance to main-
tain that " the conditions of salvation were first proclaimed upon
Pentecost, and that the terms of pardon were then first published
to the world," it follows that it was not published in Mark i. 4 and
Luke iii. 3, and pardon was not obtained then, and though it may
have obtained in Acts ii. 38, the case is peculiar when compared
with the like expressions in other places.
5. As Acts ii. 38 is peculiar when compared to pre-Pentecost
baptism, so it is when compared to j)0s-Pentecost baptisms. The
commission says baptize eis the name of Father, Son and Holy
Spirit. The Samaritans were baptized eis the name of the Lord
Jesus. (Acts vi. 16.) So were the Ephesiaus.. (Acts xix. 5.) The
Eomans were baptized eis Jesus Christ, and eis his death. The
Corinthians were baptized eis one body. Only the Peutecostians
were baptized eis remission of sins. Hence Acts ii. 38 is peculiar,
as this expression nowhere afterward occurs. I wonder if the
gentleman baptizes eis remission of sius, or eis the name of Father
Son and Holy Spirit, or like one of the other jos-Peutecost cases.
Acts ii. 38 is evidently peculiar when compared to subsequent bap-
tisms, and hence cannot be insisted on as a special rule for us.
6. Never till the nineteenth century was a "penitent believer"
immersed < ; in order to obtain pardon of past sins." Hence Acts
ii. 33 is peculiar when compared with jos-apostolic baptisms.
7. Acts ii. 38 is also peculiar when compared with the conver-
sions of the Modern Reformation. It is said of Peutecostiaus that
the hearers believed, that the believers were pierced to their
hearts, and cried out, "What must we do to be saved?" that
the convicted believers were told to repent, and the penitent con-
victs were told to be baptized upon the name of Jesus Christ, ''in
order to the pardon of past sins;" such, and only such, would
receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. But in these modern so-called
conversions the believers are not pierced to the heart, nor do they
cry out from any conviction or desire, and if they did they would
not be told to repent and be baptized upon the name of Jesus
Christ, nor are they promised the gift of the Holy Spirit. Their
believers are not convicted, nor do they tell a believer to repent,
nor did ever one receive the gift of the Holy Spirit in. baptism.
J. B. MOODY' S FIRST REPLY. 279
Hence Acts ii. 38 is very peculiar when compared with niy friend's
conversions.
8. Again : If conviction in Acts ii. 38 was the result of faith, as
Mr. McGarvey and others maintain, then they were ready for bap-
tism when Peter told them to repent. In Acts viii. 12 both men
and women were baptized when they believed; and in Acts xviii.
8, the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized; and so
of others. Hence Peter requiring repentance after faith in Acts
ii. 38 shows it is peculiar as related to the order of repentance
and faith, for they elsewhere baptized as soon as they believed.
9. The answer to the question, "What shall we do?" makes the
passage also peculiar. When the publicans came to be baptized
(Luke iii. 12, 13) and asked, "What shall we do?" they were told
to exact no more than was appointed them. When the soldiers
likewise demanded of him what they must do, the answer was,
"Do violence to no man, neither accuse falsely, and be content
with your wages." When the rich young ruler asked what he
must do to inherit eternal life, he was directed to the covenant of
works, under which he was, and in which he boasted. When the
jailer asked what he must do to be saved, he was told to believe
on the Lord Jesus Christ and he should be saved. So Paul like-
wise received a different answer. Hence Acts ii. 38 is peculiar in
answering this question. Those who always give the same answer
to the same question violate the custom of the apostles, and go
contrary to their practice, for we never hear of this answer again.
10. As the Nine vites repented "eis in order to" the preaching of
Jonah, so the Pentecostians repented eis in order to the preaching
of Peter, or eis in Acts ii. 38 is peculiar as related to preaching.
11. As the Mnevites repented eis the preaching of Jonah, and
the repentance came first, and the Pentecostians "repented eis
remission of sins," then the remission of sins came first, or eis in
Acts ii. 38 is peculiar as related to repentance.
12. If John baptized eis in order to repentance, then Peter bap-
tized eis in order to repentance, else Acts ii. 38 is peculiar as
regards the "design" of baptism.
13. But if John baptized eis repentance, and repentance came
first, and Peter baptized eis remission, then remission came first,
else Acts ii. 38 is peculiar as regards the relation of the action
and the object.
14. John baptized eis remission, and Peter baptized eis remis-
sion; and since it is claimed that Peter's candidates obtained, while
280 SECOND PROPOSITION.
those of John did not, it follows that Acts ii. 38 is peculiar as
regards obtaining.
15. If eis in Acts ii. 38 has the more usual sense of "into," then
it meant "into" in a ceremonial or declarative sense, else my
friend's interpretation of it is peculiar as compared with that of
the greatest scholars of the world. Out of hundreds I give one,
the peer of any, and who never felt this controversy, and hence
had no Mas from it. Dr. Carson says, on Acts ii. 38, page 203, on
baptism : " Can language he more plain ? are they not baptized into
the remission of sins! does this not show that in baptism repent-
ance and remission of sins are supposed with respect to the bap-
tized? They are not baptized that repentance and remission of
sins may follow. This passage proves that none ought to be bap-
tized but such as repent and have their sins remitted." If I held
an interpretation that is peculiar as regards the great thinkers of
all denominations I think I would hold it with becoming modera-
tion and modesty.
16. If this interpretation of Acts ii. 38 is, as is claimed, the doc-
trine of Christ, it is peculiar when compared to his preaching and
practice. For while he came to save sinners, he did not come to
baptize; not only so, but he also forgave sins without and apart
from baptism, as in the cases of the paralytic and the woman that
was a sinner. It is clear that any interpretation of any doctrine
of Christ that contradicts his practice is untrue.
Time expired.
J. A. Harding's Second Speech.
Ladies and G-entlemen :
Doubtless most of you have heard of the "cuttlefish," a mol-
luscous animal, which has a gland called the ink-bag, situated near
the liver. When this fish is pursued, and is seeking to escape by
flight, it throws out from this ink-bag a brownish-black liquor ; the
waters are darkened, and the fish often gets away. The gentle-
man's speech forcibly reminds me of this fish. That his effort was
to darken counsel, and thereby escape the force of my argument,
and of the plain teaching of Scripture, to my mind, is as evident
as to use his own elegant (?) illustration is the nose on his face.
But, in spite of his talk, the facts remain (1) that no blessing was
ever granted to faith till it was expressed in action; and (2) that
baptism is the action appointed by Jesus in the great commission
to which penitent believers must submit in order to reach the
blessing. And, in spite of his sixteen objections to our interpreta-
tion of Acts ii. 38, no man can possibly give any other interpreta-
tion that will make good sense. The gentleman discreetly decided
not to try it, but to content himself with making objections. He
reminds me of the old lawyer's advice to his pupil. Said the legal
sage: "If the law be in your favor, and the testimony against you,
come out very strong on the law ; but if the testimony be in your
favor, and the law against you, come out strong on the testimony."
"But," said the young man, "suppose both law and testimony are
against me, what must I do then? " "Then," replied the sharp old
teacher, "just talk around." (Laughter.) If Brother Moody was
not "talking around" during the whole of that speech, no man
ever did such a thing.
He says my speech had "no bearing on the proposition." He is
hardly the man to decide that. I am willing for those that heard,,
and those that shall hereafter read the speech to give judgment
on that point. To my mind it is clear that if the doctrine of the
speech is correct, then my position is maintained, regardless of
what has been, or of what may be, said during this debate. If it
be a fact that faith without works is dead, as James says; and if
282 SECOND PROPOSITION. .
it be a fact that this is universally true, that faith, is always dead
and barren until it is perfected by works ; and if baptism be a
work of God appointed by Jesus in connection with repentance in
order to the perfection of faith that we may be saved, then of
course my position is maintained. That these points were estab-
lished beyond the possibility of refutation in my speech last night
is certain, and I would be willing to submit the whole case upon
that one speech to any honest-hearted, intelligent, unprejudiced
man.
The gentleman objects to my statement that faith perfected, the
faith that secures the blessing, consists of internal assurance and
bodily action; but his own illustrations/when studied, show that I
am right. "By faith," says he, "Daniel stopped the mouths of
lions." Daniel believed God, and obeyed God (internal assurance
and bodily action), and therefore the lions' mouths were stopped.
" Whosoever believeth in me shall be saved." Does that faith
mean "internal assurance and bodily action?" Yes, certainly, for
it is also said, "He that obeyeth not the Son shall not see life."
By faith the Hebrew children escaped the fire. Was their faith
internal assurance and bodily action? Certainly; read the record
in the book of Daniel, and you will see that they believed God and
perfected their faith by obeying him, and then he saved them from
the fire. And so of every man that God ever blessed on account of
his faith. He had first the internal assurance and then the bodily
action before he reached the blessing. Friend Moody wants to
know if the action must follow the internal assurance. Tes ; it
must; can you understand that? Must it be an act of obedience,
or a haphazard act? he inquires. I reply, whenever God has made
any appointments in order to the blessing (as in the cases of Joshua
taking Jericho, Naaman, the blind man sent to Siloam, the bitten
Israelites, and. so on) the very thing required must be done; but
where no specific requirement has been made, the blessing has often
been given upon a voluntary expression of faith, as in the case of the
woman who touched the hem of the Savior's garment; but always
the faith must be expressed in and perfected by action. Can you
understand that ? Now, I hope you will bring on your passages.
Let us have no more cringing and dodging on the point. This is
the one vital, all-important point in this debate, and if you cannot
show one single case in which faith obtained a blessing until it was
expressed in action, you are ruined, and all thoughtful people who
hear us, or read after us, will see and know it. Bring your pas-
J. A. HARDING'S SECOND SPEECH. 283
sages now. You know as well as I do that I will ruin you on
them, but- you might as well stand it now as at any time.
The gentleman seems to be wonderfully tangled because I say
at one time that faith must precede baptism, and then at another
that the faith that saves includes baptism. Well, if he don't
understand me on that point he is the weakest body in this room.
The word "faith" in the Bible is used in two senses, just like the
-word "man" is in common parlance. Just like the body apart
from the spirit is called man, a dead man, just so faith apart from
works is called faith, dead faith. Brother Moody says any defini-
tion that puts bodily action in faith is incorrect. The apostle
James says, "Faith wrought with his works, and by works was
faith made perfect," or, as the Baptist Testament has it, " by works
was faith made complete." Brother Moody ought not to be so
hard on the apostle James. When I say faith precedes baptism I
mean a trusting belief in Jesus as the Son of God; when I say faith
includes baptism I mean what James called "faith made perfect."
The gentleman says, "Whenever he (Harding) refers to the action
of faith in the Old or New Scriptures he is trying to prove that
faith without baptism is dead." That statement is calculated, and
doubtless was designed, to convey the idea that I think in Old
Testament times faith was dead without baptism. Such an idea
is untrue ; it is exactly the reverse of the truth. If Brother Moody
entertains such an idea he is greatly mistaken. But is it possible
that he could have been mistaken on this point? I think not.
And yet in the next preceding sentence he ivas talking about praying
for me. The idea! Whenever he begins to look pious and to
whimper, look out, for an unusually outrageous misrepresentation
is almost sure to follow.
Says he again: "He (Harding) takes the position that 'works/
'works of faith/ 'obedient to the faith/ 'obedience of faith/ 'obey
the Grospel/ 'obeying the truth/ 'form of sound words/ etc., mean
baptism." The statement is utterly untrue; neither I nor any of
my brethren so believe. Under the present dispensation these
expressions frequently, if not always, include baptism, but not one
of them means baptism. The gentleman dare not attack my posi-
tions; hence he misrepresents me, and attacks his misrepresenta-
tions. And it is because of this that I like debates. They give
me the opportunity to correct the false impressions that the gen-
tleman makes, and to preach the truth to many that I could not
otherwise reach.
284 SECOND PEOPOSITION.
Suppose the time between faith and baptism should be long, and
the believer should do many acts of faith before baptism, would
he be forgiven before baptism? inquires Brother Moody. Under
apostolic preaching the time between baptism and faith was never
long; the penitent believer was always at once baptized. Hear
Dr. Lofton, Brother Moody's moderator. (Ah, doctor, I am glad I
got that tract.) He says: "Baptism, ordinarily, is inseparable
from salvation by faith, since obedience to the first command of
Christ is inseparable from faith. Neither in the precepts nor exam-
ples of the New Testament is there any intervening time between
faith and baptism; and baptism always follows faith, as an effect
follows a cause. Communion, nor any other privilege or duty, has
a speck of room between faith and baptism." " G-od puts baptism
in immediate connection with faith, and nowhere else." So says
Dr. Lofton. And Christ says, "He that believeth and is baptized
shall be saved." What God hath joined together let not man put
asunder.
"If baptism perfects faith, is there any thing left for faith after
baptism?" I answer, when a child is born into this world, if it
has all of its parts in a normal condition, it is a complete person
it will never become more perfect in the matter of having other parts
added. Just so of the penitent believer who is baptized; all of the
constituent parts of faith are there, not another will ever be added ;
but, as in the case of the child the parts should grow, so of faitb,
the trust should be stronger and the obedience should be continued
while life lasts. Eemember a tool may be perfect for one thiug r
but not for another; then the tool 'may be improved, and thus may
become perfect for other things. So of faith. Whatever Noah's
faith may have been fit for before, or whatever it may have become
fit for afterwards, it was not sufficient to save him from the flood
till it moved him to build the ark and enter it.
If faith without works is alive, then the apostle James was a liar.
Who is ready to make such a charge against him?
Having now disposed of the gentleman's references to my
speech, I will turn to the consideration of Acts ii. 38. In the reg-
ular course of my argument it would have come up in this speech
had not Brother Moody referred to it at all. We have studied the
nature of the faith that saves, we have looked into the commis-
sion that Christ gave to bis apostles, and now we want to see how
they understood that commission, and how they acted under it.
In the second chapter of Acts we have the first movements of the-.
J. A. HARDING' S SECOND SPEECH. 285
.apostles under that commission; the Holy Spirit has come upon
them, and a vast multitude of sinners (the murderers of Jesus) is
.standing before them. Moved by the Holy Ghost Peter preaches.
He accuses them of being murderers; he charges them with slay-
lag Jesus "with wicked hands;" with tremendous and cumulative
power he shows from their own prophets that Jesus is the Christ;
with the mighty sweep of his argument he dashes from beneath
their feet every prop upon which they rest; then, seeing written
in their faces conviction and terror, he closes his wonderful address
in these awful words: "Therefore let all the house of Israel know
assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have
crucified, both Lord and Christ." Then it is said, "Now when they
heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter
.and the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren what shall we do?
Then Peter said unto them, Eepent, and be baptized every one of
you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye
shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Notice the order : (1) A
sermon is preached; (2) sinners are convicted; (3) in terror they
cry out to know what to do that they may escape from their sins;
(4) Peter commands them to repent, and to be baptized in the
name of Jesus Christ; (5) these commands are given to .them for
the remission of their sins; (6) and then the Hly Ghost is prom-
ised to them. How strong and clear is the passage! How per-
fectly transparent is Peter's answer ! So guardedly has the Holy
Spirit expressed himself in this place that all the ingenuity of men
and of devils cannot so pervert the passage as to obscure its
meaning. Keep in mind the condition of those who ask the ques-
tion, "What shall we do?" They are sinners pricked in their
heart with a sense of guilt and a fear of wrath, desiring to be
freed from the guilt and punishment of sin. Would Peter say to
such people, Repent, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ
because your sins have been forgiven? Every man of sense on
earth knows he would not. In the first place, their sins were not
forgiven. This Brother Moody and the Baptists must admit, for
they claim that when a man is forgiven he knows it; and then
they say that faith comes after repentance; hence these people
were not believers, according to their theory, as Peter told them
to repent. Then, as all the world knows, Peter would not have
told men to repent because their sins had been forgiven. Therefore
these people were unforgiven sinners. To them Peter said, "Ee-
pent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus
286 SECOND PROPOSITION.
Christ for the remission of sins." What does "for the remission
of sins" mean in this place? Why, ten-year-old children ought to
be able to understand beyond the possibility of a doubt. The
same phrase occurs in another place in Scripture where its mean-
ing is undisputed, namely, in Mate. xxvi. 28, where Jesus says,
"This is iny blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many
for the remission of sins." Was Jesus' blood shed because sins.
had been forgiven, or in order that they might be forgiven? Every-
body knows, hence I need not answer. Now the phrase "for the
remission of sins" is the same in both places, both in the English
and in the Greek, and the meaning is the same, viz., in order to
the forgiveness of sins.
But Brother Moody denies that eis means "in order to" in this
passage 5 and he takes up the different translations, and runs
through a number of them to prove it. And, after manipulating
his figures awhile, he makes out a case of 1,666 to three against
"in order to." And his friends were delighted. That one tremen-
dous figure (if not figurative) argument did them more good than
any other thing he has said since the debate began. It is a pity to
spoil their comfort, is it not? But justice and truth demand that
it shall be done, and so I must do it. A more specious piece of
sophistry, with less sense in it, was never before presented, I pre-
sume, in the name of argument. Let me take for a moment the
side of the pedobaptists, and attack Brother Moody on the subject
of immersion with the same argument. There have been made
into the Euglish tongue not fewer than 100 translations of the
New Testament, counting all that have been made such as Mc-
Garvey's in his Commentary. There have been at least 150 made
into other tongues. Of these translators about twenty translate
~baptizo immerse; but as those who do so are inimersiouists, accord-
ing to Brother Moody's rule, they must be dropped out; their tes-
timony won't do; dropping them from the 250 translations, we have
230 translations to nothing against immersion. But the word bap-
tizo, with its cognates and derivatives, occurs 120 times in the New
Testament. Now multiply the number of translations (230) by
the number of occurrences in each translation (120), and you have
27,600 to nothing against immersion. How will that do for & figure
argument against immersion ? You see I have made a better show-
ing by more than ten thousand by my figures against immersion
than he has against "in order to" as a translation of eis. And both
of the arguments put together are not worth a pinch of snuff, except
J. A. HAEDING'S SECOND SPEECH. 287
that his is a notable illustration of how foolish a man can be when
he tries, and mine shows how easy it is to overturn foolishness with
.folly. As saith the wise man, "Answer a fool according to hi&
folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit." So much for the argu-
ment based on figures.
But does the preposition eis mean "in order to?" Those of you
who know nothing about it but what you have learned from the
vaporings of Brother Moody doubtless are ready to reply, "It does
not, except in rare and exceptional cases." Well, now just listen
and learn from men who know more, and who speak with more
candor, than he does. Dr. John A. Broadus, the most scholarly
Baptist of the South, in a letter to H. L. W. Gross, dated June 6,.
1887 (which is now in my possession, and from which I read), gives
in order to as the "more frequent sense of eis) but he prefers
"unto" as the translation of it in Acts ii. 38. He teaches the
same thing concerning the preposition eis in his Commentary on
Matthew, page 50, where he calls "in order to" its "common and
most natural sense." Now what do you think of Brother Moody's
railing against "in order to" as the common meaning of eis? Will
you believe him or Dr. Broadus? Well, you say, I would like to
hear what the great Baptist, Dr. Alvah Hovey, says about it. Very
good. He says repentance and baptism in Acts ii. 38 are enjoined
"in order to the forgiveness of sins." (American Commentary on
Luke, page 62, foot-note.) Dr. Hackett, in the same Baptist Com-
mentary, translates it, "in order to the forgiveness of sins." Dr.
George E. Bliss, in the same Commentary, translates it "in order
to " forgiveness. So do the great and learned Baptists, Harkuess,
Foster, North, Metcalfe, Wilmarth, Eipley and Gilbert Boyce. By
these scholars the following Baptist colleges are represented:
Brown University, Colby University, Hamilton College, Hobart Col-
lege, Carson College and Southern Theological Institute.
"But," perhaps you inquire, "what do the lexicons say eis
means?" The great Liddell & Scott says: " Eadical*sense, into,
' and then more loosely, to." Thayer's, the greatest New Testament
lexicon, says it denotes "entrance into, or direction and limit:
into, to, toward, for, among." With these all respectable lexicons
in substance agree. And all authorities agree that eis is used to
denote the purpose or end to be attained. Prom this position
there is not a dissenting voice in the scholarship of the whole
world, in so far as I have ever heard.
Now let us consider for awhile the English preposition "for."
288 SECOND PROPOSITION.
In speaking of it Brother Moody says: "It has uniformly been
used by my friend's people, as he uses it in the proposition, as
though <in order to' was . necessarily and invariably its meaning."
That statement is as untrue as any thing can be. ot one of my
brethren ever used "for" as though "in order to" was necessarily
and invariably its meaning. For we all know that such is not the
case. "For" sometimes looks backward, sometimes forward,
sometimes it means " because of," sometimes "in order to." These
facts no man of sense and information doubts. But no man has
ever translated eis "because of" in Acts ii, 38. J. B. Moody won't
do it himself. Why? Simply because everybody knows that Peter
would not have been silly enough to tell convicted sinners to repent
and be baptized because their sins had been forgiven. The con-
text shows plainly even to the English reader that "for" means
"in order to" in this place. But the Greek preposition eis differs
from the English "for" in this respect, namely, the former is always
prospective, never retrospective 5 while the latter is sometimes
prospective, sometimes retrospective. Of this I will give you
abundant proof in my next speech. My time has about expired,
hence I cannot do it in this. I will pay proper respect to " eis
repentance," u eis the preaching of Jonah," etc., and I will give you
some good Baptist authorities as I go along. It will, I presume,
take the -whole of my next speech to finish my argument on Acts
ii. 38. In the meantime, remember that Peter, acting under the
commission, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved,"
told horror-stricken sinners to repent and be baptized in the name
of Jesus Christ for the remission of their sins. What better com-
ment could a man ask on the meaning of the great commission?
Time expired.
J. B. Moody's Second Reply.
Ladies and Gentlemen :
My opponent thinks my ink has so darkened the waters that he
-cannot find me. Doubtless the waters looked dark to Saul while
the scales were on his eyes, but the darkness was not in the water,
hut in the eyes. My friend reminds me of the locusts in Revela-
tion that had stings, and their mission was to hurt. Somehow
my speeches make him sting and bite most bitterly. It must be
the truth I utter, as it had this effect when spoken by Christ, Peter
and Paul. There is more than darkening the waters. See how he
has been goaded by my questions concerning his challenge on
faith. He goes all the gaits on that question. When I quoted
Born. iv. 4, 5 as a case where the greatest of blessings was obtained
by a faith " that worked not, but believeth," he brought in Abra-
ham's obedience for eight years before his justifying faith referred
to in Gen. xv. and Rom. iv. At another time he brought in his
works of forty years after. But Abraham was justified before he
was circumcised, and that was before Isaac was born. But in bis
last speech Mr. Harding cut off the works that precede the faith
that secures the blessing. Abraham, like my friend, had some sort
of faith and obedience before he was justified as a sinner before
<xod. But when God made that gracious, unconditional promise
that defied reason and surpassed testimony, all Abraham could do
was to work not, but believe in Jehovah, the Messiah; and being
fully persuaded that what he had promised he was able also to
perform, and therefore it was counted to him for righteousness;
and -the same justification "shall be imputed to us also if we
believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead."
Where the Holy Spirit leaves off works Mr. Harding puts them in.
Bom. iv. 5, 16, 24 applies the same principle to all. The Holy
Spirit could not now make a more effectual reply to this foolish
'Challenge than he did in the third and fourth chapters of Romans
and in Galatians. In both places Abraham is brought in as the noted
illustration of the doctrine. The gentleman emphasizes "the"
before law, and rolls it as a sweet morsel under his tongue, but he
19
290 SECOND PROPOSITION.
knows that it does not belong there. When the Holy Spirit leaves
it off Mr. Carding puts it in, like he does works, and many other
like things he does. Abraham was not under the law, and David
was. Yet both are illustrations of justification by faith without
works, and so of every justified man in this world. The steps of
Abraham's faith, like all others, walks out of law into, grace that
simply receives these infinite blessings without works. There
were no steps between Abraham's faith and the great blessing of
justification, for they are both first mentioned in the same verse.
(Gen. xv. 6.) There may be faith and obedience before, as there
will be afterward, but neither is reckoned for justification. The
moment one believes in the Lord he believes unto righteousness,
unto salvation, and that moment that faith, without works, is
reckoned to him for justification. The very statement that justifi-
cation is imputed by God, and received by faith, kills the challenge
with a double death. Now see if he surrenders. But I will give
him this in broken doses. Mr. Harding says by faith and works; the
Holy Spirit says by a faith that works not. James never said that
faith without works is dead. When the Holy Spirit leaves off the
definite article before law Mr. Harding puts it in, and when he puts
it in before faith Mr. Harding leaves it off. You see how he always
resists the Holy Ghost. When the Holy Spirit speaks of law in
general he leaves off the article. When he speaks of a particular
law, as that of Moses, he puts the definite article to it. And so of
faith in James ii. Several times he speaks of faith in general, and
then of a particular kind, viz., the practical faith of a professor,
that he would show without works. In those cases he uses the
article that faith, thus emphatically rendered by the best scholar-
ship. (See Meyer, as before quoted, and others.) Mr. Harding
runs after the errors of Baptist writers and the Common Version
as greedily as others ran after the errors of Balaam, the son of
Bosor. Why will he contrary the Holy Spirit in this matter? The
same is true of Gal. v. 6. Mr. Harding knows that he misquotes
the sense of the text, and he loves to do it. He quotes "faith
working by love" to prove that faith must be outwardly expressed
in bodily action. Energeo never did and never can mean outward
manifestation. The prefix is en, and not ek. He knows it is some-
thing wrought in, and not out, and so used everywhere in the
Scriptures. The "Emphatic Diaglott" has it, "Faith operating in
us by love." The Revised Yersion has in the margin, "wrought,"
which would make it faith wrought through love. Meyer says this
J. B. MOODY'S SECOND REPLY. 291
"passage is not at variance with justification solely by faith." But
what cares my friend for Meyer, his greatest exegete, or for the
Holy Spirit either. Note the same repeated, vociferous and dog-
matic assertions on Mark xvi. 16 and John iii. 36, where scholars
do not dogmatize, as will be seen. A man had better have no
tongue and pen than to thus use them. It would be better for him
and the world if he had never been born. I quote from his last
speech :
" If it be a fact that faith without works is dead, as James says
(he never said it), and if it be a fact that this is universally true,
that faith is always dead and barren until it is perfected by works
(not a word of it true), and if baptism be a work of God (! ! !), ap-
pointed by Jesus in connection with repentance in order to the
perfection of faith that he may be saved (whew !), then of course
my position is maintained."
Now let Mr. Harrison appoint a day of laughing, and let all the
people laugh. If, if, if several false statements are true, then the
gentleman's doctrine is true, sure enough.
"When Mr. Harding calls his reply to my figures "folly, and not
worth a pinch of snuff," he confesses a good confession before
many witnesses. The falacy and folly of his reply is too obvious.
Why was not 'ba/ptizo always properly translated? Why have none
but the followers of Mr. Campbell translated Acts ii. 38 "in order
to," save a few Baptists, who hold a different interpretation to the
same words? Does the same or any kindred reason apply to both?
Did not the Catholics and all the Protestants of the past dark ages
believe and practice baptismal salvation ? Then why did they not
thus translate Acts ii. 38? If all' had believed and practiced im-
mersion, would they not have thus translated ba/ptizo ? I dare the
gentleman to undertake a fair and full discussion of his doctrine
of the text. Whatever may be granted on the natural and gram-
matical construction of the text, the doctrine is not there. The
Catholics have us on the natural and grammatical construction of
v "this is my body," "this is my blood," but their doctrine is not
there. And so of baptism washing away sins. Who believes the
natural and grammatical construction of these and hundreds of
other Scriptures? I deny the gentleman's doctrine, and that is
what he is here to prove. He has at last confessed that the Bap-
tists quoted do not believe his doctrine, and Mr. Lipscomb says
that he and Mr. Harding are slandered when they are accused of
saying that these Baptists believe their doctrines. Then they are
292 SECOND PROPOSITION.
slandered by Mr. Harding's former speeches, as we will see. Thus
you see the end approaching. Any translation of any passage
may be thought to teach different doctrines. It is this doctrine I
oppose and will expose. I propose to run a negative doctrinal
argument against his doctrine that will kill his logomachy, if not
his loquacity, with a thousand deaths. So I will now resume my
negative argument.
17. If baptism is for or in order to the remission of sins, then it
is essential that it be so preached, believed and obeyed. But Mr.
Harding in his published debate with McGary labors to prove that
it is not essential; hence the doctrine affirmed by Mr. Harding
here is peculiar as compared with the doctrine he advocated
there.
18. But if baptism for remission of past sins was essential in
the case of the Pentecostians, then is it not essential for us? If
so, then all who were not baptized in order to the remission of
sins missed that that is essential. Hence all such were lost. Then
all Baptists of all ages, together with Mr. Campbell and a majority
of his followers, also all religious bodies, except the Mormons, are
lost; and John was mistaken when he saw a countless multitude
of all ages, times and tongues redeemed by the blood of the Lamb,
since all the redeemed by this interpretation are confined to the
Mormons and a small portion of Mr. Campbell's followers, for only
these have complied with the essential condition of "immersion
for the pardon of past sins."
19. But if "baptism in order to pardon is not essential, then let
all this noise hush, and this fuss stop, and let the proclaimers and
debaters of this new doctrine adjourn and disband, and, like the
multitudes of other times, let them turn their eyes from baptism,
with them a dead work, and let them seek the Lord and feel after
him, if perchance they can find him, though he is not far from
every one of them.
20. Having examined some of the peculiarities necessitated by
the false interpretations of "baptize eis remission," let us pursue
the investigation of peculiarities as relates to the "gift of the
Holy Ghost;" and if by this is meant the Holy Spirit himself, in his
ordinary work, then Acts ii. 38 is peculiar when compared with all
former times. See all through the Old Scriptures, also Luke i. 35,
41, 67; ii. 26; xi. 13; John xx. 22, etc.; for in all these cases he
was received without regard to baptism.
21. The same is true in regard to all subsequent cases. See
J. S. MOODT'S SECOND REPLY. 293
Acts vii. 5J ; x. 44; xi. 15; xv. 8; xix. 2, in Eevised Version; Rom.
v. 5; xv. 13; 1 Cor. xii. 5; Gal. iii. 2; 1 Thess. i. 5; 2 Thess. ii. 13,
etc. My friend will not say that in these cases the Holy Spirit was
received in baptism.
22. If by the (doorean) gift is meant the extraordinary or mirac-
ulous gifts, such as prophesying and speaking with tongues, as
most writers, including Mr. Campbell (Living Oracles, Appendix,
pp. 76, 81), also Dr. Brents (page 598), then the case was pecu-
liar, for never before or since was this power conferred in baptism.
See the case of Cornelius and his house, where the doorean of the
Spirit was given before baptism. Acts x. 43-47, with xi. J5-17,
and xv. 7-11; also Acts viii. 14-20, where sometime after baptism
it was bestowed by prayer and the laying on of hands: "They
prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Spirit." (Did
you ever hear prayer for the Holy Spirit ridiculed 1 ?) "Then laid
they their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit. And
when Simon saw that through the laying on of the apostles' hands
the Holy Ghost was given, he offered money, saying, Give me this
power that on whomsoever I lay hands he may receive the Holy
Spirit." The same in Acts xix. 2, when Paul asked, "Did ye receive
the Holy Spirit when ye believed?" as did Cornelius and the Gala-
tians. (Gal. iii. 2.) See also John vii. 38, 39; Eph i. 13, New Ver-
sion: "In whom having believed ye were sealed with the Holy
Spirit of promise." Also Gal. v. 5, as translated by Mr. Anderson:
".For we through the Spirit which we obtained by faith," etc. So
the apostles received the doorean long after their baptism, and in
no case was this promise fulfilled in baptism unless it was in Acts
ii. 38, and that -would make the case peculiar, and hence not a
rule.
23. But if the gift of the Holy Spirit is a general promise to all
who should repent and be baptized in order to obtain pardon, then
all who thus obtained remission must there and then have received
the "gift," but as no one before or since received the gift of the
Holy Spirit in baptism, it follows that no one before or since
received the remission of sins in baptism, as both, it is claimed,
were promised.
24. If the Holy Spirit, or the ordinary operations of the Holy
Spirit, were promised only to those who repent and be baptized in
order to "pardon," then none others have received him or his
operations, as his brother, McGary, says. Then all the other pro-
fessing Christians, together with a large portion of the "Current
294 SECOND PROPOSITION.
Reformation," including Mr. Campbell and his coadjutors, are lost,
since the Holy Spirit was promised only to those that should be
baptized in order to remission of sins. Mr. McGary proves clearly
from the writings of Mr. Campbell that this is true, and Mr. Hard-
ing proves clearly that if true the case is hopeless for Mr. Camp-
bell and bis coadjutors. See Harding-McGary debate, pp. 17, 23, 46,
47, where Mr. Harding says, "According to his (McG-ary's) theory we
are all in our sins, . . . . none of us are in the kingdom."
See also Campbell- Rice debate, p. 439. Hence the proposition
from his standpoint proving too much is untrue.
25. If the ordinary or extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit are
received only on the condition of the immersion of a penitent
believer in order to pardon, then only those know that the Spirit
of God dwells in them. Then only those have the fruits of the
Spirit, which are love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, good-
ness, faith, meekness, self-control, against which there is no law.
We think if Simon Magus were here he could see nothing that
would tempt him to waste his time or money on the gifts or fruits
of the Spirit.
20. Mr. Harding says in above work, page 4: "If it is necessary to
understand that baptism is in order to remission, is it not equally
necessary to understand that it is for the purpose of securing the
gifts of the Holy Spirit? So it seems to me." Then it follows that
a man need have no faith in the matter, either as regards the
remission of sin or the reception of the Holy Spirit. But in the
case of Pentecostians this was necessary to be preached, believed
(they gladly received the Word) and obeyed. But Mr. Harding
says it is not necessary now to be preached, believed or obeyed.
Therefore Acts ii. 38 is peculiar in not requiring this faith, Mr.
Harding himself being witness.
27. Having thus proved the incorrectness of my friend's propo-
sition by the peculiarities which it necessitates, both in regard to
"baptize eis remission" and also "the gift of the Holy Spirit,"- let
us turn our investigations to the copulated expression, "Bepent
and be baptized."
On my way to an association I passed through a Tennessee town
for the first time, and was asked for an appointment on my return.
I granted it, with the request that a subject be given me Acts ii.
38 was given by one of my opponent's brethren. I gave my time
mainly to the preposition eis, which created no small stir in that
region. The answer to my discourse was that Moody made a big
J. B. MOODY' S SECOND REPLY. 295
blow on eis, but he had too much sense to tackle that conjunction
"and." I heard of it, and sent word for another appointment,
when I would tackle the "and." This may illustrate the matter
now before us.
If repentance and baptism in Acts ii. 38 are joined by "and" to
secure the same result, the remission of sins, then it is peculiar
when compared with Acts iii. 19, for there we have repent and turn
eis the blotting out or remission of sins, and turning is not bap-
tism. See thd following references where the same Greek word is
translated both "convert" and "turn," and see if you can substitute
baptism. Mark iv. 12: "Lest at any time they should be con-
verted (baptized) and their sins should be forgiven." John xii. 40:
"And be converted (baptized) and I should heal them." Luke xxii.
32: "When thou (Peter) art converted (baptized) strengthen thy
brethren." Acts ix. 35: "And all that dwelt at Lydda and Saron
saw him and turned (baptized) to the Lord." See also Acts xv.
3-19; 1 Thess. i. 9; James v. 19; 1 Peter ii. 25; 2 Peter 21, 22,
where they turned "from the holy commandment," and the dog
turned (baptized) to his own vomit. As one of his brethren
recently wrote, "When Christ or the Holy Spirit meant baptism
they were not afraid to say it;" they did not say baptism in
the above passages, therefore they didn't mean it. Then the
expression in Acts ii. 38 is peculiar when compared to Acts
iii. 19.
28. Baptism is eis the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost,
eis Jesus Christ, eis name of Christ, while repentance is eis God
only. McGarvey says, "It would be incongruous to say repent in
the name of Jesus Christ." Now, as they were to be baptized in
the name of Jesus Christ, and as they could not repent in the
name of Jesus Christ, it follows that repentance and baptism
-were not alike connected to receive remission, for by this incon-
gruity they became disconnected before they reached remission
of sins.
29. If repentance and baptism are alike connected with remis-
sion of sins, and we are baptized eis remission, then (as in John's
time) we must be baptized eis repentance. But in the expression
baptize eis repentance we know repentance came before baptism;
hence in the expression '-baptize eis remission" remission must
come before baptism, or they are not alike connected.
30. If repent and be baptized are alike connected to secure the
remission of sins, then the expressions "baptism is for the remis-
296 SECOND PROPOSITION.
sion" "and baptism now saves us" are untrue, though they have-
been uttered and written millions of times. In all these 'cases
repentance is cut off, and that shows that in their estimation they
are not alike connected. "Kepentance is for the remission of
sins" "and repentance now saves us" are two propositions they
have never yet framed for discussion: hence in importance they
are not alike connected, they themselves being judges.
31. If repentance and baptism are joined to secure the same
result, and we are baptized eis remission, then we must repent els
remission, an expression that nowhere occurs. Hence they are
not alike joined to secure remission.
32. If repentance and baptism were joined to secare the great
need of man on Pentecost, then those who showed the way of
salvation failed to ever join them thus again, and thus failed to
show the way of salvation to others who were as ignorant as the
Pentecostians.
33. Eepentauce was obligatory on all (indiscriminately) who
heard, and baptism was obligatory only in those (individually) who
repented; hence they have different nominatives, one singular and
one plural. As baptism was only for "penitent believers" it could
not -be joined with repentance, a universal duty, in the cases of
those whose duty it was not to be baptized. If it was the duty
of some to repent, but not to be baptized, and the duty of
others who had repented to be baptized, but not repent, it fol-
lows that they were separate duties, and were not joined together
at all.
34. If repentance and baptism are both eis remission of sins,
and baptism terminates in it, then repentance must continue till it
terminates in it also. But this is forbidden by the expression
"repent and be baptized," which ends repentance before either
baptism or remission is reached. Hence they are not alike
united to secure the result. If repentance must be genuine
before baptism, and should not be followed by baptism, then
genuine repentance would not be at all connected with remission
of sins.
35. If "repentance changes the mind," and "faith changes the
heart," and "baptism changes the state," as they all say, then they
are not joined together to secure the same result, for each secures
its own and a different result.
36. If repentance and baptism are alike joined to secure the
remission of past sins, and baptism is to be performed but once,
J. B. MOODY'S SECOND REPLY. 297
then repentance is to secure the remission of past sins, and is
never to be repeated.
37. But if repentance and "baptism must be alike joined to secure
the same result, and we must repent of sins after baptism, then
baptism must always be joined to secure the same result. In this-
the Mormon branch of the Eeformation is more consistent.
Time expired.
J. A. Harding's Third Speech.
Dear Friends :
The gentleman says I remind him of the locusts which are
spoken of in the ninth chapter of Revelation, because I sting and
bite. Just so; and there is another respect in which. I am like those
locusts. Listen to what is said of them: "And it was commanded
them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any
green thing, neither any tree ; but only those men which have not
the seal of God in their foreheads." I have no desire in the world to
hurt anybody who is doing right; and I would only hurt those who
are doing wrong for their good, or that others may be delivered from
their false teaching. Toward Brother Moody personally I have not
the slightest unkind feeling; but that he represents a false doc-
trine, and that he is- deceiving and misleading the people, I know.
That he does this oftentimes by unfair and dishonorable means, by
misrepresenting his opponents, imputing to them that which they
do not believe, and withholding that which they do believe, has
been already abundantly shown during this debate, and it will
become more evident as we proceed. I am not astonished that
my exposures of him should make him feel as though he were
bitten and stung by scorpions.
He tries to sting and bite, too, and the only reason that he does
not wound me to my death is that he cannot. I stand on the rock
of God's eternal truth, and I am beyond his power; his efforts
only recoil upon and injure himself. For instance, he says that I
put the definite article "the" before the word "law" in the third
and fourth chapters of Eomans and in Galatians. He says that I
resist the Holy Ghost in so doing. Never was any thing uttered
that is more untrue since the world was made till now. Turn to
your Bibles, King James' Version, which we all use, and you will
find the article "the" used before the word "law" right along
through those chapters. Turn to the Eevised Version, which
embodies the ripest, noblest scholarship of the nineteenth cen-
tury, and you will find it used in the same way. On this point I
have invariably quoted from the one of these versions or the other,
J. A. HARDING'S TRIED SPEECH. 299
word for word, and 'dot for dot, and he accuses me of putting in the
" the," when he to^v that they did it. But he (J. B. Moody) thinks
they ought not to have done it. Yery good, let him say so; but
let him not accuse me of putting in words when I am but quoting
the ripest scholarship, the best translation, now on earth.
I give you another illustration of his queer way of talking. I
quoted from the apostle James the words "faith, without works is
dead." Whereupon the doughty Moody shouts: "James never
.said that faith without works is dead. When the Holy Spirit leaves
off the definite article before law Mr. Harding puts it in, and when
he puts it in before faith Mr. Harding leaves it off. You see how
he always resists the Holy Ghost."
Let us see, my friends, let us see. Did I misquote wheu I read
from James "faith without works is dead?" I open now the Com-
mon Version, and read very carefully from the second chapter of
James: "But wilt thou know, vain man, that faith without works
is dead?" (Verse 20.) "For as the body without the spirit is
dead, so faith without works is dead also." (Verse 26.) So you
see the Common Version omits the article from before faith. Do
you see this stack of translations? Every one of them does the
same thing. They are the Revise'd Version, the Bible Union
(Baptist), the Common Version, the Living Oracles, McKnight and
Anderson. When Brother Moody charged me with leaving out the
article from faith he stated that which is untrue, and which he
knew to be untrue, for he knew I was but quoting, word for word,
from the best translations of the world. They left it out, not I.
But Brother Moody thinks they ought not to have done it, I pre-
sume. But who is he that he should set himself up so dogmati-
cally against the scholarship represented in these translations?
What college did you attend, my brother? Where is your diploma?
Did you ever attend any college a single day in your life? I studied
Greek in high school and college about five or six years. I then
taught it about as long, and I have been paying some attention to
New Testament Greek ever since, that is, for about fifteen years;
and I have learned enough in that time to know that not every man
that has a- smattering of Greek can tell when, and when not, to
translate the article. It is best for those who have merely tasted
of the "Pierian spring" to modestly follow the standard transla-
tions.
But suppose we prefix the article to faith in this place, the pas-
sage then seems to me to stand out still more strongly against the
300 SECOND PROPOSITION.
gentleman's position. It then reads thus: "Therefore as the body-
without the spirit is dead, so the faith which is without works is-
dead also." (See Wesley's translation.) That tells with vigor
what dead faith is it is the faith which is without works. And
the Revised Version, at the fourteenth verse, most pointedly asks,.
"What doth it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but
have not works? can that faith save him?" Ah, my friends, faith
without works is not saving faith.
Let me now call your attention to another one of the gentle-
man's false charges. I have repeatedly quoted the strikingly preg-
nant verse, "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any
thing, nor uncircurncision; but faith working through love." (GaL
v. 6, R. V.) Brother Moody says I misquote the sense of it, that I
do it knowingly, and that I love to do it. He does not deny that
I quote it right, that I give it word for word just as it occurs in the
Eevised Version, but he says I misquote the sense. (He means
that I misapply it.) How? Why, he says energeo (the word which
means to worTc) "never did and never can mean outward manifes-
tation." This charge, like the others just considered, is utterly
false, utterly without foundation in fact. Energeo expresses men-
tal activity, true enough, but it also expresses external action, both '
in the Bible and out of it that is, action that terminates outside
of him who does the work. In this same book (Gal. iii. 5) it is
used to express the working of miracles; and at Epb. i. 11 it is-
used to denote all that God does in carrying out his will.
Liddell & Scott define it thus: "Energeo, to be in action or activ-
ity." "II. trans., to effect, to execute."
Thayer's great New Testament Lexicon defines it thus: "I. in-
trans., to ~oe operative, be at work, put forth power." "II. trans.,
to effect." "III. mid., to display one's activity, show one's self
operative."
The verb energeo is derived from the adjective energos, which
means "at work, working, . active, busy." When used of land it
means " in work, productive." It was used also to indicate pro-
ductive mines, mines from which minerals were being digged..
(See Liddell & Scott.) Now what think you of the claim that
energeo never did and never can mean outward manifestation T
Our word " energize " (which is the English representative of ener-
geo) is defined by Webster thus : "to use power in action; to act
with force or vigor; to operate ^vith vigor; to act in producing an-
effect."
J. A. HABDING'S THIRD SPEECH. 301
Thus ends the efforts of the gentleman to show that I misrepre-
sent James and Paul in the use of the article "the," and on the
subject of faith being perfected by works. In the first case I was
but quoting the apostles as the leading translators translate them,
.and in the second case I was but using the word energeo as all of
the leading dictionaries of the earth define it. So I feel fairly
comfortable on these points. .
But what do you think of my opponent by this time? If not
.another word were said, I think you would be bound to conclude
that it will not do to trust his statements. But I have another
word to add: "I have in my possession documents which, show that
in a skirmish through the papers J. B. Moody wilfully and mali-
ciously suppressed a part of what his opponent said, in order to
make the impression on his readers that his opponent was a falsifier.
I have known for years that he would do such things, but I have
never before been in a condition to prove it so clearly, so com-
pletely and so easily. I will meet him before any impartial tribunal
with the proof, or I will give it to you in this debate, just as he
may prefer.
. The gentleman doubtless will say that I am making a personal
attack upon him. Suppose I am; did not Paul make a personal
attack on the false prophet Bar-jesus when he withstood the truth
and tried to turn the deputy, Sergius Paulus, from the faith? And
did not the Lord strike the false prophet with blindness, and was
not the deputy thus saved? (See Acts'xiii. 6-12.) So I hope,
beloved, the influence of this false prophet will be ruined, and
many of his deluded followers turned to the advocacy of that
which they are now trying to pull down.
I turn now to my affirmative argument on Acts ii. 38. Concern-
ing the preposition eis which occurs in that passage three questions
arise: 1. What does it mean? 2. Does it connect both the verbs
41 repent" and "be baptized" with "remission of sins," or only one
of them? 3. Is eis ever retrospective? I reply to these questions
thus: 1. Eis means in order to. 2. It connects both the verbs
the entire exhortation with "remission of sins." 3. I claim that
eis is always prospective, never retrospective. Now, if I can main-
tain myself on these points, if not another word were spoken on
our side of this question, it would still be established that baptism
precedes and is in order to remission of sins. That I will do this
is as certain as that the Lord will enable me to live, and to present
302 SECOND PROPOSITION.
the proof that I now have in possession proof from the very best
authorities on eartb.
R. T. Matthews, professor of Greek, Eminence College, Kentucky,,
addressed- the following letter to the professors of Greek in the
leading colleges and universities of the United States :
"Will you be so kind as to give me your translation of tbe prep-
osition eis in Acts ii. 38, and your opinion, as a Greek scholar, as
to what grammatical relation it expresses between the predicates
of the verse and the phrase aphesin hamartioon? I shall be
obliged for your answer in the light of scholarship, aside from all
theological applications of the verse."
At the risk of being tedious, I intend to give the answers to this
letter in full, believing their value demands that they should be
preserved, as they will be when thus incorporated in our debate.
Professor Tyler, Amherst College, Massachusetts, says : "Yours of
the 9th inst. is just received. I shall translate Acts ii. 38 liberally,
thus : Repent, and let every one of you be baptised in (or on) the
name of Jesus Christ unto remission of sins. The preposition eis
seems to denote the object and end of the two verbs which pre-
cede in the imperative. In other words, remission of sins is the
object and end (or result) of repentance and baptism. The mean-
ing may perhaps be more definitely and unequivocally expressed
thus : Repent, and let every one of you be baptized to the end that
your sins may be forgiven. The passage does not necessarily
imply that repentance and baptism stand in the same moral, relig-
ious, essential or formal relation to forgiveness, any more than
believing and being baptized stand in the same relation to being
saved in Mark xvi. 16; or of being born of water and the Spirit
stand in the same relation to entering into the kingdom of God in
John iii. 5. The result is fully realized in each of these cases only
when both the outward and the inward conditions are fulfilled.
But that the outward condition is less essential is clearly indicated
by its omission in the negative and condemnatory part of Mark,
xvi. 16: 'He that believeth not shall be damned.' I do not know
that I have met the precise point and object of your inquiries. I
have only touched the points of chief interest and importance as
they present themselves to my own mind."
I would remark in passing that I am not here to affirm that bap-
tism stands in the same " moral, religious, essential or formal rela-
tion to forgiveness" that faith and repentance do; nor am I to
J. A. HAEDING'S THIED SPEECH. 303
/
show which is most essential; it is enough to know that all three
are essential to know that the Holy Spirit said, "Bepent, and let
every one of you be baptized to the end that your sins may be
forgiven."
Prof. H. C. Cameron, of Princeton College, New Jersey, says :
" The preposition eis in Acts ii. 38 is evidently used in its final
sense; and the phrase is clearly connected with metanoeesate ~kai
baptistheeti (repent and be baptized), as the end to which repent-
ance and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ led. The conviction
of sin in the crucifixion of Jesus, who was both Lord and Christ,
led the multitude to inquire of the apostles, 'What shall we do?'
'Do' for what purpose? Evidently 'for the remission of sins/ as
shown in the answer of the apostle. They thought only of the
sin against Christ, which, since his advent, is the essence of sin (of
sin because they believe not on me) ; but the apostle makes the
matter more general 'remission of sins.' The term aphesis (re-
mission), except in the quotation from Isaiah (Luke iv. 18), has
but one signification in the New Testament. This, then, was the
object contemplated both in the question and the answer, and to
which eis points. Trusting that this hasty note, which does not
enter into the question of baptism, or of its relation to salvation,
or even of the meaning of the expression epi too onomati (in the
name of Jesus Christ), is a sufficient answer to your inquiries, I
remain yours truly."
Professor Packard, of Tale College, Connecticut, says:
"Your letter of inquiry as to the meaning of eis in Acts ii. 38
was handed to me this morning. I do not suppose it is possible to
determine from classical or patristic usage a necessary meaning
for such a word which can be applied in any new case. It is so
frequent a word, has so many various meanings, and expressing
only relation, depends so entirely on the context for its determina-
tion, that each case must be decided mainly by itself. Here it
seems to be connected with both verbs. With baptizo alone it has
a special New Testament use, as to the meaning of which scholars
are somewhat divided. My own impression (to give it for what it
is worth) is that I should translate it, if these words occurred in
Plato, for instance, to the end of remission of sins. It would then
make aphesis hamartioon an object aimed at, or a result attained
by, the acts denoted by the verbs. But this leads one necessarily
304 SECOND PROPOSITION.
into the domain of theology. I am sorry I cannot give you a more
definite answer."
Professor Poster, of Colby University, Maine, says :
"Without a special examination of the passage in connection
with others in which like expressions occur, I should say that the
word here has the force of 'unto/ 'in order to/ 'for the sake of/
indicating a result to be attained, and that it connects the phrase
cvphesin hamartioon with both the foregoing imperative verbs, alike
.grammatically considered, though, on other grounds, I should say
specially with the first, since pardon is nowhere offered on condi-
tion of baptism alone, while it is on that of repentance. This is
briefly my response to your inquiry as I understand it."
Professor D'Ooge, of Ann Arbor University, Michigan, says:
"In reply to your inquiry, I would say that in my judgment the
preposition eis, in the verse referred to, expresses the relation of
aim or end in view, answering the question eis ti (for what?), and to
be translated by 'unto/ 'in order to/ 'for.' This sense of eis, as
.you doubtless know, is recognized by Liddell & Scott for classical;
by Winer, for New Testament usage. I cannot agree with those
who ascribe to eis nearly the same force in the phrase ' baptize into
the name/ but understand it there to be used in the sense of 'in
reference to/ 'in relation to.'"
Professor Flagg, of Cornell University, New York, says :
"In answer to your inquiry about the force of the preposition
eis, in the passage of the New Testament to which you refer (Acts
ii. 38), I should say that it denoted intention or purpose, 'with a
view to/ much as if it had been written, 'so as to obtain remission
of sins.' I speak, however, wholly from the standpoint of classic
Greek, not being familiar with the changes introduced by the Hel-
lenistic. As to any theological bearings that the subject may have
I am wholly indifferent."
Professor Proctor, of Dartmouth College, New Hampshire, says :
"Tour letter was delayed sometime by misdirection, and, being
very closely occupied when it came, I delayed replying to it, and
then for sometime it was mislaid and forgotten. I could wish my
answer might be better worth waiting for. It is my opinion that
eis is to be connected with both the predicates, and that it denotes
an object or end in view. I am inclined to think that the phra e
J. A. HARDINQ'S THIRD SPEECH. 305
'in the name of Jesus Christ/ though grammatically limiting only
baptistheeti, does in thought modify the connection of eis, the ideas
standing logically in the following order, viz. : Having been shown
your ill-behavior against the Messiah, put faith (in the name of)
Christ; on the basis of that faith, repent and (confess) be baptized,
and then be forgiven eis connecting apkesis, not with the two
predicates separately, but with the whole preceding part of the
sentence. I have first and last given a good deal of attention to
this point, but cannot yet speak more confidently than I have done
. above. If you enjoy this study as I do, I congratulate you most
cordially. I establish few doctrines as such, but the divine word
is more and more a source of sustenance and solace." .
Professor Harkness, Brown University, Providence, E. I., says :
"In my opinion eis in Acts ii. 38 denotes purpose, and may be
rendered in order to, or for the purpose of securing, or, as in our
English version, for. Eis apkesin hamartioon, suggests the motive
or object contemplated in the action of the two preceding verbs."
You have now, my friends, heard eight of the finest teachers of
Greek on this continent on this verse, and it is gratifying to see
how unanimous they are in then? translation and exegesis of it.
All agree that eis looks forward to the remission of sins as the end
or object to be attained by repenting and being baptized. Some
of these learned professors are members of different Churches,
one or two, perhaps, of no Church; at least two of them (Harkness
and Foster) are Baptists. I sum up their testimony thus:
Tyler says, " to the end that your sins may be forgiven."
Cameron says, "for remission of sins " .denotes "the end to which
repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ led."
Packard says remission of sins is an "object aimed at, or a
result attained by," repenting and being baptized.
Foster says, "the word here has the force of 'unto,' 'in order
to/ 'for the sake of/ indicating a result to be attained."
D'Ooge says eis here "expresses the relation of aim or end in
view," and that it should be " translated by 'unto/ 'in order to/
'for.'"
Flagg says, " so as to obtain remission of sins."
Proctor arranges the ideas in this order, viz., (1) faith, (2) repent-
ance, (3) confession, (4) baptism, and (5) the forgiveness of sins.
Harkness says eis "denotes purpose, and may be rendered in
order to, or for the purpose of securing."
20
306 SECOND PROPOSITION.
To Mm who is sufficiently learned and thoughtful to appreciate
the weight and authority of scholarship, these eight letters settle
the translation and force of eis in Acts ii. 38. But I have a few
other authorities that I want to present in this speech that are
equally as learned. I present them especially because they throw
light on some phases of the question as yet merely hinted at.
Mr. T. P. Davis, of Alexandria, Tenn., addressed letters of in-
quiry concerning this verse to the professors of Greek in the four
great seats of learning, Yale, Harvard, University of Virginia, and
Vanderbilt. He received the following replies:
Prof. T. D. Seymour, Tale College, said:
" Mr. T. P. Davis, Dear Sir Tour note of the 4th inst. is at hand.
I do not remember any passage in which eis could properly be
translated because of. I am not sure that I understand your second
question; as I understand it, I should say that eis is never retro-
spective, it always implies that the person or thing or act concerned
is turned toward the thing which follows eis. Tours very truly."
Prof. "W. W. Goodwin, Harvard University, said : '"rf*:
" T. P. Davis, My Dear Sir In reply to your first question I must
say that I cannot conceive of any expression in which eis would be
properly translated because of. To your second question I should
say that I do not see how eis can ever be 'retrospective,' but I
should like to see any passage in which you think it has this force.
If you do not find any authority for what you want in the standard
lexicons, you will probably not do so by looking elsewhere. Tours
very truly."
Prof. John H. Wheeler, University of Virginia, said:
"I think the true interpretation of the passage can be deter-
mined as well from the English as from the Greek New Testa-
ment. If there is any doubt about the meaning in the one lan-
guage, there is just as much doubt and just the same doubt in the
other. But it seems to me in either language the remission of
sins is something to which the one who is baptized is to look for-
ward he is to be baptized as a means of procuring that remission.
I assure you I shall always be glad to try to answer any similar
question whenever you think I can be of any service to you. I
remain very truly yours."
J. A. HAEDINa'S THIRD SPEECH. 307
Prof. Chas. F. Smith, Vanderbilt University, said :
"Mr. T. P. Davis, Dear Sir I do not doubt that eis in Acts
ii. 38 means unto and is prospective. It is barely possible that it
might be neither exactly prospective nor retrospective, i. e., mean
simply with regard to, meaning nothing as to its being already
accomplished, or to be accomplished. But I don't so understand
it. If any one were to try to make it mean what you call retro-
spective he would "be likely to start at it through this meaning
with regard to, which is not strictly retrospective. The retrospect-
ive idea would come in from the whole phrase. But, at any rate,
I don't understand it retrospectively. In all such questions I
doubt not that you would get more satisfactory information from
our professor of New Testament exegesis, Eev. Gross Alexander.
Very truly yours."
These letters I have given in full except two; I left off some
introductory matter from Professor Wheeler's and Professor
Smith's, but it in nowise modifies the sense of what is given.
The last four letters I have in manuscript.
And now with all who are competent to appreciate the value of
these learned testimonials another question is settled, viz., that
eis never means because of, and is never retrospective. Jacob
Ditzler, the noted Methodist debater, says: "Eis is always pros-
pective, and never retrospective The Baptists are all
wrong on eis making it retrospective 'in consequence of.'"
(The Louisville Debate, page 307.)
"But," some one doubtless is ready to ask, "what about the
saying of John, 'I indeed baptize you with water eis (unto) repent-
ance, 7 to which Brother Moody has repeatedly referred? Is not
eis retrospective here? Did they not repent before they were bap-
tized?" To this I reply: Dr. J. A. Broadus, commenting on this
passage, says, "The most natural way to understand this preposi-
tion (with its case), in Greek as in English, would be 'in order that
you may repent.' " He then refers to other interpretations, but
then returns to this one as his choice, and paraphrases it thus: "I
baptize you in order that you may really repent." (Broadus on
Matthew, pp. 49, 50.)
Thayer,in his great lexicon, art. "Baplizo," explains "eis repent-
ance" as meaning "to bind one to repentance."
The word repentance may signify the act of repenting, or the
life of repentance. In this passage is is evidently used in the lat-
ter sense.
308 SECOND PEOPOSITION.
One other point I have time to call attention to before closing
this speech. It is always better to translate a single Greek word
by one word (rather than several) in English, if it can be done
without obscuring the meaning. Hence scholars generally are
inclined to prefer " unto" rather than "in order to" as a rendering
of eis in Acts ii. 38. I prefer it myself, so does Brother Moody.
Webster, Worcester, Johnson and other lexicographers do not
define "unto," but give it as an obsolete form of "to;" they refer
you to "to" for its meaning. But, according to Webster, the prep-
osition to primarily indicates approach and arrival. Like eis it
never means because of; and like eis also, after verbs of action or
motion, it is always prospective, never retrospective. But my
time has about expired. I thank you for your patience and
attention.
Time expired.
J. B. Moody's Third Reply.
Ladies and Gentlemen :
Mr. Harding seems proud of his likeness to the locusts. The
reason they did not hurt the vegetation and good men was because
God forbade them. These locusts came out of the black smoke
from the pit of the abyss, and the angel of the abyss was king
over them. This, with the peculiarities of their power, constitutes
a likeness that my friend may boast of if he likes.
To show what a dexterous dodger my opponent is, you remem-
ber I said he ran greedily after the errors of translations and
authors, but resists the Holy Spirit. How does he reply ? By quoting
the errors of translations, and resisting the Holy Spirit again.
What will you think when I tell you that Mr. Campbell and Mr.
Anderson, his own men, "Emphatic Diaglott" and Bible Union
leave off "the" before "law" where Mr. Harding puts it in, and the
Oxford translates rightly in the margin. Mr. Harding boasts of
his knowledge of Greek, the language used by the Holy Spirit.
Then he knows whether this article is in the Greek in places where
he puts it in. I charge him again with running greedily after
errors and resisting the Holy Spirit.
I reassert all I said about the article "the" before "law" and
"faith," and if Mr. Harding can't show that he follows the Holy
Spirit, then let him, as a dodger, show that he follows the errors of
translations. I challenge him to quote the passages containing
"energeo" in his next speech. His reply to me on that cannot be
exposed in language becoming a religious discussion. To call his
reply puerile is the sheerest flattery. Like the ostrich, he may
have thought he dodged by hiding his head, but the part containing
his power he left exposed.
My opponent has misrepresented me and Baptist authors until
it seems that he can't cease from it. Time and again, he" has
accused me of believing that we are baptized because of remission.
I begged him in my opening speech not to do this. I now accuse
him of wilfully perverting Dr. Broadus' meaning in his quotation
on " eis repentance."
310 SECOND PROPOSITION.
I have but one question here on Baptist authors. Mr. Harding,
do you quote these Baptist authors to prove your doctrine? If
not, what do you quote them for? Please answer. For a com-
plete refutation of all this, see my "Vindication," price five cents.
I will introduce some of it as I proceed. I could fill all my space
with quotations from scholars on my side. I could fill most of it
with his own scholars against his proposition. Pedobaptists can
quote ten to one on infant baptism and baptismal regeneration,
and say who is Harding that he should put himself against all
these? But that would not be proving their doctrine. My oppo-
nent can garble the words of authors, but he can't prove his doc-
trine. Let him try his hand at argument, and if he can't argue let
him scrap on.
Another example of his dodging : He set out with the assertion
that all blessings are conditional, and that God only blesses the
obedience of faith. When I proved in previous debates that nearly
all of G-od's greatest blessings, such as his Word, Spirit, Son, apos-
tles, ministers, gifts temporal, physical, social, national, intellec-
tual, spiritual, etc. were without either faith or obedience, he
then changes his phraseology to " the blessings of faith " always
requiring action. I then asked him if it must be the action of
obedience 5 the action of the one receiving the blessing, and action
of, or after, faith? and he sees his bombastic, boastful bubble is
burst, and he thinks to shy off. No, indeed, Mr. Dodger, you must
answer up or throw up.
' Now I take up my negative argument, which my opponent dare
not assail. Eealizing this, what is more natural than that he should
leave the argument and turn bis assaults on me. I engaged to
disprove his proposition; and while I devote myself to that, he is
at liberty to pursue any course he pleases. His doctrine is not
true, though I be a liar and an ignoramus.
38. If repentance and baptism are for, or in order to, the pardon
of past sins, then those contending for the doctrine can never be
saved from their post-baptism sins, since all efforts to establish
another post-baptism law of pardon have utterly failed.
39. If repentance and baptism are equally necessary to the par-
don of past sins, then the believing, convicted, penitent confessor
who died during the postponement of baptism by the will of man
was lost. But John i. 12, 13 says it is not of the will of man.
Hence baptism, to be performed or postponed by another, cannot
be joined to secure this result.
J. S. MOODY'S TSIED REPLY. 311
40. But if believers were told to repent, and penitents to be bap-
tized, then repentance and baptism are not joined to secure remis-
sion of sins, for this is promised to whosoever believeth. This
would bring the result before either repentance or baptism, which
prove the theory absurd.
41. If any moral qualifications, as repentance, faith, love are
essential, and the candidate should be without them, then his bap-
tism would render his salvation impossible. For as baptism with-
out repentance would fail him under the first law of pardon, so
repentance without baptism would fail him under the second, since
the second cannot avail in cases where the first failed ; and since in
this case repentance and baptism were not joined together under
either law, it follows the result was not obtained; and since ana-
baptism is refused-, his salvation is utterly impossible in their
hands.
42. But if remission is according to the riches of his grace, and
if of grace then no more of works, then baptism, -confessedly a
work of righteousness, cannot be joined, else grace is no more
grace.
43. If baptism must be joined to repentance and faith to secure
the remission of sins, then the Gospel dispensation is more griev-
ous than the former, for there he "saved all who put their trust in
him" (Ps. xxxvii. 40), and those "who believed were not put to
shame." But the one who dies under the postponement of bap-
tism by the will of another, or out of the reach of baptism, either
does not trust him, or, trusting, is not saved because baptism has
been grievously added.
44. But if Peter had wished to express remission of sins as the
design of repentance and baptism, then he would not probably
have used eis, but the usual Mna or hopos, the former of which
occurs about seven hundred times in the New Scriptures. In a
note on Matt, xviii. 6 Dr. John A. Broadus, in his great Commentary,
says: "Meyer's attempt to make hina here express purpose only
shows the impossibility of maintaining the ground that in the New
Testament it always has that sense." This proves that it generally
does, and intimates that some contend that it always does, which is
enough for my purpose. Purpose is expressed about twenty times
in the seventeenth chapter of John, and nearly as often in the
ninth chapter of 1 Corinthians, but not by eis in a single case.
There are other chapters where eis occurs several times, and pur-
pose expressed several times, but not by eis, but the usual hina,
312 SECOND PROPOSITION.
hopos or the infinitive, the classic usage. Then it would read
repent and "be baptized that your sins may be remitted; or, to
adopt the classical usage common also in the Scriptures, it would
read, repent and be baptized to have your sins remitted. This
would have obviated all difficulties and discussions. The follow-
ing scattered places will amply illustrate this :
"What shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?" Purpose or
design clearly stated, but not with the preposition eis.
"Ye will not come to me that ye might have life." Purpose or
design clearly stated, but not with the preposition eis.
"What must I do to be saved?" Purpose or design stated, but
not with the preposition eis.
"Turn them from darkness to light (etc.) that they might receive
forgiveness of sins." Purpose and design clearly stated, but not
with the preposition eis.
"These things I say unto you that ye might be saved." Purpose
or design clearly stated, but not with the preposition eis.
" Send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger." Purpose,
but no eis.
"Brought infants that he might touch them." Purpose, but
no eis.
"Put hands on Saul that he might receive sight." Purpose, but
no eis.
"Sent me that thou might receive sight and be filled with the
Holy Spirit." Purpose, but no eis.
"Prayed that they might receive the Holy Spirit." Purpose, but
no eis.
"I am come that thou mightest have life, and that more abun-
dantly." Purpose, but no eis.
Peter could have expressed design in Acts ii. 38 so there could
be no doubt or debate, but this he did not do. It can't be proved
that baptize eis ever expresses design.
45. If Peter joined baptism to faith and repentance in Acts ii.
38 to secure remission of sins, then he contradicts the Gospel he
preached to the Gentiles, for there he said, "To him give all the
prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in
him (epi, upon him) shall receive remission of sins," and "who-
soever" takes in all believers, and they must be believers before
baptism, and in many cases must go without it.
46. If baptism must be added to faith and repentance to get a
man into the name of Christ really, then all those Scriptures are
J. B. MOODT'S THIRD REPLY. 313
contradicted which ascribe entrance eis into his name by faith,
to wit: John i. 12, "Even to them that believe eis his name."
John iii. 18, "Condemned already because he hath not believed eis
the name of the only begotten Son of G-od." John ii. 23, "Many
believed eis his name when they saw the miracles which he did."
1 John v. 13, "These things have I written unto you that believe
eis the name of the Son of God, that ye may know that ye have
eternal life, even to you who believe eis the name of the Son
of God."
Here five times we enter into the name by faith, and only two
times are we said to be baptized eis his name; both of these are
true, we really believe eis his name and are declaratively baptized
eis his name. Hence any interpretation of the two places baptize
eis his name that makes null and void the five places of believe
eis his name is incorrect.
47. If baptism must be added to repentance and faith to get a
man really into Christ, then all those Scriptures are contradicted
which teach entrance into Christ by faith. The following are the
references: Matt, xviii. 6; Luke ix. 42; John iii. 15, 16, 18, 36; iv.
39; v. 24; vi. 27, 40, 47; vii. 5, 31, 38, 39, 48; viii. 30, 31; ix. 35,
36; x. 42; xi. 25, 26, 45, 48; xii. 11, 37, 42, 44, 46; xiv. 1, 12; xvi.
9; x vii. 20; Acts x. 43; xiv. 23; xix. 4; xx. 21; xxiv. 24; xxvi. 18;
Bom. x. 14; Gal. ii. 16; Phil. i. 29; 1 John v. 10, 11. Here are
forty-four cases of believe eis Christ, and there are -two cases of
baptize eis Christ, and shall the two destroy the forty-four? Such
an interpretation is manifestly absurd. Therefore I reject the gen-
tleman's proposition, which requires so unnatural and unreasona-
ble and unscriptural a thing.
48. If salvation includes remission of sins, as all admit, and
baptism must be joined to secure it, then all those Scriptures are
contradicted which predicate salvation of faith. Luke viii. 12,
"Lest they should believe and be saved." Nowhere is it said lest
they should be baptized and be saved. Luke vii. 50, "Thy faith
hath saved thee." Acts xvi. 31, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ
and thou shalt be saved." Rom. i. 16, "The Gospel is the power of
God unto salvation to every one that believeth." Rom. x. 9: "If
thou shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the
dead thou shalt be saved." 1 Cor. i. 21, "It pleased God .... to
save them that believed." Eph. ii. 8, "For by grace are ye saved
through faith." 1 Tim. i. 16, "Believe on hirn,m to life everlast-
ing." Heb. x. 39, "Believe eis saving of the soul." 1 Peter i. 5,
314 SECOND PROPOSITION.
" Through, faith eis salvation." It is nowhere said we are baptized
eis salvation, and if it did, any interpretation which would make it
nullify these other Scriptures would be false; and this my friend's
proposition does. Therefore I reject it.
49. If baptism as a single act of obedience must be joined to
repentance and faith to secure salvation, then all those Scriptures
are contradicted which enforce indiscriminating obedience to all
the commandments. John xiv. 15, " If ye love me keep my com-
mandments." Verse 21, "He that hath my commandments and
keepeth them, he it is that loveth me." Here the plural "com-
mandments" is used. Also, John xv. 10; 1 John ii. 3,4; iii. 22,
24; v. 2, 3; Eev. xii. 17; xiv. 12; xxii. 14. Mr. Brooks says (Brooks-
Fitch debate, page 141) when you know that you have obeyed the
commandment of the living God you have a good conscience.
(See like utterances pp. 142, 143.) And so my friend's people are
accustomed to speak of baptism as the one act of obedience
which makes void the above Scriptures, and hence is not true, for
indiscriminating obedience to all the commandments is the general
teaching of Scripture.
50. If Acts ii. 38 makes obedience in baptism a condition of
salvation, then those Scriptures are contradicted which make obe-
dience the fruit of salvation. "First make the tree good and the
fruit will be good." "He that doeth good is of G-od." "He that
doeth righteousness is righteous." " He that doeth righteousness
has been born of God," and "whosover is born of God doth not
commit sin," but "overcometh the world," "and that wicked one
toucheth him not." "He that believeth has been born of God,"
and " he that loveth has been born of God." Hence all good works
are fruits; therefore baptism, a good work, cannot be a condition
of salvation.
51. If Acts ii. 38 makes the "like blessings of salvation" the
reward of obedience to one particular command, then all those
Scriptures are contradicted which make the unlike blessings of
salvation the reward of obedience to all his commands. Matt. xvi.
27, "For the Son of man shall come, in the glory of his Father
with his angels, and then he shall reward every man according to
his works." If one's life abounds in good works, but has not been
baptized, the Lord could not fulfill this promise of rewarding every
man according to his works. 2 Peter i. 8, "For if these things be
in you and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren
nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ." " These
J. .B. MOODY'S THIRD REPLY. 315
things" do not refer to baptism, and they abound in many who
have never been baptized. But my friend's proposition makes-
them all barren and unfruitful, and thus contradicts God's Word.
Good works are profitable unto men, says the apostle, and every
man shall be re warded' according to his own labor ; but my friend's
proposition contradicts these in cases where there is no baptism,,
hence the proposition is untrue.
52. If justification includes remission of sins, as all admit, and
baptism is necessary to the one, it is also necessary to the other ;
but baptism in order to justification contradicts all those Scriptures-
which predicate justification of faith. Acts xiii. 39, "By him all
that believe are justified." See Eom. iii. 20-31; iv. 1-25,- v. 1; ix..
30-33; Eom. x. 1-10; Gal. ii. 16-21; chapters iii. and iv. ; chapter
v. 1-5, and many other places, in all of which justification is predi-
cated of faith without works, and without obedience to law, none
of which can be harmonized with my friend's proposition. Hence
the proposition is not true.
53. If Acts ii. 38 puts the equivalents of salvation beyond bap-
tism, then all those Scriptures are contradicted which join them to
repentance. Acts xviii. 11, "Eepent eis life." Acts xx. 21, " Eepent
eis God." 2 Cor. vii. 10, "Eepent eis salvation." 2 Tim. ii. 25.
"Eepent eis the acknowledging of the truth." Put baptism in the
place of repentance in the above passages, and my friend would
seize on them with avidity. But he has a doctrine which contra-
dicts them all, because it transfers these blessings from repentance
to baptism.
54. If Acts ii. 38 puts salvation and its equivalents beyond bap-
tism, then those Scriptures are contradicted which predicate them
of confession, which is before baptism. Eom. x. 10, "With the
mouth confession is made eis salvation." Eom. ix. 10, "If thou
shalt confess with the mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in
thine heart that God has raised him from the dead thou shalt be
saved." My friend claims both faith and confession for his candi-
date for baptism, but denies him the promise. 1 John i. 9, "If we
confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins."
This has been done by millions of the unbaptized, but my friend's
proposition denies them the blessing. Hence it contradicts God's
Word, and is not true. 1 John iv. 15, "Whosoever shall confess
that Jesus is the Son of God God dwelleth in him, and he in God.""
This is true of every proper subject for baptism, hence is true-
before baptism; hence my friend's proposition is not true.
316 SECOND PROPOSITION.
55. If Acts ii. 38 puts salvation and its equivalents beyond bap-
tism, then those Scriptures are contradicted which, ascribe them to
the effectual call of God. In 1 Cor. i. 9 we are said to be " called
els the fellowship of his Son." Gal. i. 6, "Called eis the grace of
Christ." 2 Thess. ii. 14, "Whereunto (eis into which salvation) he
called you by our Gospel eis to the obtaining of the glory of our
Lord Jesus Christ." 1 Tim. vi. 12, " Lay hold on eternal life where-
unto (eis) thou wast called." 1 Peter ii. 9, "Called you out of
darkness eis into his marvelous light." 1 Peter v. 10, "Who hath
called us (eis) unto his eternal glory." In Rom. viii. 30 we see this
call is before justification, hence it is before baptism, and these
Scriptures predicate these blessings of something that conies
before baptism, and rny friend's proposition contradicts them all.
Hence his proposition is not true; and Paul's challenge, "If God
be for us, who can be against us?" is an empty boast. For the man
who may oppose or postpone my baptism, could be so against us
as to render this call of God uneffectual.
56. If Acts ii. 38 puts salvation and its equivalents beyond bap-
tism, then those Scriptures are contradicted which ascribe them to
the ordaining purpose of God. Acts xiii. 48, "As many as were
ordained eis eternal life believed." Here eternal life is predicated
of a divine purpose and power, and faith the result, which is fatal
to my friend's proposition, which maintains that eternal life comes
only to the baptized, without the predisposing of any divine ordain-
ing power. Born. ix. 23, "The vessels of mercy which he had
afore prepared eis glory, even us, whom he hath called, not of the
Jews only, but also of the Gentiles." 1 Tim. i. 9, "Who hath saved
us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works,
but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us
in Christ Jesus before the world began." Titus i. 2, "In hope of
eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world
began." These Scriptures are utterly irreconcilable with my friend's
proposition; hence his proposition is not true.
57. If Acts ii. 38 puts salvation and its equivalents beyond bap-
tism, then those Scriptures are contradicted which ascribe them to
election. John xv. 16, "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen
you and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and
that your fruit should remain." Acts ix. 15, "He is a chosen ves-
sel eis 'unto' me." This was before his baptism. Rom. xi. 9,
"That the purpose of God according to election might stand, not
of works, but of him that calleth." This Scripture, revised to suit
J. B. NODDY'S THIRD EEPLY. 317
my friend, would read, "That the purpose of man according to
baptism might stand, not of him that calleth, but of works." This,.^
like my friend's proposition, would be the reverse of Scripture
teaching. Eom. xi. 5, "Even at this present time there is a rem-
nant according to the election of grace," and if of grace, then no
more of works, else grace is no more grace. What then? "Israel
hath not obtained that which he seeketh for, but the election hath
obtained it, and the rest were blinded." Eph. i. 4, "According as
he hath chosen us eis in him before the foundation of the world."
2 Thess. ii. 14, "We are bound to give thanks always to God for
you, brethren, beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the
beginning chosen you eis salvation through sanctification of the
Spirit and belief of the truth." These Scriptures are as unfa-
vorable to my friend's proposition as his proposition is to the
Scriptures.
58. If predestination to salvation is based on good works foreseen
in us, and baptism is one of these works, then none are predesti-
nated but those who are baptized for the pardon of past sins.
But this would contradict those Scriptures which join predestina-
tion to the sovereign choice of God. Eph. i. 5, "Having predesti-
nated us eis into the adoption of sons by Jesus Christ eis into
himself, according to the good pleasure of his will." Verse 11, "In
whom we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestinated
according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the
counsel of his own will." Eom. viii. 29, "For whom he did fore-
know he also did predestinate to be conformed eis into the image
of his son." These and other like Scriptures are as hostile to my
friend's doctrine as united omnipotence and omniscience can make
it. Hence his proposition is tremendously untrue.
59. If Acts ii. 38 makes baptism a condition of salvation, then
all those Scriptures are contradicted which predicate the blessings
of salvation to grace. This divine side of salvation is needful for
us to know, or it would not have been revealed. John x. 16, "I
lay down my life for the sheep j and other sheep I have which 'are
not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my
voice." Verse 26, "But ye believed not because ye are not of my
sheep, as I said unto you, my sheep hear my voice, and I know
them, and they follow me,, and I give unto them eternal life, and
they shall never perish, neither shall any one pluck them out of
my hands. - My Father who gave them me is greater than all, and
no one is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and my
.318 SECOND PROPOSITION.
Father are one." That is, one in grace, one in purpose, and one
in power. John vi. 37, "All that the Father giveth me shall
conie to me, and him that cometh to me I will in nowise east
out." John xvii. 2, "Thou has given him power over all flesh
that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given
him." Verse 6, "I have manifested thy name unto the men
which thou gavest me out of the world; thine they were, and thou
.gavest them me, and they have kept thy word." Eph. xi. 8, "For
by grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it
is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast; for
we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works,
which God hath before ordained, that we should walk in them."
Eoin. v. 8-10; 2 Cor. v. 18-20; Gal. i. 4; Eph. xi. 21', 22; Col. i.
12-14; Titus ii. 14; iii. 5-7; Heb. ix. 12, 28; x. 10-18; 1 John iv.
10; Eom. v. 19-21 are some of the many Scriptures which make sal-
vation wholly of grace, and "if of grace, then no more of works,"
which is equivalent to saying, not at all of baptism. Hence my
friend's proposition is untrue.
60. If Acts ii. 38 gives baptism the importance claimed for it,
then baptism would have been made the dividing line between the
saint and the sinner, and would have constituted the great test of
character; whereas the precedent, internal qualifications, repent-
ance, faith, love, etc., are uniformly referred to as tests, and bap-
tism never. See all the preceding Scriptures quoted, and espe-
cially the first general epistle of John, which make the internal
qualifications the test, and external obedience the marks, and
baptism never particularly referred to. Hence my friend's propo-
sition, which does this, is unscriptural.
61. If the belief of this proposition is faith, and in doing what
is supposed to be commanded in Acts ii. 38 entitles one to the
supposed promise, then the belief of any other Scripture is faith,
and in doing what, is supposed to be required by it entitles one
also to the promise. Acts x. 43, "Whosoever belie veth in him
shall receive remission of sin." Here believing in him is the sup-
posed condition, and doing that which must be done before bap-
tism entitles one to the promise. So also Eom. iv. 24 and Eom. x.
9. Here faith and confession are the supposed conditions, which,
having been performed, as they must be before baptism, entitles
one to the things promised. Hence the proposition which limits
these to baptism is cruelly untrue.
62. Christ said, "By their fruits ye shall know them." The
J. B. MOODT'S THIRD REPLY. 319
unmistakable godly lives of thousands of the unbaptized is God's
perpetual witness that he still purifies the heart by faith ; and the
Mtter vindictiveness of my opponent, and those holding his doc-
Mne, including the Mormons and the Catholics, is a perpetual,
occular demonstration that the doctrine is not the Gospel of
Christ; and in the utter absence of argument, and in the face of
all his garbled extracts, I impeach it, and denounce it as debasing,
demoralizing and destructive; and I hereby warn and charge my
hearers to avoid it as they would the pit from whence it came.
Time expired.
J. A. Harding's Fourth Speech.
Dear Friends :
Another day lias passed, and we are again assembled to continue
this discussion. I am glad to see the great crowd, and the una-
bated interest, and I pray God that much good may result from
our work, nor do I in the least doubt but that it will.
I am repeatedly asked how we expect to report and publish this
debate when we have no stenographers engaged to take it down
as we speak it. I reply that Brother Moody and I have had three
debates before this one 5 in two of them our questions on baptism
were expressed just as they are now j our last debate was steno-
graphically reported, and we now have that report to guide us in
writing up this debate ; and, finally, the speeches will be prepared
for the printer in the same order in which they are here delivered ;
that is, Brother Moody will prepare his first speech and deliver it
to me, I will then write up my reply and send it to him; and so
on to the end, each having his opponent's speech before him when
he replies to it, and each seeing all that goes to the printer before
it is put in type. We have agreed that in reporting our speeches
our maximum shall be nine thousand words to the hour, and that
no reply shall contain more words than the affirmative address
which it follows. Within this limit the debaters are permitted to
add to, take from, or change their speeches as delivered here, the
object being to make as strong a book as possible, rather than to
reproduce word for word what is spoken here. This is a perfectly
fair and impartial arrangement, as each of us will have the oppor-
tunity of seeing and replying to whatever his opponent may say,
just as we have in speaking here. So, if Brother Moody chooses
to leave out the Norton letter, from which he and I read so freely
during the first week of the debate, he can do it. Of course he
won't put his blunderings in reading that letter into the written
report, but I will have other opportunities to show up his sophis-
tries, which I will be sure to use. Hence you need not be sur-
prised in finding what appear to be anachronisms in the published
debate, as testimony may appear in the book of later date than
the oral discussion.
J. A, HARDING' S FOURTH SPEECH. 321
Brother Moody still charges that I resist the Holy Spirit when I
quote the Revised Version at Rom. iii. 28 and James ii. 26. The
Bible Union, Anderson, Common Version and others, as well as the
Revised Version, omit the article before faith (James ii. 26), yet I
resist the Holy Spirit when I so read it! If Brother Moody knows^
any thing of Greek he knows that in hundreds of cases the article
is omitted in the translation where it occurs in the original. Does
he resist the Holy Spirit whenever he quotes such a passage?
For instance, Brother Moody quotes, "He that doeth righteous-
ness is righteous." (1 John iii. 7.) The article stands "before
"righteousness" in the Greek. Did he resist the Holy Ghost when
he quoted the Common Version, which omits it? Certainly not;
neither did I when I did the same thing. It is also the fact that
where the article is not in the Greek, in order to bring out the
sense, the English idiom often demands that it shall appear. The
revisers are among the ripest scholars of the world, and I feel
pretty safe when they and the other leading translators agree
with me.
The gentleman accuses me of misrepresenting Broadus. I did
not. Let him specify wherein, and I will show that I did not.
He wants to know what I quote Baptist authors for. For various
purposes, generally to overturn some of his foolishness. That is
what I quoted Broadus for. He accuses me of garbling the words
of authors ; but Tie did not say a word about my proposition to Mm
to meet him before any impartial tribunal to show that he had wil-
fully suppressed a part of what his opponent said, in order to make
it appear to his readers that his opponent had falsified. Well, as he
won't meet me before a proper tribunal, I will give you the proof
here. When a man falsely charges me with being false I will
sureiy impeach him as a witness, and if I show that he is utterly
unreliable, of course his testimony falls to the ground. Consider
fairly the following quotations, and if you can then believe that J.
B. Moody is honest, I sincerely believe that you are not accounta-
ble for your faith.
David Lipscomb, in The Gospel Advocate, July 17, 1889, page 454,
said:
" On the first night of Harding's meeting in Edgefield three men
made confession; two of them had attended the debate; one told
him he had heard the debate and could resist no longer,"
In the next issue of the same periodical, July 24, page 467,
David Lipscomb said:
21
322 SECOND PROPOSITION.
" We learn four or five Baptists have united with the disciples iu
Northeast Nashville at Harding's meeting since the debate. We
do not claim they were converted by the debate, nor do we know
any of them attended the debate."
(Remember "Edgefield" and "Northeast Nashville" are two
names for the same place.)
Now here is the way J. B. Moody disposed of these quotations
in his paper, The Baptist, August 3, 1889, page 8:
" : 0n the first night of Harding's meeting in Edgefield three men
made confession; two of them had attended the debate; one told
him he had heard the debate and could resist no longer. 7 (D. L.,
July 17.)"
"'We learn four or five have united with the disciples in North-
east Nashville at Hardiug's meeting since the debate. We do not
claim they were converted by the debate, nor do we know any of
them attended the debate. 7 (D. L., July 24.)"
And then Moody adds:
" Comment is unnecessary, except to say that not only will their
different statements not agree together, but no one of them will
agree with the facts. Look out for some revelation on this that
will startle the people who love veracity. 7 '
What do you think of that, my friends? Brother Moody delib-
erately left out the word "Baptists" from the second quotation,
thereby making the quotations contradictory, making it appear
that Lipscomb was a liar. He did this while preparing editorial
matter for his paper, and with the documents before him ; hence
his crime was wilful and malicious. Sure enough, a revelation has
come to startle the people who love veracity ! I solemnly ask my
Baptist brethren, do you intend to support a man as a preacher
and an editor who will do like that? All of you, I am sure, will
not, and any who do will be just as bad as he is. I am sure, if
such a case could be made out against me, I would be ruined
among my brethren, and my moderator here would publish me to
the world as a wilful liar. At the time that Brother Lipscomb
published the second extract quoted from him our meeting had
been iu progress about four weeks, and there had been forty-five
additions in all. And a report to this effect appeared in the same
paper from which Moody quoted him as saying that four or five
had been added. How much better it is to be a true man ! How
hard is the way of the transgressor!
And now I will turn my attention, for a few moments, to the
J. A. HARDING' S FOURTH SPEECH. 323
gentleman's objections, though, in so far as those who have heard
all the preceding debate are concerned, I think not one word in
reply to them is necessary.
He claims that faith really takes us into Christ, into his name,
because we are said to believe "eis Christ," "eis his name;" then
he claims if baptism precedes entrance into Christ these passages
are contradicted.
Again, he says, as the Scriptures represent us as repenting " eis
life," "eis salvation," "eis God," if baptism precedes entrance into
life, into salvation, into God, these passages are contradicted.
Again, he claims that as we confess "eis salvation" (Eom. x. 10),
if baptism precedes salvation this passage is contradicted. And
so he argues concerning predestination, election, the call of God,
the purpose of God, and the grace of God; all these are eis salva-
tion; they are before, and in order to, salvation; hence he con-
cludes baptism cannot be before, and in order to, salvation.
Strange conclusion, indeed! If faith eis Christ puts faith before,
and in order to, entrance into Christ; if repentance eis life puts
repentance before, and in order to, entrance into life; if confession
eis salvation puts confession before, and in order to, entrance into
salvation; if all these can be before, and in order to, remission,
without any contradiction, why cannot baptism also be before, and
in order to, remission without any contradiction? If eis indicates
position before, and means in order to when it connects faith, re-
pentance, confession, predestination, election, grace, and so on,
with remission, how can it indicate position after, and mean
because of, in consequence of, or any such thing, when it connects
baptism with remission? The fact is, the gentleman has a kind of
moral and religious hydrophobia. He runs mad at the thought of
water.
Those who read this debate can turn back and re-read the
authorities presented in my last speech, and in my first reply on
the first proposition, and see clearly that every one of his sixty-
two objections are overturned by the testimony of the finest schol-
arship that can be presented from his side of the question. The
leading Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians and
others express themselves in words that clearly set forth what my
brethren believe, in words that are radically opposed to what he
believes. But, says he, " Pedobaptists can quote ten to one on
infant baptism and baptismal regeneration, and say, who is Hard-
ing, faiat he should put himself against all these?" Very true;
324 SECOND PROPOSITION.
pedobaptists can quote many authorities on these points, but they
cannot quote from those on my side of the question. I quote from
those who are in sentiment on the other side of the question, but
who are compelled by their candor and learning to use words in
translating and interpreting that clearly sustain onr position. If
. all the quotations introduced by my opponent into this debate were
culled, and those were cast out that came from men on his
side of the question, not one would be left that favors his inter-
pretation of Acts ii. 38, or his position on justification by faith.
Let him bring up one just one if he can. No wonder lie rails at
the authorities.
The gentleman intimates (objection 41) if a man were immersed
by us without proper faith and repentance, we would refuse to
re-immerse him at his request. Here again he is incorrect, as he
almost always is when he pretends to tell what we believe and
practice.
In his fifty-first objection he intimates that we understand Acts
ii. 38 to make "the like blessings of salvation the reward of obe-
dience to one particular command." Nothing could be more
exactly the reverse of the truth, as he knows as well as any of us.
"By their fruits ye shall know them," he quotes. Exactly; and
by this time surely you all know him. If he was ever in grace he
is a living example of the possibility of falling from it. When
people hear the word of the Lord, believe it and obey it, we know
they are his children. We know them by their fruits. But when
people persistently refuse to obey any of the plain commandments
of Jesus, I doubt the sincerity of their love. For the Master says:
" If a man love me, he will keep my words." And when a man
continually .misrepresents, and bears false witness against his
neighbor, I know where he belongs.
And now I will devote the remainder of my time to presenting
an additional argument. The deliverance of the Israelites from
Egyptian bondage is a striking illustration of our deliverance from
sin. I believe there is not a more perfect type to be found in the
Old Testament. Notice the parallelisms:
1. They were in bondage in Egypt; we are in bondage in sin.
2. God sent Moses, their brother, to save them,- now he has
sent Christ, our brother, to save us.
3. Moses did mighty works before all the people; Christ did
mighty works before the people that they might believe.
4. The people followed Moses through three days' journey (from
J. A. HARDING' S FOURTH SPEECH. 325
Kamesis to Succoth, from Succoth to Etham, and from Etham to
Pihahiroth) before coming to the KecTSea, where their baptism
occurred; so we follow Christ through the three steps of faith,
repentance and confession to the waters of baptism.
5. They, following their leader, Moses, went down under the
cloud into the sea, and were baptized unto Moses in the cloud and
iu the sea; so we, following our leader, Christ, go down into the
water of baptism, and are baptized into Christ.
6. They came up out of the sea, leaving their enemies (Pharaoh
and his hosts) overwhelmed in the depths of the sea freed from
them ; so we come up out of the water of baptism, leaving our
enemies (our sins) behind us, being freed from them. We are
made free from sin when we "have obeyed from the heart that
form of doctrine" which was delivered us.
7. Then Moses and the Israelites sang their song of deliverance ;
so we, after baptism, go on our way rejoicing. (See the case of
the eunuch, Acts viii. 39; of the jailer, Acts xvi. 33, 34; of Paul,
Acts ix. 19.)
8. In the wilderness they ate of the manna and drank of the
smitten rock, as we in the Church eat and drink of the body and
blood of Christ.
9. Those of the Israelites who were faithful to the end finally
passed over Jordan into Caanan, the promised land; those of us
who hold out faithful to the end will finally pass over the Jordon
of death into the celestial Caauan, the paradise of Grod.
10. As they had that strange pillar (of cloud by day and of fire
by night) to guide them from the very moment that they started,
so we have the Bible to guide us even unto the river of death.
What could be plainer or more beautiful ! Bead the fourteenth
chapter of Exodus and 1 Cor. x. 1-5 for a full account of the mat-
ter. You see, although the Israelites had learned to despise their
enemies, had accepted Moses as the leader sent from God to
deliver them, and had followed him through three encampments,
their enemies were not completely blotted out till their baptism;
and just so it is of our sins.
Time expired.
J. B. Moody's Fourth Reply.
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The liberty Mr. Harding assumes in changing the oral debate is
largely assumed. 01 the Pikeville debate he furnished me one
speech during the first ten months. I could not get a second out
of him. I tried to get him to let the speeches prepared go to the
press. But no, he must try again, and when he comes to write,
not satisfied with the Nashville debate, he takes the liberty "to
add to, take from and change " to suit him again. I had an expert
reporter taking him down, and he did not know it; and I may
show how nearly (?) he is furnishing for this book the oral debate.
In writing debates Mr. Harding is a law unto himself. As a Chris-
tian gentleman, he pledged himself to observe the rules of debate
found in "Hedge's Logic," and these rules forbid these personal
assaults on my character. But what does he care for his obliga-
tions? I accidentally omitted a sentence in reading Norton's let-
ter, and explained at the time how it occurred, in a way that
would have satisfied any gentleman on earth. How many times
has he accused me of wilful and deliberate skipping, and that
four times, and he holding the paper behind me. Mr. Lipscomb
said, "Eatcliff could not intentionally misread, because Hall was
reading after him." Mr. Harding knows that I did not skip but
one sentence, and he knows that I did not do it intentionally. A
defeated debater will assault the character of his opponent, unless,
indeed, he be a Christian gentleman. Again, he finds a recent
quotation with a word left out, and he says that was wilful and
malicious. How does he know? I say now that when I find the
papers and investigate the case, if it is as he represents, then I
owe Mr. Lipscomb an apology, and he shall have it, most fully and
cordially. That is a trick that even Mr. Harding would not
attempt. Ah, my friends, this is the dust he is trying to kick up
so he can escape from the impeachments piled against him.
His misrepresentation of authors and misstatement of facts
can't be hidden by any dust and smoke he can raise. That ninety
per cent, for instance, that left the Baptists to join his Society at
J. B. MOODY' S FOURTH REPLY. 327
Watertown. According to his own figures, that would make 639.
This he at last reduced to twenty-one, and only three of these left
my Eound Lick Church to join his Watertown Society, and not one
as a result of the debate. One was pledged to his sweetheart to
join before the debate came off. Another was an old demented
man that I never saw or heard of till I heard that your brother,
Baker, his physician, scared him into the belief that he would be
lost unless he brought along two or three more and "shake him"
into the kingdom of Alexander Campbell} and administer the bread
and wine. The other case, I hear, is also of a serious character.
Now refer to Mr. Harding's seventh reply, and read his introductory
paragraph to Dr. Baker's letter. Mr. Harding is setting forth the
number gotten as a result of the debate. The result is twenty-one.
"Nearly all are additions that have been made since the IVIoody-
Lipscomb debate. Thirty came in within a few months after the
debate." See how adroitly those sentences are connected. The
impression made is utterly and entirely false. I have the names
of those thirty, and nearly all of them were the children of your
families, coaxed, if not coerced, in order to make a show of the
"fruits of debates." Does the gentleman propose to compare
accessions with my Church? Does he propose to compare pros-
perity since the debate? What a laughing-stock he will make of
himself and his informant in that region ! You see how the oft-
asserted figures have come down, down, down! I have the names
of all the apostate members from McCrory's Creek Church. It is a
shame to compare them with his statement; and so of all his
statements.
I protested in my opening speech that I did not believe bap-
tism was because of remission. Also that a man is not saved by
faith only. Yet in nearly every speech he charges it on me, and
then poses himself as sanctified innocence. Think of all his pro-
fessed gentleness and courtesy in the face of his uuvariable and
uncontrollable temper. He has not yet written that part of his
speech where, with the utmost vociferation and choler, he threat-
ened before a Nashville audience to "knife me;" and when his
moderator threatened to leave him, he pretended to mean the
"Sword of the Spirit." It is believed that he would relish the
deed, and could at the same time call me "brother," and sing,
"Blest be the tie that binds." At Pikeville he insinuated against
my character until I forced him to divulge, to which I replied not
a word; yet it was with great difficulty I could restrain the out-
328 SECOND PROPOSITION.
siders from doing Mm violence. The gentleman don't know to this
day how I plead for him in private when it was agreed to show
him the public indignation. I begged the reporter for the secular
press to spare him. He came to me for facts, and I gave him Mr.
Harding's published abuse of me, but not a word did I utter,
except to allay the storm. Mr. Harding and his allies are bent on
the destruction of my character, and for the sake of distant
readers of the book I will make a few extracts here, and then I
will push on the argument.
In the White Mills debate and after, so persistent were they in
their efforts to injure me that the Methodists, Presbyterians,
Catholics and outsiders kindly furnished me with the following
testimonial :
"Whereas, we see a determined effort on the part of Mr. Hard-
ing and some of his friends to assail and injure the character of
his opponent in the recent debate at White Mills; and, whereas,
they seem to threaten the continuance of this course through Mr.
Harding's paper and otherwise; and, whereas, we were in attend-
ance, and were eye-witnesses to the course and conduct of both
disputants, it affords us much pleasure to do our duty in defend-
ing the assailed character of Mr. Moody. We hereby give our
testimony to his gentlemanly deportment during the debate. We
think he excelled his opponent in argument and deportment."
The Methodist pastor added this extra to his signature: "I
think Mr. Moody acted the perfect gentleman." Then follow the
other names, designated as above classed.
At the Pikeville debate it was no better, but rather worse than
ever. The secular press took the matter in hand and severely
criticised Mr. Harding's conduct, and strongly commended mine.
The following is from the Pikeville News :
"Elder Moody conducted himself on the stage in a cool, delib-
erate manner, while his opponent showed some signs of heated
passion. At some times, we are sorry to say, he indulged in per-
sonal allusions and slurs, to which Elder Moody seldom made a
reply."
The following extracts are from the Chattanooga Republican :
" The addresses of Elder Moody were of a refined, dignified and
high-toned order, while his opponent spoke with some evidence of
heat.
"At times Mr. Moody was, to a certain extent, harrassed, but
at such times, we must say, he conducted himself as a Christian
J. B. MOODT'S FOURTH REPLY. 329
gentleman. We exceedingly regret our inability to say the same
for Mr. Harding, who indulged his temper in low personal flings at
his distinguished opponent; but instead of furthering his cause,
this state of things served to prejudice the disinterested people
.against him.
"His greatest drawback is his ungovernable temper. The con-
duct of Elder Moody throughout the great heat of discussion was
exceedingly gentlemanly and dignified, and when he leaves our
valley he will carry with him golden encomiums from the great
mass of the people.
" The debate closed Wednesday evening, and we but voice the
sentiment of the people when we say that Elder Harding was very
badly used up in the discussion.
" One incident occurred Tuesday evening after debate had closed
for the day which completed the unpopularity of Mr. Harding in
this community. A dispute arose concerning the articles of agree-
ment, during which Mr. Harding endeavored to prove Mr. Moody
guilty of wilfully lying, but, as is usually the case in such bouts,
Mr. Moody was known to have told only the truth. Hence the
Methodists and other disinterested parties voiced their feelings by
hissing and jeering at Mr. Harding until he finally left the grounds
in great anger. Mr. Moody's conduct at this juncture was mag-
nanimous in the extreme, and is highly appreciated by all disinter-
ested people."
On the "mum question" I will state that in the White Mills
debate Mr. Harding said that John never refused to baptize any
one but Christ, and that was because he had no sins to wash away.
He "thundered on it." When I gave him Luke iii. 7-9 his feathers
fell. I "thundered" on it, and rubbed it in, there and at Pikeville
and Nashville, but he is mum to this day. Mr. Harding, will you
repeat it, or take it back? That is a matter belonging to the
debate, and not a personality.
Another matter: When I translate repent eis unto life, believe
eis into Christ, confess eis unto salvation, etc., I only mean to fight
the gentleman with his own fire. He dare not translate eis uni-
formly in these places, or uniformly after "baptize." He must
change it to suit his plea, or he is undone. With reference to is the
more general meaning of eis, and that is the idea in all these
places. Predestined with reference to adoption, elected with ref-
erence to salvation, believe with reference to salvation, confess
with reference to salvation, baptize with reference to Christ, to
330 SECOND PROPOSITION.
remission, to repentance, name, death of Christ, one body, Moses,,
etc. This may be prospective or retrospective. With reference
to remission Christ shed his blood, looking back to the sins of past
ages, as well as forward. See especially Isa. liii. 4-12 ; Eom. in.
23-26; Heb. ix. 12-15. Baptize eis repentance, eis John baptism,
eis death, eis death of Christ, eis one body, are surely instances of
retrospection. Dr. Broadus gives Matt. xii. 41 and other of the
somewhat frequent cases of the same use. Mr. Harding's asser-
tions constitute his shame. A man. need not go to college a single
day to know better than Mr. Harding's assertions.
But, in regard to Dr. Norton, our English correspondent, I have
been 'waiting to hear from him, and, having received a letter too
long for insertion here, I give the following extract, directly to the
point:
" I am strongly opposed to what I understand to have been the
distinctive views of Alexander Campbell, both as to his prerequi-
sites to baptism and what takes place in baptism. I have his New
Testament as reprinted in London in 1838 from the fourth Ameri-
can edition. In an appendix he defines some ' apostolic words.'
He there says of faith: 'The simple definition of this term is the
assurance or conviction that testimony is true ; when any one regards
the promise of another person as true and certain he believes on
him or in him.' This definition makes faith to be nothing more
than the belief of a creed This belief of fact to be fact,
and truth to be truth, is nothing more than a natural act of right-
reason. It is an act of the head only, not of the heart. It is the
mere act of a sane mind. This definition denies that to be saved
a person must be created or be gotten anew by the mighty power
of God ; that the heart must trust in God, and love God ; that the
life must be one of holiness and obedience; that saving repentance
and saving faith are God's own gifts. (Acts v. 31; xi. 18; Eph. ii.
8.) It makes salvation to be a mere matter of logic, instead of
the new creation of the soul by God. Alexander Campbell says in
the appendix named that 'to give repentance is to afford scope
for it, to make a proclamation offering inducements to it.' I affirm
that this definition of saving faith is a deadly error; that it sub-
stitutes the natural saneness of the mind or reason for an entirely
new nature created by God, and that those who require no more
than the natural saneness as prerequisite to baptism and salvation
deceive men to their ruin, by assuring them that they are the chil-
dren of God when they are children of the wicked one, and are
J. B. MOODY' S FOURTH REPLY. 331
heirs of heaven when they are still heirs of hell. The baptism of
which I speak is the act of one who has already been created by
God's regenerating power. It is a baptism totally unlike that of
Alexander Campbell, which is administered on the mere 'convic-
tion that God's testimony is true.' I therefore am intensely opposed
to Campbellism as to ivhat is prerequisite to baptism.
" Second, as to what takes place in baptism I am equally opposed
to Alexander Campbell. He says of Titus iii. 5, in the appendix
named above: 'Regeneration, palingenesia, occurs in Titus iii. 5,.
the washing or bath of regeneration connected with the renewing
of the mind by the Holy Spirit.' He is not justified in saying that
palingenesia means here regeneration. To generate is to beget;
and it is said that when God begets men anew it is by means of
'his Word' (1 Peter i. 23), not by means of water. G-enesion denotes
in Matt. xiv. 6 Herod's birthday. Palingenesia is connected in
Titus iii. 5 with the bath, not -with the Word of G-od. So that
there are decisive reasons which show that its meaning is new
birth, not new begetting. By birth new life is not begun, but made
manifest; therefore what Paul says in Titus iii. 5 is, that God has
saved us by means of the bath of new birth and the renewing of
the Holy Spirit ; that is, by making manifest through baptism the
new life which the Holy Spirit had before created by means of God's
Word, and not, as Mr. Campbell says, by making baptism the bath
of regeneration; that is, the means of begetting new life connected
with the renewing of the mind by the Holy Spirit at the time of
baptism. To this- teaching, that new life is begotten "by means of
baptism, I am in the strongest possible degree opposed. It is in
my view as utterly false as the Eoman or Episcopalian doctrine of
baptismal regeneration If the Campbellites teach
the necessity of obedience to God's will, that is no peculiarity of
Campbellism; it is a part of the common faith of God's elect; and
what I have said in my letter to Mr. Spurgeon is nothing else than
that God has made obedience in baptism a thing of intense im-
portance by connecting it with the promise of salvation."
Time expired.
J. A. Harding' s Fifth Speech.
JLadies and Gentlemen:
Ahab, king of Israel, fought in battle with Ben-hadad, king of
Syria; the Lord delivered the Syrians into the hands of the Israel-
ites, and they slaughtered them with a great slaughter; an hun-
dred thousand Syrians fell in one day, and Ben-hadad was taken.
Then Ahab, instead of killing his enerny as the good of the Lord's
cause demanded, and his duty required, made a covenant with
him, and sent him away. Whereupon the prophet of the Lord
came into the presence of Ahab the king and said : "Thus saith the
Lord, Because thou hast let go out of thy hand a man whom. I
appointed to utter destruction, therefore thy life shall go for his
life, and thy people for his people." (1 Kings xx. 42.) What a
startling illustration of the fact that God sometimes requires his
servants to destroy utterly their enemies, and of his terrible ven-
geance when they fail to do it !
You remember also the case of Saul the king, whom God indig-
nantly rejected, and forever after refused to hear, because he failed
to destroy utterly Agag the king of Amalek with his people, herds,
and flocks. You remember how Samuel the prophet "hewed Agag
in pieces," and how Saul and his sons came to an untimely end.
(1 Samuel xv. 10-33.)
Now, my friends, God's servants are engaged in a warfare just
as fierce and terrible, the results of which are even more moment-
ous, but the weapons of our warfare are not carnal. We now use
a much sharper knife than Samuel used in killing Agag namely,
"the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God." Sometimes
we are required to use it to the utter destruction of those whom
we meet in battle; the interests of the Lord's cause and the salva-
tion of the people demand it. And, if I understand it, this is one
of those occasions. I believe it to be my duty to destroy utterly
my fallen brother, lest he should continue to mislead the people
to their everlasting destruction to destroy him as a teacher and
leader with that spiritual weapon, eternal truth. As to his bodily
welfare, I would do him no harm, but rather good all the days of his
earthly life.
J. A. HARDING'S FIFTH SPEECH. 333
Now we will notice his last speech. He wants to know how I
can tell that he wilfully and maliciously left out the word u Bap-
tist" from that quotation from Brother Lipscomb. I reply, anybody
that has common sense can tell it by simply reading the quota-
tions from Lipscomb with Moody's comments upon them. Let
those who read turn back to my last speech and see. Without
leaving out that word Moody would have had no reason for repub-
lishing Lipscomb's statements, there would have been no contra-
diction in them; but with that word omitted the statements were
contradictory, Lipscomb appeared to be a liar, and there was
ground for Moody's comments. Notice: in order to get those
statements into his paper Moody had first to read them in the
Gospel Advocate, then to form the purpose of reprinting them r
then to carefully copy them, giving the dates of the papers, write
his comments and send them to his printers. That he could have
done all this, overlooking the word "Baptist" every time, is abso-
lutely incredible; no man of sound mind can believe it. If, instead
of copying, he clipped those statements, he would have had to
carefully erase the word "Baptist;" for with that word there,
there would have been no ground for his comments. Then, when
his attention has been called to the matter time and again, both
through the papers and in private conversation, he comes up two
months and more after the commission of his crime saying, "When
I find the papers and investigate the case, if it is as he represents,
then I owe Mr. Lipscomb an apology." Pshaw ! That is not what
you owe.
In his sixth speech, (page 124 of this book) he says, "At the
time of that debate [the Brents-Moody debate] there wa$ no Bap-
tist Church at Alexandria. Now they have an organization and
one of the finest houses in that country."
At the time the gentleman made that statement the Baptists
had no church-house at Alexandria. There was one there in an
unfinished state (the work having been suspended for lack of
means), having neither doors, windows, floor, nor ceiling. There
had been a roof on it, but, several weeks before, half of that had
been blown off, and was still off. [See page 160.] Brother Moody
preaches once each month, I believe, in that region, at Watertown,
and he must have known that his statement was incorrect when
he made it. In any event, he ought not to have made it unless he
knew it was true. '
Of the Baptists who came to us at Watertown since the Moody-
334 SECOND PROPOSITION.
Lipscomb debate, lie says one was pledged beforehand to his sweet-
heart to come, another was a demented old man, and a third was
a "serious" case. Concerning -the first of these cases the gentle-
man referred to gives a very different account from my opponent:
he says he was shaken in his Baptist faith by the Alsup-Eastes
debate, and then confirmed in' the true faith by the Moody- Lips-
comb debate; hence, he came to us. Concerning the second gen-
tleman, instead of being a demented old man, he was a man of
good sense and of excelleot character, in every sense a worthy
man; and he was constrained by the power of the truth to take
the step he did. I don't know what Brother Moody means by call-
ing the third case "serious."
Referring to this Watertown community, my opponent then in-
quires, "Does the gentleman propose to compare accessions with
my Church? Does he propose to compare prosperity since the
debate?" Yes, indeed, I do. I challenge him to a comparison.
Out of a membership of ninety-two in our Church there about fifty
came in since the debate. How many have united with your, con-
gregation in that time ? When you give the numbers be sure to
be ready with the names. Our congregation has increased over
one hundred per cent. If I have been rightly informed yours has
not increased over five per cent. So our rate of increase has been
more than twenty times greater than yours. Yes, we are ready
to compare with anybody. There is not a religious body on earth
whose per cent of increase will compare with ours. One of our
brethren counted the additions reported in two of our periodicals.
(We have about forty-four.) These two reported 7,874 in one
month;. 46,835 in one year (188.8). Thirty- two of those reported
were preachers, and sis hundred and twenty-seven of them were
from the Baptists. Of the Baptists, six were preachers. This
summing up of the reports of the two papers was published in
the Christian Visitor, January, 1889. It represents, no doubt, far
less than half of our increase. I doubt not twelve or fifteen hun-
dred Baptists came to us last year.
The gentleman says he has the names of "all the apostate mem-
bers of the McCrory Creek Church." And he says it is a shame
to compare them with my statement. I don't know what he
means by that, unless he merely means to insinuate something
which he knows he cannot prove. I know some of those mem-
bers, and, as true, noble, honorable men, there are none that stand
higher.
J. A. HARDING'S FIFTH SPEECH. 335
As to that ninety per cent, I refer those who may read this
debate to my ninth reply on the first proposition.
The gentleman insists that he does not believe baptism is because
of remission. He says I misrepresent him when I intimate that
he so thinks. Well, I will give you his words, and yon can judge
how much I misrepresent him. He says, "The 'nature' of the
ordinance is to declare what repentance and faith had procured;
hence, repent (and believe) in order to obtain, and then be baptized
in order to declare." (See this book, page 144.) If baptism is in
order to declare that one has been forgiven, then a man is baptized
because he has been forgiven. At least so it seems to me. There
is no telling how it seems to my sapient friend.
He says he does not believe a man is justified by faith only.
Answer me one question: Do you not believe that the sinner is
justified by faith only, and that the erring Christian is justified by
works, and not by faith only? When I have intimated that you
believe a man is justified by faith only, I have had in mind pri-
mary justification. Do you not believe that ?
The gentleman says I threatened to "knife" him, and that my
moderator then threated to leave me ; whereupon I pretended to
mean " with the Sword of the Spirit." What will you think, my
friends, when I tell you my moderator never did threaten to leave
me that the statement is utterly untrue ? David Lipscomb, my
moderator, thinks Mr. Moody richly deserved all that he received;
. that I did not make a charge against him that was not true, and
that was not maintained. He does not believe that Moody has
talked fifteen minutes at any time during the debate without vio-
lating the rules. But he would have preferred (for the sake of
others) that I should have been more gentle with him at times.
He says that Moody's statement about his threatening to leave me
is utterly false.
As to our agreement to abide by the usual rules for regulating
debates, I have this to say: We did make such an agreement.
Brother Moody violated it time and again in his first speech, and
has continued to do so right along till now. His moderator has at
no time called him to order ; my moderator does not intend to do
it; hence it is left to me to keep him straight, or to show him up,
and I expect to do my duty in those respects.
So it seems Brother Moody's friends went around after the White
Mills debate getting up certificates to his character and deport-
ment. My friends did not feel the necessity for such action. As
336 SECOND PROPOSITION.
I have shown you (see page 137 of this book), about one hundred
additions were secured by our people in that field shortly after the
debate, and our cause has prospered there as never before. That
is the kind of endorsement I like. Then two of our congrega-
tions, whose officers attended the debate, invited us to repeat the
discussion in their chapels; I accepted the invitation, the Baptists
did not. That is also a kind of endorsement I like.
There is another thing in which Brother Moody can beat me
badly. He is far better at getting bragging reports published after
the debates are over. As one of our brethren very truly, if not
very classically, remarked, "These Baptists boast mightily about
their great victories, but somehow they can't show the scalps." The
reports of the Pikeville debate, from which he quotes, were evi-
dently written by a bitter partisan. Anybody can see that by
reading them. He went to Brother Moody for facts (?) ; he did not
come to me. Moody gave him the "facts." Now turn back and
read the reports. Pacts ! Just such facts as he gave about the
Alexandria meeting-house, and about Brother Lipscomb threaten-
ing to leave me. When J. B. Moody states a thing as so, I have
no more idea whether or not it is true than I had before. He is
utterly and unscrupulously unreliable. I dare him to give me the
name and address of that reporter.
He says he plead for me at Pikeville to keep the people from
showing me the public indignation. Well, now, I had no idea the
Baptists there were so wrought up. My brethren were merry-
hearted ; happy in their innocence, and in the prosperity of their
cause. And there, too, we did fine reaping after the debate. By
their fruits ye shall know them, and not by false newspaper re-
ports written by bitter and unscrupulous partisans. The fact is,
I have an idea J. B. Moody wrote those reports himself. They
sound like him.
The gentleman asks me a question : Will I still affirm that John
the Baptist never refused to baptize any one except Jesus ? Yes,
certainly I will. There is not the slightest evidence in Luke iii.
7-9, nor anywhere else, that he ever refused to baptize any other
person. Matt. iii. 7-12 is the parallel passage, and in it it is clearly
shown that John did baptize those people. The gentleman can
"thunder" on. Jesus' wonderful innocency made John think he
was fitted to administer the rite rather than to receive it. John
was baptizing people confessing their sins, and for the remis-
sion of then? sins. Jesus had no sins to confess nor to be remitted,
J. A. HAEDING-'S FIFTH SPEECH. 337
while he realized that he was not so innocent; hence he thought
it would be more appropriate for him to be the subject, Jesus the
administrator. Evidently John was not a Baptist in the modern
.sense of that word.
Let me call your attention now, my friends, to one of the most
palpable sophisms ever perpetrated. Brother Moody is trying to
show that eis is retrospective, and he says: "With reference to
remission, Christ shed his blood, looking back to the sins of past
ages as well as forward." Yes, but the remission was not in the
past ages. Christ shed his blood that the sins of the past as well
as those of the future might be remitted. The eis looked forward
to the remission. His arguments, my friends., are like his state-
ments of facts, utterly unreliable.
Concerning the gentleman's long quotation from Dr. Norton, I
would simply say not a thing in it militates against the quotations
I have made from him. He does not take back one word of that
article which I have used so effectively in this debate, It is evi-
dent from it, however, that he does not understand Mr. Campbell.
For instance, Campbell never thought (as Norton supposes he did)
that by means of baptism new life is begotten in the soul; on the
contrary, he always claimed, as all of us do, that the begetting
must take place before the baptism could be performed. Like
Norton, he thought that after the begetting had taken place the
baptism was the bringing forth, the manifestation of the new life;
and, like Norton, he thought both the begetting and the bringing
forth were parts of "the way by means of which God saves." The
fact is the two gentlemen are much nearer together on this point
than Dr. Norton imagines. Though doubtless they would differ
widely on the work of the Holy Spirit in conversion.
I shall now devote the time that I have left to the presentation
of an affirmative argument. The tabernacle and the temple were
types of things that were to come. They both consisted of two
rooms and of an outer court. True, there were other rooms about
the temple, but the temple proper consisted of two rooms. The
tabernacle was the temporary place of worship, used till the tem-
ple was built. In front of the building, on the outside, was the
great brazen altar the altar of burnt offering. Between the altar
and the door was the laver containing water. Through the door
the priests entered into the first room, typical of the Church.'
There was the golden candlestick which gave light, typical of the
Holy Spirit, which is in the Church, and which, through the Church,
22
338 SECOND PROPOSITION.
gives light to the world; and tire table of shew-bread, typical of
the Lord's Supper (the "bread was changed every week) ; and the
altar of incense, typical of prayer. Out of this front room ; once
each year, the high priest went into the inner room, typical of
heaven. There was the mercy-seat, with the wonderful light, indi-
cating the presence of God, shining above it; and over all stood
the golden cherubim. The mercy-seat was above the ark of the
covenant.
You see, beloved, in approaching the tabernacle (or temple) you
came first to the brazen altar (the cross was the altar on which
Christ was offered) ; then to the laver (typical of baptism) ; and
thus you entered the first room, the Church, where were the types
of the Holy Spirit, of prayer, and of the Lord's Supper.
You see the Baptists have got this all wrong. They put prayer
and the Holy Spirit on the outside of the Church and baptism on
the inside. "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved,"
says Jesus; but they put the salvation before the baptism. Peter
told the people to repent and be baptized "for the remission of
sins," but they put the remission after the repentance and before
the baptism. They would have Pharaoh's hosts dead before Israel
crossed the Eed Sea, and a man in the kingdom of God before he
is born of water.
Time expired.
J. B. Moody's Fifth Reply.
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Lest the evil spirit tear my malevolent opponent, and cause Mm
to foam with greater rage, I leave him in his bitterness and blood-
thirstiness, and I hope to relieve him with my negative argument.
Poor fellow ! I expect it will happen unto him according to the
true proverb. (2 Peter ii. 22.)
I have been engaged about four weeks to dedicate the Alexan-
drian house at my earliest convenience. They said it would be
finished in about two weeks. l ' It is the finest house in all that
country." The gentleman is cutting down his speeches to about
half length, so I can't reply to all his trifles and get in my argu-
ment too. He is evidently exhausted. But I must do up his doc-
trine. Himself is already done up.
John iii. 5 : I recognize a difficulty mainly in wresting the pas-
sage from the misconstruction of anti-Christ. Let us first ap-
proach from the standpoint of Nicodemus, a teacher of the Old
Scriptures. As such he ought to have understood the doctrine
Christ was enunciating, for he received a rebuke for his ignorance,
not as an observer of the times, or of the doings of Christ, but for
his ignorance as a teacher of Israel.
"Art thou a teacher of Israel, and knowest not these things?"
This rebuke is recorded in the tenth verse. Hence the things he
ought to have known as a teacher of Israel included all that go
before it. He ought to have understood the third verse, and when
the fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth verses are offered in further
explanation, and Mcodemus marvels and confesses his ignorance
"How can these things be?" he is reproved by the gentle Christ
for his ignorance as a Jewish teacher. Then Christ presented no
doctrine that is not contained in the Old Scriptures. Nicodemus
understood that a proselyte must be " born again," deuteron, or
second time, by outward ordinances, to enter the kingdom of
Israel; but the anotheen, from above, was the "heavenly thing"
he was culpably ignorant of. The outward circumcision by hand
of the flesh he had allowed to eclipse this inner circumcision of
340 SECOND PROPOSITION.
the heart in the spirit without hands, whose praise is of God.
Outward ablutions, or cleansings, he had allowed to eclipse that
moral, inner cleansing, by a spiritual element, symbolized by
water. He was culpably ignorant because the new covenant,
which he ought to have taught, contained the doctrine of the new
birth. Not birth in action, for in action there can be no resem-
blance. The new. birth is a change of state, an entrance upon a
new life. This new birth, like the first, begins in innocence; hence
old sins must be purged, or put away; and, unlike the first, it
begins in a holy disposition, with a new heart and a right spirit,
else why be born again ? The new covenant taught this, and it
mentioned the same elements of cleansing, water and Spirit. Ez.
xxxvi. 25: il l will sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be
clean from all your filthiness, and from all your idols will I cleanse
you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put
within you; and I will take away the stony heart out of your
flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my
Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statues, and ye
shall keep my judgments and do them."
Here is the beginning of a new life, hence may be called a new
birth, or birth from above, "heavenly things," since all this is of
grace, God graciously creating anew, working in to will and to do.
Hence in the new creation, or new birth, man is passive. Except
one be born ; and the change of state and subsequent life is indi-
cated by the purifying elements, water kai Spirit. If Nicodemus
had converted, or rather perverted the water of the covenant into
literal water like my friend has done John iii. 5, then, like my
friend, he was culpably ignorant of figurative language. Let us
notice a few Scriptures containing the word water, but water only
in word, also a few verbs of action pertaining to water, but which
all know have a moral and spiritual signification "the water
that is in the Word."
By comparing the first eleven verses of the fifty-first Psalm
you see that David's prayer was based on the new covenant, as
recorded in Ez. xxxvi. 25-27, where God also says in the thirty-
seventh verse, "I will be inquired of to do this for them." So
David was praying that God might do to him according to the new
covenant. Here was wash and cleanse from iniquity and sin.
"Wash me thoroughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from
my sin." The new covenant says I'll put my law in their inward
parts, and write it in their hearts; hence David prays, "Behold
J. S. MOODY'S FIFTH REPLY. 341
thou desirest truth in the inward parts, and in the hidden part
thou wilt make me to know wisdom." The new covenant speaks
of cleansing from sin, and of being washed from sin; hence David
prays, "Purge me with hysop and I shall be clean, wash me and I
shall be whiter than snow." The new covenant says, "A new heart
also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you;"
hence David prays, "Create within me a new heart, God, and
renew a right spirit within me." The new covenant says, " I will
put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statues;"
hence David prays, "Take not thy Holy Spirit from me," and
"uphold me with thy free Spirit; then will I teach transgressors
thy ways," etc. It is evident from the above that David knew that
this washing and cleansing suggested by water, the symbol, re-
ferred to correspondences in the innerman. So Nicodeinus ought
to have understood that our Lard was talking about a cleansing
element in the Old Scriptures symbolized by water, and that could
really fit a man for entrance into the kingdom of God. In Ps. Ixix.
1-3 we find water, but it is only a symbol. So in Isa. i. 15-18,
there is washing and cleansing, but not with literal water. Isa. iv.
4 says, "When the Lord shall have washed away the filth of the
daughters of Zion, and shall have purged the blood of Jerusalem."
He was clearly talking about a moral cleansing, which could not
be effected by literal water, but of which water 'and washing were
only symbolical. Isa. xii. 3 speaks of drawing water out of the
wells of salvation. Those wells were full of water, but not a drop
of my friend's kind; for he, like Mcodenius and the Samaritan
woman, is too literal to discern spiritual things. Isa. xliv. 3 : " For
I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry
ground. I will pour my Spirit upon thy seed and my blessing upon
thy offspring." Here are two sentences, one explicative of the
other, and the same order observed as in John iii. 5. First the
symbol, "water," then the "Spirit;" first the symbol, "floods,"
then the "blessing." In this we have both letter and Spirit, and
to stop with the letter, and with that which is only literal, is to
stop short of life. "The letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life."
In Isa. Iv. 1 the thirsty are invited to the waters, to wine, to milk
and to honey. This is figurative language, and not a drop of the
literal was intended in the passage. In Isa. xxxiii. 8 we have also
two clauses, one explanatory: "I will cleanse them from all their
iniquities whereby they have sinned against me, and (even) I will
pardon all their iniquities whereby they have sinned against me."
342 SECOND PROPOSITION.
Here is the same style observed in John iii. 5, one explicative of
the other, connected by the conjunction and, which is often used
in this sense, as my friend well knows. Ex. x. 9: "Then washed I
thee with water, yea I thoroughly washed away thy blood from
thee." This was not literal water, but water symbolized the ele-
ment of moral cleansing with which the Old Scriptures abound;
and, turning to the New Scriptures, the same style is continued.
We see the spiritual teacher at the well of Samaria, talking about
the true water, the living water, and the poor Samaritan literalist
could not discern a meaning outside of the water in the well,
which she came to draw ; but Christ directed her from the figure
to the true. "Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again;
but whoso drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never
thirst, but the water that I shall give him shall be in him. a well of
water springing up into life everlasting." Hear Christ again in
John vii. 37-39: "If any man thirst, let him come unto me and
drink. He that believeth on me, as the Scripture has said [the
Old Scripture], out of him shall flow rivers of living water. But
this spake he of the Spirit which they that believe on him should
receive." Here is the same order observed again. First, water,
the symbol, then Spirit, the thing symbolized. We are said to be
sprinkled with this water, to be washed in this water, to drink this
water, and to be born of this water, all of which is significant lan-
guage to those who are spiritual and can discern spiritual things.
In 1 Cor. vi. 11, we still have the Old Scripture language: "And
such were some of you; but ye are washed, etc., in the Spirit of
our Grod." (Oxford revision.) In the same line is Eph. iv. 25-27,
Christ "sanctified and cleansed his Church with the washing of
water in the word, that he might present her to himself a glorious
Church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing, but that
she should be holy and without blemish." If he had washed her
with water in a pool or pond, she would have been as corrupt as
before; but having washed her with the water that is in the Word,
which we have been trying to emphasize, the water of the new
covenant, that true, of which water is a figure; that Spirit, of
which water is a symbol; having washed her in this true, this
living water (see above, 1 Cor. vi. 11), she shall be to all eternity
without spot or wrinkle, or any such thing. Washed in the fount-
ain that is for sin and uncleanness. The same doctrine is taught
in Titus iii. 3-7. Here is a washing of regeneration, even renew-
ing of the Holy Ghost; and whatever it is, it certainly is not works
J. B. MOODY' S FIFTH REPLY. 343
of righteousness "which, we have done, and according to the testi-
mony of Jesus baptism is a work of righteousness which we do ;
hence this washing of regeneration cannot refer to baptism, Cath-
olics, Literalists, Legalists and Sacrarnentarians to the contrary
notwithstanding. This distinctly states that he saved us. accord-
ing to his mercy, and justified us by his grace. Both of which
expressions are additional sledge-hammer blows from the Almighty
at baptismal regeneration. Notice, too, this is the same order
found in the new covenant: first the washing or cleansing, and
then the Spirit. This is the same order observed in John iii. 5.
First the symbol, then the thing symbolized. Will my friend claim
this verse for baptism, and then deny baptismal regeneration?
Let him explain how he can do this; and let him explain Mr.
Campbell's language also, that immersion and regeneration are
synonymous terms, and then let him answer the charge of bap-
tismal regeneration.
Now let us search the Scripture recorded in John iii. 5 that is,
let us analyze and dissect it, and sift it, and see if these things be
so. The conjunction tiai, I think, furnishes the key to the true
interpretation. This is a copulative conjunction joining one thing
to another, either for the purpose of increase or for the purpose
of explanation. The former is its most common use, but the lat-
ter is also of frequent use. "God Teai (even) the Father" is of
frequent occurrence. Here Father is joined, not for the purpose
of increase or addition, but for the purpose of explanation. The
same of "Jesus 7cai (even) our Savior." Such references are too
numerous to be quoted here. Turning to the "Englishman's
Greek Concordance," we see a partial list where it is used in the
sense of explanation, and translated "even," and the list closes
with "etc., etc." We will mention one striking case not given in
that list. According to John xii. 15, Jesus rode, sitting on an ass's
colt, and according to Matt. ii. 5 ? he rode on an ass, Tcai a colt, the
fold of an ass. Does Ttai mean and, or even here! Did he ride
both the mother and the son? Did he ride the colt as well as the
mother? Or is not Jcai rather explicative not ass, even an ass;
not colt, even a colt; but ass, even a colt, using two terms, the
one to explain the other. So we conceive of water and Spirit. If
Christ meant baptism, and Tcai is copulative in the fij-st sense, then
a man must be born twice more, of water and Spirit. Some say a
man must be born twice more. But reverse the order, born of
Spirit and then of water; not both at the same time, but at differ-
344 SECOND PEOPOSITION.
ent times ; and not only so, out they think one may be born of
the Spirit and never of water. They think such an one is in the
invisible kingdom if there be such a thing, and will at last be
saved, but without baptism. I believe the doctrine, but this is not
the test to prove it. If Tcai is thus copulative, then one must be
born the second time to see, and the third time to enter. Some
think this third birth puts one in "baptized into the kingdom."
Others think the two more births only prepare them to enter by
vote of the Church. If this is correct., then Christ left him ignorant
of the last step. Again, if Tcai is thus copulative, and one is bap-
tized into the kingdom, then the act of baptism takes him in with-
out birth of the Spirit. It is also claimed that- a man may receive
one of these births and not the other; hence the one baptized into
the kingdom must subsequently be born of the Spirit in order to
see the kingdom; and if they are never born of the Spirit, then
they may live and die in the kingdom without ever seeing or know-
ing it.
Another misinterpretation is, that one is born of the Spirit
when he is born of water. Then Itai is not copulative in the first
sense, for one can't be born twice at the same time. Let those
who believe it bring forth the proof. Even if this were true, then
one must be baptized and born of the Spirit in order to see ; for
except one be born again he cannot see; so that if the birth is in
baptism one must be baptized in order to see, but the baptism
takes him in; so when he goes to see he is caught, nolens volens.
I would as soon trap a babe as an adult, for Christ said nothing of
one more than the other. He said tis and pas every time except
when he applied the doctrine to Nicodemus, and certainly it was
as applicable to him as to a babe. It was this view, perhaps, that
led to the coercive baptism of both adults and babes. The bare
statement of such an absurdity is sufficient exposure. They are
all strained efforts to bend the Scriptures to suit a preconceived
theory.
Time expired.
J. A. Harding's Sixth Speech.
Dear Friends :
More than three months ago ; in preparing his sixth speech, first
proposition, for the printer, J. B. Moody said, referring to the
Alexandria debate, "At the time of that debate there was no Bap-
tist Church at Alexandria. Now they have an organization, and
one of the finest houses in that country." (See this book, page
124.) I immediately wrote up there, and learned that the house
was in an unfinished state, having neither floor, ceiling nor doors,,
and only half of the roof, and that work upon it had been sus-
pended for lack of means. (See page 160.) Now, after more than
three months, the gentleman says in his last speech that he
has been engaged about four weeks to dedicate the house, and
that "they said it would be finished in about two weeks." Of
course it is a matter of no moment, in so far as this debate is con-
cerned, when that house is finished. I am simply showing you
how reliable (?) the gentleman is. He said they had the finest
house .in that country when they had no house at all, but merely
the skeleton of one. I believe if I had made such a statement as
that my brethren would withdraw fellowship from me for it, unless
I repented and humbly confessed my sin.
Take another illustration. On page 169 our fallen brother says:
" I don't like to criticise a man's experience. Every Christian can
detect a counterfeit. This one is diluted with water till nothing
remains save a little tasteless coloring matter." I then asked him
why Baptists receive so many people on counterfeit experiences?
(He had just been dwelling on the fact that they do receive many
such people.) I said, "I would consider him either crazed, or a
natural fool, who would take counterfeit money as readily as the
genuine, if he were perfectly competent to detect the difference."
Of course the gentleman saw he was caught, and this is how he
got out of it. He says in his tenth speech: "1 did not say that
Christian experience- could not be so closely imitated that it could
not be detected, but that one like his, which I was considering,
with the terms all out of order, and out of meaning, was a coun-
terfeit that any true Christian could detect."
346 SECOND PROPOSITION.
Astonishing man! I can never get used to his misrepresenting
and misstating things. He has less regard for the truth, and takes
less pains to conceal his misrepresentations, than any other man I
have ever come in contact with. It seems that his conscience is
so seared on this subject that it does not seem to him to be very
bad or disgraceful to do such things. "Every Christian can detect
a counterfeit" he metamorphoses into "one like his, which I was
considering, with the terms all out of order, and out of meaning,
was a counterfeit that any true Christian could detect."
The gentleman has repeatedly referred to my "ungovernable
temper;" he talks about my "rage," "bitterness" and "blood-
thirstiness." And yet continually during this debate it has been
necessary for the moderators to caution my brethren, and those
who are in sympathy with us, about laughing. How does it hap-
pen that they keep in such a good humor? However, I would
rather be the most high-tempered man that ever lived than to be
capable of doing as my erring brother has done again and again
during this debate. It is no sin to be high-tempered, but it is an
awful crime to bear false witness.
As to my cutting d@wn my speeches I would simply say, we
have a contract with the printer for a book of four hundred pages-
At the rate we have been going, the first two propositions would
make about five hundred pages. We must either shorteji our
speeches or increase the price (which has already been advertised).
As we can condense without leaving out any material fact or argu-
ment; and, as I have received a good many subscribers who have
paid their money, we will shorten the speeches.
The gentleman, without making the slightest attempt to reply
to my argument, has given us a rambling, misty disertation on
the new birth. As it suits me very well to make my next argu-
ment on this subject, I will first consider what he has said, and
will then briefly present what seems to me to be the truth in the
case.
He claims that this doctrine of the new birth is taught in the
Old Testament, and that Mcodernus was culpably ignorant of it;
that the water is not literal water, and, if Nicodemus had so under-
stood it, he like myself would have been culpably ignorant of fig-
urative language. Well, let us see about that. I have here in my
hand a letter written May 1, 1884, by J. L. Bryant to Dr. J. K.
Graves, with Dr. Graves' reply. Bryant asks, "Does the word
water in John iii. 5 mean water?" Graves replies, "Yes." Bryant
J. A. HANDING'S SIXTH SPEECH. 347
asks, "If so, to what does it refer?" Graves replies, "Baptism."
Then the aged doctor adds: "The force of 'and' always is 'added
to.' Visible Churches constitute the kingdom of God, of Christ, of
heaven. A man must be born of the Spirit to ' see/ comprehend,
understand the kingdom of Christ; and he must be born of the
water baptized added to the birth of the Spirit to enter the
kingdom, to become a member of the visible Church, and so a
citizen of the kingdom, as a foreigner must take the oath of alle-
giance added to the declaration of his intention before he can
become a citizen of any State, and so become a citizen of this
republic. I shall soon write a tract upon this subject. Truly
yours, J. E. Graves."
So it seems Dr. Graves is also culpably ignorant on this point. I
have already given you a quotation from his paper, The Tennessee
Baptist, in which he says "born of water" means baptism and
nothing else, and then adds, "No Baptist that we ever heard or
read of ever believed otherwise until Alexander Campbell fright-
ened them away from an interpretation that is sustained by the
consensus of all scholars of all denominations in all ages."
So, according to Dr. Graves, " all scholars of all denominations in
all ages," until recently, held that "born of water" means baptism,
and they, too, were " culpably ignorant," like Dr. Graves and
myself. Then Dr. Hovey explains "born of water" as meaning
baptism (see pp. 96, 97. 422 of his Commentary on John), and
hence he also is "culpably ignorant." Then the greatest of the
German commentators, Dr. Meyer, says "of water and of Spirit,
water inasmuch as the man is baptized therewith for the forgive-
ness of sins, and Spirit inasmuch as the Holy Ghost is given to
the person baptized in order to his spiritual renewal and sanctifi-
cation." (See Meyer on John iii. 5.) He then says baptism is the
"washing of regeneration" (Titus iii. 5), and that Christian bap-
tism is the baptism referred to. So the great Meyer also belongs
to our igoorant crowd.
In his "History of Infant Baptism," vol. i, page 443, Dr. Wall says,
"All the ancient Christians, without the exception of one man, do
understand that rule of our Savior (John iii. 5) of baptism." A
little further down on the same page he adds : "Neither did I ever
see it otherwise applied in any ancient writer. I believe Calvin
was the first that ever denied this place to mean baptism. He
gives another interpretation, which he confesses to be new." o
man in his generation was better qualified to speak on this point
348 SECOND PROPOSITION.
than Dr. Wall, and though he wrote about one hundred and eighty-
years ago, his statement concerning it has remained unimpeached
to this day. So Dr. Wall and all the "ancient Christians" must be
added to this great multitude of the "culpably ignorant." So on
this point I have with me Graves, Hovey, Meyer, Wall, and all the
ancient Christians. Then Wesley, Bloomfield, Whitby, Barnes,
Dwight, and Whitfield hold to the same view. The Methodist Dis-
cipline, the Presbyterian Confession of Eaith (Old School and Cum-
berland), and the Episcopal Catechism, hold to the same view. Is
it not ~barely possible that Brother Moody is the man who is culpa-
bly ignorant, and that Dr. Graves and the balance of us are correct?
So it seems to me. The fact ift, my friends, had it not been that
this interpretation puts baptism before entrance into the kingdom
of God, and hence before forgiveness, no man would ever have
thought of giving any other interpretation to the phrase " born of
water." All would have understood the truth that "born of water"
means baptism. But Paul has said, " God hath delivered us from
the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom
of his dear Son: in whom we have redemption through his blood,
even the forgiveness of sins." (Col. i. 13, 14.) Ah, there is the
rub ! Christ has said that a man cannot enter the kingdom except
he be born of water and the Spirit, and as forgiveness is in the
kingdom, it follows, if "born of water" means baptism, that bap-
tism is in order to the forgiveness of sins. But that is a conclu-
sion that some men will not accept ; they will wrest the Scriptures
first.
Brother Moody tells us the Greek conjunction ~kai at this place
means even, and that the passage should read, "Except a man be
born of water, even Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of
God." Well, as he has a diploma from no college, as his knowl-
edge of Greek is very limited, suppose we look into the transla-
tions and see if any of them agree with him. I have here the Ee-
vised Version, the Bible Union, the Common Version, the Emphatic
Diaglott, Wesley, Anderson, and the Living Oracles, They all
translate it and, and in so doing they agree with all translations
known to me; not one gives Brother Moody's even; so I guess I
will stand by the translators instead of following a man who, I
believe, could not enter the sophomore class in Greek in any first-
class college in the land. . .
But his rule would help us wonderfully in some other places :
for instance, " He that believeth even is baptized shall be saved ; ;r
J. A. HARDING' S SIXTH SPEECH. 349
.tind "Repent, even be baptized every one of you in the name of
Jesus Christ for the remission of sins," would be the way those
passages would read according to Moody's translation of ~kai; and
thus it would be shown, even to his satisfaction, I presume, that
faith and repentance are perfected in baptism. But doubtless at
those passages he would drop back to the word and, and twist
them in some other way.
The gentleman says David's prayer in the fifty-first Psalm was
based on the new covenant as recorded in Ezekiel xxxvi. The
poor man must be dazed. Does he not know that prayer was
uttered more than four hundred years before Ezekiel wrote? about
four hundred years before he was born? When David prays,
"Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall
be whiter than snow," Brother Moody thinks he was talking about
the new birth under the new covenant. The idea ! It was more
than a thousand years after that before the new covenant was
made, and David was then seeking forgiveness for debauching
Bathsheba and killing Uriah. Bead Lev. xiv. 4-8, and Num. xix.
18, 19, and you will see that he was referring to the cleansing ac-
cording to the law under which he lived. And so of the passage
in Ezekiel; the prophecy of that thirty-sixth chapter was fulfilled
when Zerubbabel led fifty thousand Jews back to Judea from Baby-
lon. It does not refer to the new covenant, which was not made
for hundreds of years afterward.
These interpretations are as loose and careless as the one he
makes upon Matt. xxi. 5, "Behold, thy king cometh unto thee,
meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass." The
gentleman says that here Jcai means even, that there was here but
one animal meant, an ass, even the foal of an ass. Evidently the
gentleman did not read the passage in its connection, or, if he did,
he states the matter, as he usually does, as he wants it, and with-
out: the slightest regard for the facts in the case. It is stated ex-
pressly there was "an ass tied, and a colt with her;" and it is
said they "brought the ass and the colt, and put on them their
clothes, and they set him thereon." "Put on them their clothes,
and they set him thereon." With that before him, he intimates
there was but one animal there. With such illustrations of his
accuracy (?) before me, I am sure I shall not forsake all the trans-
lators to follow him. "God even the Father" indicates one who
is our God and also our Father; "Jesus even our Savior" indi-
cates a man named Jesus who is also our Savior. The idea of
350 SECOND PROPOSITION.
addition is in both places : an addition not of individuals, but of
ideas. And so in every case that he presents.
But now let us endeavor to find a Scriptural answer to the ques-
tion, What is it to be born again? Jesus says, "Except a man be
born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." " Except a man
be born of water and of the Spirit 'he cannot enter into the king-
dom of God." "Ye must be born again." Observe that this sec-
ond birth is one birth, a birth of water and the Spirit, not two. In
every birth there is a begetting and a bringing forth ; in the new
birth we are begotten by the Spirit and brought forth from the
water. All life, animal and vegetable, comes from the planting of
seed. In animal life this planting of the seed is the begetting; it
is done, of course, by the father, but the child is not born till it
is brought forth from the mother. In the new birth there is a
striking parallelism and likeness to the natural birth, hence Jesus
uses the figure of a birth. God plants the seed, the word of God;
this produces faith in the heart, and thus one is begotten of God.
Then comes baptism, and thus one is brought forth from the water;
and then one is born again, born of water and the Spirit, is in the
family of God, the kingdom of God, the body of Christ, where
there is forgiveness of sins. In proof of all this consider the fol-
lowing passages: "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is
begotten of God." -(1 John v. 1, E. V.) " Of his own will begat he
us with the word of truth." (James i. 18.) "Begotten again, not
of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, through the word of God
which liveth and abideth." (1 Peter i. 23, E. Y.) "Faith cometh
by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (Eom. x. 17.) Thus
we see how God begets us. It is all through the Spirit, inasmuch
as the Gospel is preached by the Spirit through apostles and proph-
ets. After the begetting, what then? Listen: "When they be-
lieved Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God,
and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized." (Acts viii. 12.)
"Ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as
many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ."
(Gal. iii. 26, 27.) Can you not see?
Time expired.
J. B. Moody s Sixth Reply.
Ladies and Gentlemen :
I have only five more speeches on this proposition, and it is not
possible for me to get in my negative argument on all the points
introduced. The gross injustice done Dr. Broadus is evident to all
who read the pages quoted from. If Dr. Wilmarth said, "The
Gampbellites are right," then he is a Carnpbellite. But he con-
fesses he is a Hyper-Calvinist. A Hyper-Calvinist-Campbellite ! !
Like the long-short, heavy-light, rough-smooth, pretty-ugly, white-
black bird, the refutation is in the statement. If Dr. Wilmarth is
both, bis testimony on these subjects is contradictory, hence
worthless.
Mr. Harding knows the Pikeville reporter as well as I do, and he
knows he was a non-professor. His insinuation that I wrote the
report is like his positive assertions in four debates, and the writ-
ten one besides, that I never attended college but one day in my
life, and that was on a visit; or never a day, and then added that
I "know no more about Greek than a heathen." That a man will
thus tear himself before the public shows he is mad desperately
mad. But I can't spare his doctrine, though he slay himself in
trying to defend it.
I now take up my negative arguments on John iii. 5. The ex-
pressions born again, born of the Spirit, born of God, are synony-
mous, unless it be assumed that one thus born is not born of God,
which would be denying that the Spirit is God. Those who try to
distinguish between "the begotten of God" and "birth of Spirit"
make their decisions by reference to the gender of the parent, and
they make themselves so ridiculous that we would ratber cover
them with the mantle of charity than to administer the deserved
refutation. The Holy Spirit, whether referred to by noun or pro-
noun, is never referred to as a female. The angel said to Mary:
"The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the
Highest shall overshadow thee, and that holy thing that shall be
born of thee shall be called the Son of God" (Luke i. 35.) He is
also called the "Begotten of the Father," but it was by the Holy
. 352 SECOND PROPOSITION.
Spirit. So, if the gender of the Parent is to decide the translation,
the original in both being the same, then John iii. 5 must be trans-
lated begotten. But the same translation must be given to both
begotten of water and Spirit, or born of water and Spirit. Either
will mercilessly crush these absurdities, which deserve no mercy.
No man should go unrebuked who says that one must be begotten
of the Spirit, and then born of water 5 or, to observe the order,
born of water, and then begotten of the Spirit. If he insists on
this copulative idea, and the discrimination between begotten and
born, he should say, born of water and Spirit, or begotten of water
and Spirit. He must hold to two births, and no begetting, or two
begettings and no birth. In either case he will find himself im-
paled on the horn of a unicorn.
Those who press the distinction between begotten of God and.
born of the Spirit, on the ground of sex do so not only in ignorance
of the Spirit's gender, but in ignorance also of what is predicated
of the begotten state. (1 John ii. 29 5 iii. 9, 10; iv. 6, 7; v. 1, 4,
18, 19.) What will become of those who are begotten of the Spirit,
but never born of water? and especially, if you please, those whom
you press into a birth of water "the same hour of the night," but
who had no birth, or had not been begotten of the Spirit?
If Christ meant by this language that no one could ~be saved
without baptism, then he falsified his own language; for, after
this, he said to the woman, "Thy faith hath saved thee; go in
peace." If she had been baptized, then he looked short of her
baptism to her subsequent faith; if she was to be baptized, then
he looked short of her baptism to her present faith ; and if faith
must be manifested in works, then he looked to that saving faith
manifested in works other than baptism.
If he meant that sins could not be forgiven without baptism, then
he contradicted himself; for, after this, he said, " Thy sins be forgiven
thee ; " and both these transactions occurred apart from baptism,
unless my astute opponent can show that both occurred in the act
of baptism. If Christ meant that no one could enter the Church
without baptism and regeneration, then he missed it again; for
one got in under his own eye, and many under the inspired apos-
tles, who " crept in privily, to spy out their liberty," and of whom
the apostle said, "I wish they were cut off." If Christ meant that
no one could enter heaven without birth of water and Spirit, as my
friend interprets, then he contradicted himself again; for he after-
ward said that "Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and all the prophets, with
J. B. NODDY'S SIXTH REPLY. 353
the elect from north, south, east and west, would come and sit
down in the kingdom of God."
If the Church and kingdom are the same, and no one can enter
without these two births, or begettings, or birth and begetting, or
begetting and birth, then those who like the incestuous man at
Corinth have been excluded can never enter again without these
two things, whatever they may be. Mr. McGarvey, in his note on
Acts xx. 11, lays down this principle of interpretation, in sub-
stance: "When an inspired writer repeats an expression in the
same connection, we must understand him to mean the same
thing." Dr. Brents and a host of others say that one is born of
the Spirit by being born as the Spirit directs, viz., be baptized for
the remission of sins. Then to be born of the Spirit is to be born
as the Spirit directs, and the Spirit directs to baptism. This makes
birth of Spirit and baptism synonymous, and, applying these two
principles by substituting the equivalent terms, which in the same
connection must mean the same thing, we have; except one be
baptized again, or from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born as
the Spirit directs, or that which is baptized, is Spirit. Marvel not
that I said unto thee, ye must be baptized again. Tha wind blow-
eth where it listeth; thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not
tell whence it cometh and whither it goeth: so is every one that
is baptized of the Spirit.
Again, if born of water means baptism, and the one expression
for the two elements of birth must mean the same thing in this
especially close connection, then it must read: Except one be bap-
tized out of water and out of Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom
of God. No one can excel my friend in emphasizing "out of" as
the meaning of ek. Or, if we translate of as in the text, then we
have under this application : Except one be baptized of water and
of Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God. This would ruin
my friend's hope, for he claims to have been baptized in water,
and he disclaims either baptism of or in Spirit. The different and
distinct marks I attach to these prepositions my friend will
not gainsay. A man must be born of water and born of Spirit, or
begotten of water and begotten of Spirit, or baptized of water
and baptized of Spirit; or, taking the other rendering of ek, one
must be born out of water and born out of Spirit, or begotten out
of water and begotten out of Spirit, or baptized out of water and
23
354 SECOND PROPOSITION.
baptized out of Spirit 5 and to this iron bedstead a man must ad-
just himself, or he cannet enter the kingdom of God.
If the Spirit is the father and the water the mother, as Mr.
Campbell and Mr. Harding believe, then the birth must be the pro-
duction of the copulative action of Spirit and water, and the life
germ, the Word, must be put in the water instead of the mind and
heart. Why should a people in this enlightened age give them-
selves to darkening counsel, and to multiplying the absurdities
and superstitions of papal Borne? If born of water means bap-
tism, and is the washing of regeneration, then baptismal regenera-
tion cannot be denied. If it means baptism, and sins cannot be
forgiven without it, then baptismal remission cannot be denied. If
it means baptism, and salvation is promised only to the baptized,
then baptismal salvation cannot be denied. If these equal or in-
clude justification, then baptismal justification cannot be denied.
If born of water means baptism, then the Old Scriptures taught
baptismal regeneration, of which Nicodemus was culpably ignorant.
We introduce one of the clearest thinkers and writers of the
reformation (so-called), Mr. P. G. Allen, the founder, furtherer and
finisher of the "Old Path Guide." He says some things that help
to loosen the cobwebs of mysticism from the mind. As it is on
this line of criticism, I introduce it here. He says : " Nicodemus
had his mind on the 'outward man.' Jesus spoke solely of the
'inward man. 7 Hence, Nicodemus had reference to a birth of
flesh; Jesus to a birth of Spirit. Consequently Jesus said, 'That
which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the
Spirit is Spirit.' That is, it is the spirit of man, not his body, that
is born again. The inward man, not the outward man, is the sub-
ject of the new birth. The 'man' that is born again is born of the
Spirit. The outward man, or body, is not born of the Spirit..
Hence the outward man, or body, is not contemplated in the new
birth. In conversion the spirit is regenerated; the flesh is not.
The body will never be regenerated till regenerated from the
grave With the same thought of the inward man in
mind Jesus continues, 'Marvel not that I said unto thee, ye must
be born again.' .... The inward man, the man born again, is
as invisible as the Spirit of God, or as the wind that blows. The
outward man that Nicodemus had in mind is the man you see.
The inward man that Jesus had in mind is the man you do not
see. That is visible and mortal; this is invisible and immortal.
"As a teacher in Israel Nicodemus should have known that the
J. B. MOODY 'S SIXTH REPLY. 355
Messiah's kingdom, when established, was to be a spiritual king-
dom. This his Bible clearly taught. The prevailing misconcep-
tions of the Jews concerning the nature of this kingdom were all
due to a misapplication of Bible teaching For this their
teachers were responsible, since Messiah's kingdom was to be a spir-
itual kingdom. When Jesus said that one must be born again in
order to enter it, Nicodemus should have known that he had refer-
ence to a birth of Spirit, not of flesh. Hence the gentle rebuke. . . ,
The birth of water and of Spirit is one birth. One is not born of the
Spirit and then of the water, nor of the water and then of the
Spirit. He is born of both at one and the same time. Nor is one
part of the man born of the Spirit and another part of the water.
That which is born of the one is born of the other. The same
'man' is born of both water and Spirit. Nothing can be born of
water that is not at the same time bora of the Spirit. Apart from
that of the Spirit there is no birth of the water. But 'that which
is born of the Spirit is Spirit.' Therefore that which is born of the
water is spirit. That which is born of the Spirit of God is the
spirit of man, not his body.
"Sometimes we hear the crude idea expressed that in conver-
sion the spirit is born of the Spirit, and in baptism the body is
born of the water, and thus the whole man is born again. But
this cannot be. The body of the man is not born of the Spirit,
and that which is not born of the Spirit is not born of water. In
the new birth there is no birth of flesh. 'That which is born of
the flesh is flesh.' But in the new birth there is nothing born of
the flesh, hence no flesh is born. But man's flesh is his bodyj
hence in the new birth his body is not born The body/
however consecrated to God's service, is not born of the Spirit ;.
and not being born of the Spirit it is not born of the water. Prom
all of which it follows, with the certainty of mathematics, that the-
'inward man,' not the 'outward,' is the subject of the new birth
in its entirety Christian baptism demands faith and
repentance in the thing baptized. Faith and repentance cannot be
predicated of the body. The body is not born of the Spirit, it is
not born of the water, and not being born of the water it is not
baptized It is the 'inward man/ the immortal man,
that believes, repents, turns to God, wills to serve him, is crucified
with Christ, is buried with him, and rises to ' walk with him in
newness of life.'"
Now let us come back to the text, and give it a natural inter-
356 SECOND PEOPOSITION.
pretation. Mcodemus was a Jew outwardly, "according to the
flesh," and not inwardly, "according to the Spirit." He thought
the time had come for the kingdom to be restored to Israel, and
he went to inquire about it of the miracle-working teacher sent
from G-od. Jesus saw that behind his flattering words there was
an anxious inquiry in his heart concerning the kingdom. Perhaps
he was seeking an honorable position in the temporal kingdom.
His views of ifc were fleshly. Christ unfolded the difficulty in his
case. "Except a man be born again he cannot see [discern] the
kingdom of God." It is a spiritual kingdom, and the natural man
receiveth not the things of the Spirit, for they are foolishness to
him; neither can he know them, for they are spiritually discerned.
It was so with Mcodemus. Hence he replies, "How can a man be
born the second time?"
Now note: Christ spoke to him of only one more birth, "born
again," and Mcodemus so understood him. "How can a man be
born the second time?" "That which is born of the flesh is flesh."
Mcodemus had that. "That which is born of the Spirit is Spirit."
One more birth. " Marvel not that I said unto you, ye must be
born again." One more time. " So is every one that is born of the
Spirit." Second birth.
Time expired.
J. A. Harding's Seventh Speech.
Ladies and Gentlemen:
My opponent's power of condensation (in one line, at least,) is
wonderful. In the first two paragraphs of his last speech (see the
first page of it) he made five incorrect and misleading statements.
1. I have not done "gross injustice" to Dr. Broadus, as he affirms.
If I had he would not be slow to show it; he would put my words
beside those of Broadus and let you all see where and how I mis-
represent him. But as he cannot do this he simply contents him-
self with affirming what he cannot prove. 2. Wilmarth did not
say, nor did I charge him with saying the "Cainpbellites" are
right in all points of doctrine; but he did teach most emphatically
that baptism precedes and is in order to forgiveness ; and he did
say the "Campbellites" (as he called them) are right on this point.
Cannot a man say we are right on one point without being one of
us? 3. The gentleman says: "Mr. Harding knows the Pikeville
reporter as well as I do, and he knows he was a non-professor."
I know nothing of the kind. I have not the slightest idea in the
world who that reporter was farther than that he was a bitter par-
tisan. "When I first read the reports I expressed the conviction
that J. B. Moody either wrote them himself, or he inspired the
man who did. Now he denies that he wrote them, bnt admits that
the reporter came to him for the facts, and that he gave them to
him. Until he gives the name and address of that reporter I shall
be in doubt as to whether or not any such man exists outside of
himself; for a man capable of leaving out that word from David
Lipscomb's statement, thereby making him appear to be a falsifier,
is capable of doing any thing in that line. 4. Will the gentleman tell
us plainly what college he attended, and how long he was there? I
doubt if he ever attended any college one day in his life as a stu-
dent; though about this I do not certainly know, nor have I ever
positively affirmed. He says I have so asserted positively in four
oral debates, and that the report of this one will show it. Let
him refer, then, to the page, or to the speech, and we will see. 5.
I have no recollection of affirming that he knows "no more about
Greek than a heathen;" though had I done so, using the word
358 SECOND PROPOSITION.
"heathen" in its Biblical sense, I could find many such that know
far more about that tongue than he. I ask him in what speech of
mine he found those words that he puts in quotation marks ^ I
am satisfied that Brother Moody knows the Greek alphabet well
enough to hunt up a Greek word in the dictionary, and I believe
that is about the extent of his knowledge of Greek. With that
much knowledge, and the aid of the Englishman's Greek Concord-
ance, a man can make quite a display of what appears to be schol-
arship before the unlearned.
I now turn to his argument on the new birth. We agree that
to be born (begotten) of God and to be born (begotten) of the
Spirit is the same thing; that God begets us by the Holy Spirit.
But the gentleman is mistaken when he supposes this exhausts
the meaning of the phrase "born again." The birth of "water
and the Spirit" fills the meaning of the words "born again." The
birth is one, in which we are begotten by the Spirit aud brought
forth from the water. As I showed you in my last speech, when
one believes that Jesus is the Christ he is begotten of God, but
this faith is wrought in the heart by hearing the word of truth;
hence it is said that God begets us "with the word of truth."
But this word of truth, the incorruptible seed, is preached to us
by the Holy Spirit through apostles and prophets ; hence we are
said to be begotten by the Spirit. Jesus says the Holy Spirit
convicts the world. (See John xvi. 8, E. V.) He says he testifies-
(John xv. 26.) He speaks. (John xvi. 13.) He speaks through
apostles and prophets. (Matt. x. 19, 20; 1 Cor. ii. 13; Nehemiah
ix. 30.) Hence I conclude the Holy Spirit convicts by testifying,
he testifies by speaking, aud he speaks through inspired men. In
corroboratiou of this view we learn that when the Holy Spirit
came, as Jesus promised his disciples he should do, he came to the
apostles ; they arose and spoke to the vast multitudes that quickly
gathered about them, Peter appearing to be the chief speaker.
He spake as the Spirit gave him utterance, hence it was the Spirit
who spake. At the conclusion of his sermon it is said: "Now
when they heard this they were pricked in their heart, and said
unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men aud brethren, what
shall we do?" We see now what was done and how it was done.
The Holy Spirit convicted them by speaking unto them through
the apostles. Did these people believe that Jesus was the Christ?
Yes, or they would not have been pricked in the heart with a sense
of guilt, nor would they have cried out asking what they must
J. A. HARDING'S SEVENTH SPEECH. 359
do. Then they were begotten of God. The Holy Spirit had planted
the good seed there, and it was doing its work. What happened
then? Peter told them what to do, and they that received his
word were baptized, and the same day there were added unto
them about three thousand souls. When did they (the three thou-
sand) receive the Holy Ghost? When they were baptized. (In
proof of all this, read Acts ii.) Were they then sons of God? Tes,
for Paul says, "Because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit -
of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father." (Gal. iv. 6.)
Well, if sous of God, of course they had been born again. How
were they born again? They heard the Spirit testify about Jesus;
thus loving, trusting, penitent faith was wrought in their hearts ;
then they were immersed. Thus they were born again born of "
water and the Spirit. Hence to be born of water and the Spirit,
and to believe and be baptized, are but two ways of stating the
same thing. One is a figurative and the other a literal statement
of how we pass from the kingdom of Satan into the kingdom of -
God from sin to salvation.
The gentleman claims that if the words "water" and "Spirit"
indicate two distinct ideas, then we have two begettiugs and no
birth, or two births and no begetting. Ah ! 'tis strange that he
should think so. Does he not know that when one is begotten by
his father and brought forth from his mother he is said to be born ~
of his parents? If he does not know that, he ought to learn that
such is a proper form of speech, both in the English and the Greek.
But with his view of the matter, that water means Spirit, he cer-
tainly has one begetting and no birth, or one birth and no beget-
ting a son with only one parent. Did you ever hear before, either
in figure or in fact, of such a birth as that ?
But, he says, the water comes before the Spirit. Tes, in order
of mention but not of occurrence. Paul says, "If thou shalt con-
fess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine
heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thqu shalt be saved."
Here the apostle mentions the confession before faith, but that is
not the order in which they occur. We talk about putting on
shoes and socks, coat and vest; when, if we observed the order
of occurrence, we would say socks and shoes, vest and coat. Such
forms of speech are familiar in all languages. The child of God,
looking back, says I was born of water and Spirit, observing not
the order of occurrence, but the order of appearance from his
standpoint.
360 SECOND PROPOSITION.
The gentleman then quotes quite extensively from a sermon on
"The New Birth," by my brother, P, G. Allen. In that sermon
Brother Allen shows that the new birth consists in having faith
wrought in the heart by the teaching of the Spirit, through in-
spired men, and in being immersed. He claims that born of water
means baptism. He claims also that it is the inward man that is
immersed. It is not the body that is the active, responsible agent,
that wills to obey the Lord, that submits to baptism, but the
inward man. Hence he claims that baptism in water is not a mere
bodily ordinance, a mere external ceremony, but an act of sub-
mission to God performed by the spiritual man. Hence he argues
that though you can immerse stones, sticks, infants and idiots,,
only intelligent, spiritual beings can be baptized with the baptism
instituted by Christ. In all this I have no fault to find with what
he says. As to what the new birth is, as to the changes that take
place in it, we agree perfectly. I commend the sermon to Brother
Moody. If he has not sinned away his day of grace, it may do
him some good.
I proceed now with my affirmative argument. Christians are
represented as being priests unto God. Peter says: "Ye also, a&
lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to
offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ."
(1 Peter ii. 5.) He says, verse 9, "Ye are a chosen generation, a
royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people." (See also Isa.
Ixi. 6, and Rev. i. 6.) Christ is our great High Priest. (See Heb.
iv. 14, and x. 21.) Now the Aaronic priesthood was typical of the
Christian priesthood, Aaron a type of Christ, his sons types of
Christians. Hence in the consecration of the Aaronic priesthood
we have a type of the induction of men into the Church of Christ.
Bead Exodus xxix. and Leviticus viii., and you will see how Aaron
and his sons were consecrated. They were brought to the door of
the tabernacle; then (1) their bodies were washed with water,
typical of baptism; (2) they were clothed with the priestly gar-
ments, typical of our being clothed with the robes of righteous-
ness, of our being saved, forgiven (see Ps. cxxxii. 9, 16; Isa. Ixi.
10; Job xxix. 14; Matt. iii. 15) ; (3) then Aaron was anointed with
oil, typical of Christ's being anointed with the Holy Ghost, just after
his baptism; then came the ceremony of presenting offerings to
the Lord; the sons of Aaron were also anointed with oil. No man
was ever allowed to enter the temple and officiate as a priest until
he had thus been washed, clothed and anointed; and he was never
J. A. HABDING'S SEVENTH SPEECH. 361
clothed until he was washed; nor was he anointed till he was
clothed. See how beautifully this was carried out under apostolic
preaching; first baptism (the washing), then the remission of sins-
(the clothing with righteousness), and then the gift of the Holy
Spirit (the anointing). (See Acts ii. 38, and iii. 19, E. Y.)
So, beloved, no matter where we study this question, whether
in types, in figurative language, or in plain, literal speech, water
always stands (under the Messianic reign) between the sinner and
salvation, between the kingdoms of Satan and of God. The Israel-
ites had to pass through the sea, through their baptism, in order
to escape from their enemies. The priest, as he approached the
temple or tabernacle to be consecrated that he might enter and
serve as priest therein, found water at the door, and through that
washing he must go, or he could not enter. Jesus says, "Except
a man be born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the
kingdom of God." He says also, "He that believeth and is bap-
tized shall be saved." He is said to have cleansed the Church "by
the washing of water with the word." (Eph. v. 26, E. V.) He is-
represented as having saved us " through the washing of regenera-
tion and renewing of the Holy Ghost." (Titus iii. 5.) We are
represented as being baptized into Christ, and as thus putting him
on. Baptism is said to save us. We are represented as being-
made free from sin when we obey from the heart the form of doc-
trine. And then sinners are told in plain language to repent and
be baptized in the name of Jesus for remission of sins; to arise
and be baptized and wash away their sins. What could be
plainer, stronger or more convincing than these plain teachings of"
Scripture?
Time expired.
J. B. Moody's Seventh Reply.
Ladies and Gentlemen :
My adversary, like a roaring lion, diligently seeks to devour me.
I am willing that every statement that I have made about other
debates shall stand as it is. I have nothing to retract, quality or
fear. Any reader can see how far his charges miss the mark,
What if Drs. Graves, Hovey, Hackett, Meyer and all others say
John iii. 5 refers to baptism? Does my opponent prove his doc-
trine by that? Would that keep him from being lost? Do they
believe his doctrine? These authors have no more fellowship for
his ruinous doctrine than I have. "Is it not barely possible that
Dr. Graves and the balance of us are correct?" This language is
characteristic of Mr. Harding. We doubt if any other man would
use such deceptive language. He puts himself in harmony with
the authorities noted, and thus claims to have proved his doctrine.
You are doubtless satisfied by this time that Mr. Harding will
claim, concede, assert, or deny any thing to gain his point, and
his people may think he does, but I am so sure that his silly cavil-
ings are so apparent to others that I don't stop to expose them.
See again his reply on the new covenant. Was it not before
Abraham? Did not David pray through the same Holy Spirit that
inspired Ezekiel? Did these not utter the words of the Holy
Spirit? "The poor man must be dazed." I have said enough on
the covenants, and can't afford to repeat.
His reply on ~kai is another illustration of this. Did I say that
Icai always means even? Will Mr. Harding deny that it often does?
and that it is thus translated hundreds of times, and thus defined
in the lexicons? Will he deny that "and" in many places in the
Scripture means "even?" Does he not know that the passage in
Zech. ix. 9 is thus translated in the Revision? Does any one in
this world, except Mr. Harding, believe that Christ rode both ani-
mals? May the Lord help me to bear with such trifling.
He writes about "born of water" as if that was Scripture. The
Creek is, "Ex hudatos kai pneumatos." It can never mean both
of water and Spirit. It would then be "Kai ex hudatos kai ek
J. B. MOODY'S SEVENTH EEPLT. 363
pneumas" The Greek absolutely forbids "of water as well as
Spirit," or "of water in addition to Spirit." Nor is it "born of
water and of the Spirit." In that case the preposition would be
repeated ex Tiudatos kai eJc pneumatos. The one preposition gov-
erns both nouns. Nor is "born of water" a symbol of "born of
Spirit." That can't be gotten out of the Greek. You can't get
two actions here. The natural purifying element, water, is insep-
arably connected with, the soul purifying element, Spirit ; and
"what God has joined together let no man put asunder."
Now you see clearly one more birth, and only one more, is in
the mind of Christ and Nicodernus.
Then ~kai cannot be thus copulative; for, if so, one must be born
tivice more of water and the Spirit and the other must be main-
tained, or the argument on order must be abandoned. If we
believed that the two expressions refer to two births, then we
would say, except one be born of water he cannot be born of the
Spirit. We would further say that one must be born of water,
then of Spirit, and then he could enter the kingdom of God; and
we would not have him baptized into the kingdom without the
birth of the Spirit. Nor will it do to use a single Jcai in the sense
of " as well as." Nor will it do to translate it " added to," for then
repentance must be added to faith, and faith must be added to
baptism, or all Bible order is reversed. That baptism is not re-
ferred to in the fifth verse is evident from several considerations.
First, whatever Christ said is true. If baptism is in the text, then
no unbaptized one can enter the kingdom of God. But unbaptized
ones will enter, for Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, with all the proph-
ets, shall come with the elect from the north, south, east and w.est
and sit down in the kingdom of God.
Again, we know that a man is born of the Spirit before baptism,
for faith precedes baptism, and whosoever believeth that Jesus is
the Christ has been born of God. We know that this is true from
the statement " that whosoever lovelh has been born of God," and
love must precede baptism. Baptism is also an act of righteous-
ness, and every one that doeth righteousness has been born of
God.
We see, then, that birth of the Spirit must come before baptism,
:and if "born of water" means baptism, then the order of Scripture
is insignificant. We should not contend for the order of Scripture
in one place, and then violate it in another. If a Church is a con-
stituent of the kingdom, and if one is "baptized into the Church,"
364 SECOND PROPOSITION.
and if born of water means baptism, then one must "be baptized
into the Church, and then be born of the Spirit, or he cannot enter
the kingdom of God ! ! !
Then the inquiry arises, why did Christ refer to water? The fol-
lowing answer is offered :
Christ spoke plainly of birth of the Spirit. Mcodeinus did not
understand. He was not accustomed to such language. But he
ought to have understood the symbols of the Spirit, which were-
two water and wind. So Christ refers him to these, and connects
the symbols with the thing symbolized, and he does this with ~kai
as an explicative, which was entirely proper, bringing his mind to
the familiar symbol first, water, even Spirit, meaning one thing, and
not two, as is evident' from the next two verses, as well as the
two preceding, and when he failed to understand this, he alluded
to the wind, which doubtless reminded him of the dry bones, and
when he failed to comprehend this double symbolic elucidation,
then Christ reproved him for not knowing what the Old Scriptures-
taught. Nicodemus ought to have understood these things, as is-
seen in what I have said, and which I deem sufficient
I have time only to refer to two authorities. Jacobus says: " Or
of water, even of the Spirit, which the water baptism signifies and
sets forth, but cannot give. He connects the water and the Spirit,,
because under that visible symbol he attests and seals that newness
of life which God alone produces in us by his Holy Spirit." (Cal-
vin.) Jamison, Fauset & Brown say : "The question clearly implies
that the doctrine of regeneration is so far disclosed in the Old
Testament that Nicodetnus was culpable in being ignorant of it.
Nor, is it merely as something that should be experienced under
the Gospel that the Old Testament holds it forth, as many distin-
' guished critics allege, denying that there was any such thing as
regeneration before Christ. For our Lord's proposition is uni-
versal, that no fallen man is or can be spiritual without a regener-
ating operation of the Holy Ghost, and the necessity of a spiritual
obedience under whatever name in opposition to mere mechanical
services is proclaimed throughout all the Old Testament."
If we continue the investigation, and follow the Lord's instruc-
tion, this view is confirmed. He tried Nicodemus from another
standpoint, namely, the lifting up of the serpent in Israel. Here
the Lord plainly teaches that faith in Christ, without the addition
of water or works, would bring everlasting life; and, as there was-
nothing between the look and the healing, so there is nothing;
J. B. NODDY'S SEVENTH REPLY. 365
between faith and forgiveness. If Christ meant baptism in con-
nection with the new birth, then, in presenting it from a new
standpoint, he should have taught baptism in connection with
faith.
We resort to one more effort, and apply the rule previously laid
down, namely, "the same doctrine in other texts." In Matt. v. 3
we read : "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom
of heaven." If an unbaptized man can be poor in spirit, then Ms
is the kingdom of heaven. Verse 10: "Blessed are they which
.are persecuted for righteousness sake, for theirs is the kingdom of
heaven." If there is any righteousness outside of baptism, and
one may be persecuted for it, then his is the kingdom of heaven.
And so of verse 20, and vii. 21, unless baptism comprehends " the
will of our Father who is in heaven." Chapter xviii. 3 does not
say, Except ye be baptized and become like us ye shall not enter
the kingdom of heaven; but what sayeth it? If baptism is in the
term convert, then something must be added to baptism: such as
becoming as little children before there can be entrance into the
kingdom of heaven. Christ did not say to the rich young ruler,
an unbaptized man shall hardly enter the kingdom of heaven, nor
that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than
for an unbaptized man to enter the kingdom of God; for, if so,
the disciples would not have been exceedingly amazed, saying,
"Who then can be saved?" Yet this is just what my friend be-
lieves ; but which he can never prove. And here we ask him a
question : If the natural man is able of himself to obey the Gospel,
how is it impossible with men, and only possible with God, for a
rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven? Is it easier for a camel
to go through a needle's eye than for a rich man to enter the king-
dom of heaven according to his doctrine? Does not this show
that his doctrine fits not the Scriptures?
When Christ said that the Pharisees shut up the kingdom of
heaven against men, and neither went in themselves nor suffered
others to enter in, did he refer to their hindering baptism? There
is no record of any hinderance being made to baptism, but there
was opposition to following him, as though the reign of heaven
was set up in their hearts. I don't believe they entered the king-
dom of God by baptism, for if so the Scriptures would read on
this wise : It is better to be baptized into the kingdom of God with
one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire. If we
enter into the kingdom by baptism, then we can substitute bap-
366 SECOND PROPOSITION.
tism for enter; but to do this in any case is enough to shame the-
advocates of the doctrine. Christ said, '' There shall be weeping
and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, Isaac and
Jacob, and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, and ye your-
selves thrust out. And they shall come from, the east and the
west, from the north and the south, and shall sit down in the king-
dom of God." Here the unbaptized surely get in; hence Christ
did not say except a man be baptized he cannot enter the king-
dom of God. Let us translate again to suit my friend's doctrine:
There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth when ye shall see
"the Disciples," and the Mormons, and all the truly baptized, in the
kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out; and they shall
come from West Virginia, and Central Kentucky, and Middle Ten-
nessee, and Southern Illinois, and Eastern Missouri, and shall sit
down in the kingdom of God. Christ did not say except ye receive
the kingdom of God as a little child ye shall in no wise be bap-
tized therein. Panl did not exhort the disciples to continue in the
faith, and that they must through much baptism enter into the
kingdom of God* Paul did not say in 1 Cor. vi. 9 that the unbap-
tized should not inherit the kingdom of God. Hence the washing
in verse 11 from the dark catalogue of crimes mentioned was not
in baptism, for baptism cannot do that kind of washing. Let us
translate again to suit my friend's doctrine: Know ye not that the
unbaptized shall not inherit the kingdom of God ? Be not deceived ;
neither Methodists, nor Presbyterians, nor Episcopalians, nor Lu-
therans, nor Congregationalists, nor Unitarians, nor Evangelicals,,
nor Dutch Reformed, nor Catholics, nor any other of the sects,
shall enter the kingdom of God. Paul did not say, in Gal. v. 21,
that the unbaptized should not enter the kingdom of heaven; nor
did he say that they which do such things shall not inherit the
kingdom of God unless they be immersed for the pardon of pa.st
sins. Paul, in Eph. v. 5, spoke of certain classes who had no
inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God, but he did not
have baptism in his mind then, or any other time; but my friend
has baptism in his mind at all times when he talks about entrance
into the kingdom. James says that " God hath chosen the poor of
this world, rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom, which, he hath
promised to them that love him." My friend thinks that the bap-
tized are the heirs of the kingdom, and the promise is only to
them that obey him.
Mr. Harding would make the impression that no one but Calvin
J. B. MOODY'S SEVENTH REPLY. 367
ever took any other view. I give the following from the Christian
Bepository of August, 1889. Of whom does the language of Cor-
nelius remind you?
"On May 9, 1569, a discussion took place in the criminal court
of Brugge, Flanders, between Jacob de Eoore, pastor of a Baptist
Church and a prisoner for Christ's sake, and afterward burnt to
death, and Cornelius a preaching friar. The discussion is given
pretty fully in the 'Martyr's Mirror.' We quote a reference to
'Born of Water,' which occurs in the debate:
"Jacob 'We baptize believers according to the commandment
of Christ, and you baptize unbelievers contrary to his command-
ment.'
"Corn. 'Here you be with your cursed mouth, you ana-baptist,
for Christ says, Of water and of the Spirit; therefore, the baptism
with the Holy Ghost does not alone give entrance into the future
kingdom of God, but the water and the Spirit.'
"Jacob 'I must then ask you whether there were never any
baptized by G-od and Christ with the Holy G-host without water?'
"Corn. 'What kind of an infernal question is that now? Who
could answer such a cursed question? Just see how this dirty,,
nasty bishop, weaver Jacob, tries to torment and vex us. Answer
it yourself.'
"Jacob 'Well, then, when Christ perceived that Mcodemus was
very much astonished at what he had told him, and, when Nicode-
mus, not rightly understanding his words, asked him how these
things could be, Christ replied to him, saying, Art thou a master of
Israel and kuowest not these things? From this expression of
Jesus we perceive that Christ was not speaking of baptism, but
was conversing with him concerning things contained in the law of
the Israelites namely, concerning the new birth, or the restora-
tion by the Holy Spirit; by whom all the holy fathers and chosen
of God, prior to the advent of Christ, were regenerated and were
baptized. For if Christ had been speaking of water baptism, as
you papists imagine, Nicodemus might have observed to Christ, I
never read in the law any thing concerning baptism.'
"Corn. '0 Jesus, how you can twattle; what a glib tongue you
have! In all the days of my life I never heard the Scriptures
thus wonderfully explained; completely contrary to the sense of
our mother, the holy Catholic Church, as also the ancient fathers
and doctors.'" (Martyr's Mirror, page 694.)
Time expired.
J. A. Harding's Eighth Speech.
Dear Friends :
Another day has passed, and we are again assembled to continue
this discussion. It is a continual source of pleasure to me to see
this great room so densely packed with such patient listeners.
And I feel sure that great good will come from the debate; that
the lovers of the truth will be encouraged and streugthed, and
that they will go forth with renewed energy to live the Christian's
life and to lead others to Christ. The truth will prevail. Long
.after the passions aroused by the asperities of the debate have
subsided, the facts and truths brought out will remain in the mind
.and will do their work.
And now to the gentleman's speech. He has a singular way of
debating. You observe that after a few extemporaneous words he
turns to his manuscript and reads his replies to me. The great
body of every one of his replies was written out before he heard
the speech to which he was to reply. No wonder they are such
tangled up affairs. They remind me of the following story: A
deaf man was working by the roadside hewing out a mill-post.
He was much troubled by questions from those who were passing,
.as he could not hear them, and valuable time was lost by their
stopping to write out their questions. Their queries were usually
about these: "What are you doing?" "Where will you cut it
off? " " What will you get for it ? " And they usually thought that
Ms price was too high ; they would not give as much for such a
post. Seeing a gentleman coming down the way, the deaf man
supposed he would ask the usual questions, and determined to
answer them promptly. As the man rode up the following con-
versation ensued: Stranger "How far is it to Cork?" Deaf man
"I'm cutting a mill-post." Stranger "So I see; but can't you
tell me how far it is to Cork ? " Deaf man "Just above this knot."
Stranger "Do you intend to insult me, sir?" Deaf man "Five
dollars." Stranger "You are either a fool or a knave, and I'm
half inclined to give you a good beating." Deaf man "Well, if
you don't somebody else will." [Laughter.]
J. A. HAEDING'S EIGHTH SPEECH. 369
The deaf man's answers, my friends, were like friend Moody's,
they did not fit. They remind me of Solomon's saying, "He that
answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto
him." (Prov. xviii. 13.) Brother Moody labors to overthrow the
idea that there are two new births, one of water and the other of
spirit, as though I had espoused some such notion. If he had not
written his reply before he heard my speech he would not have
talked so; for I distinctly showed that the birth is one, consisting
of a begetting by the Spirit and a bringing forth from the water.
He argues that a man must be born of the Spirit before he is bap-
tized. Had he said begotten by the Spirit, he would have set forth
exactly what I am contending for. And had he read his proof
texts on this point from the Revised Version he would have read
the word "begotten" instead of "born" every time. And so, too,
in the Baptist version, his favorite American Bible Union. The
passages are these : " Every one also that doeth righteousness is
begotten of him." (1 John ii. 29.) "Every one that loveth is be-
gotten of God." (1 John iv. 7.) " Whosoever believeth that Jesus
is the Christ is begotten of God." (1 John v. 1.) A man must
believe lovingly before he is fit for baptism that is, he must be
begotten before he can be brought forth. As the man that believes
in Jesus is begotten of God, and as faith is the first act of right-
'eousness that a man can do, of course it follows that "every one
also that doeth righteousness is begotten of him."
Now, my friends, I want you to keep in mind a fact about which
Brother Moody and I agree, and, in the light of it, listen to three
passages of Scripture, and I think you cannot fail to understand
what the new birth is, and how it is brought about. The fact is
this, the saved man is born again. The passages are these : "Who-
soever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is begotten of God." "He
that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." " Except a man be
born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of
God." But little' comment is necessary. The believer is begotten;
the baptized believer is saved, therefore born again, therefore in
the kingdom of God. Hence the new birth consists in believing
with the heart in Jesus the Christ, and in being baptized; and
hence "the kingdom of God" means the Church of God, and not
the everlasting kingdom into which people will come from all
quarters to sit down with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
Brother Moody calls the Spirit "the soul-purifying element."
He is mistaken about that. The blood is the soul-purifying ele-
24
370 SECOND PROPOSITION.
merit. The Spirit never enters a man's soul till it is pure. Jesus
says the world cannot receive him. (See John xiv. 16, 17.) Paul
says God sends him into the hearts of his SODS because they are
sons. (Gal. iv. 6.) Jesus, talking about the corniug of the Spirit,
said believers should receive him. (See John vii. 39.) And Peter
places repentance, baptism and remission of sins (cleansing in
the blood) before the reception of the Spirit. (See Acts ii. 38, 39.)
I stated that Graves, Hovey, Meyer, with all the scholars of the
world until the time of John Calvin (according to Wall), and all Bap-
tists till the time Alexander Campbell (accordicg to Graves) agree
with me that born of water means baptism, while Moody teaches it
don't mean baptism, it can't mean baptism, the Greek will not
allow of such an interpretation, and so on. Then, I ask, is it not
barely possible that Dr. Graves and the balance of us are correct,
and that Brother Moody is wrong in tbis matter? Whereupon he
lifts his hands in holy horror and cries: "We doubt if any other
man would use such deceptive language. He puts himself in har-
mony with the authorities quoted, and thus claims to have proved
his doctrine. These authors have no more fellowship for his ruin-
ous doctrine than I have." For shame, for shame! He knows as
well as you, as well as I do, that at that time I was talking about
the one point of agreement namely, that "born of water" means
baptism, and he knows that it was perfectly legitimate for me to-
quote those authors to establish that point, although they do not
agree with me in all points. When this debate is published, my
friends, you that read it turn back and see just how I used those
writers, and you will see how false and unjust his representa-
tion is.
To ward, the close of his speech Brother Moody said, "Mr. Hard-
ing would make the impression that no one but Calvin ever took
any other view;" and in so saying he states that which is untrue,
which is exactly opposite to the impression I made, as he well
knew at the time. I quoted the learned Dr. Wall to show that all
men interpreted "born of water" to signify baptism till the time
of Calvin ; I quoted Graves to show that Baptists (in so far as he
knew) so interpreted until the time of Campbell. And now Moody
claims I would "make the impression that no one but Calvin ever
took any other view." No wonder his Brother Taylor charged
him with "unaccountable misrepresentations," with "cruel injus-
tice," with " misrepresentation beyond any kind of moral endur-
ance," and so on. But the man who would mutilate an opponent's
J. A. HAEDING'S EIGHTH SPEECH. 371
language, as Moody did Lipscomb's, in order to make him appear
false and unworthy of any confidence, is capable of doing any
thing that a mortal can do in the way of falsif jing. Then, to show
that some one else besides Calvin claimed that born of water did
not mean baptism, Moody quoted from a conversation that occurred
in 1569. But that was five years after Calvin died, and thirty-
three years after his "Institutes" were written. If -he could show
that some one held to that view before Calvin wrote, then he would
show that Dr. Wall was. mistaken on this point. But, though the
doctor wrote 180 years ago, no one has shown that yet.
In order to sustain his view Brother Moody must translate Kai,
in John iii. 5, even. And he asks if I don't know that it is often so
translated. I reply, I have here a number of the best translations
in the world; none of them translate it even in that passage. I
never saw nor heard of .a translation that so translated in that
passage; neither can it be so translated there without a plain vio-
lation of the most important and fundamental law of translation,
Here again my opponent has all the translations against him. But
he claims that kai means "even" (Zech. ix. 9) where the prophet
says Christ shall come "riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the
foal of an ass." It does not. There were two animals. (See Matt,
xxi. 2.) When I called his attention to this he cried out, "Does
anybody in this world, except Mr. Harding, believe that Christ rode
both animals?" Well, this is what the Bible says: "The disciples
went, and did as Jesus commanded them, and brought the ass r
and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him there-
on." (Matt. xxi. 6, 7.) Don't you believe the Bible? I do. There
were two animals ; hence kai means and, not even.
Let me now show you, my friends, how it was that Nicodemus
should have understood this new birth, why it was that Jesus-
reproved him for not understanding it. As we have seen, the new
birth consists in having faith wrought in the heart by the Spirit'
through apostles and prophets, and in being baptized. That the
Spirit thus wrought in the hearts of men had been taught all
through the Old Testament. Nehemiah says, "Yet many years
didst thou forbear them, and testifiedst against them by thy Spirit
in thy prophets" (ix. 30). And for months at the time that
Jesus and Nicodemus had this conversation, baptism had been the
common subject for conversation in all that country. John had
baptized the people of "Jerusalem, Judea and all the region round
about Jordan," and Jesus was making and (through his disciples)
372 SECOND PROPOSITION.
baptizing more disciples than John. When you bear this in mind,
and then remember that in all the types of the Old Testament a
passing through water stood before entrance into that which was
typical of the Church, the kingdom of God, it is strange that Nico-
demus did not understand it. The laver stood before the taber-
nacle, the brazen sea, with it ten lavers before the temple, and
the Eed Sea must be crossed to enter upon the wilderness journey.
It seems to me that with this much preparation a master of Israel
ought to have had some conception of the meaning of Jesus'
words.
But, if Brother Moody's interpretation be correct, no man under-
stood these words till the time of Calvin, no Baptist (according to
Graves) till the time of Campbell; and such lights as Hovey,
Graves, Meyer, Wesley, Watson, Bloomfield, Whitby, Barnes,
Dwight, Whitfield have been and are in ignorance on this subject
to this day. If the Lord censured Nicodemus for not understand-
ing him, what think you, my friends, of the fact that (according to
Moody) the whole Christian scholarship of the world, with com-
paratively a few exceptions in modern times, have misunderstood
him to this day? Let me give you a few illustrations to show how
scholars talk about it.
Whitby : "If a man be not born of water. That our Lord here
speaks of baptismal regeneration, the whole Christian Church,
from the beginning, hath always taught, and that with very good
reason." (Note in "loco.)
Timothy Dwight, president of Yale. College: "To be born again
is precisely the same thing as to be born of water and the Spirit;
and to be born of water is to be baptized; and he who understands
the nature and authority of this institution, and refuses to be bap-
tized, will never enter the visible or invisible kingdom of God."
Whitfield: "Does not this verse urge the absolute necessity of
baptism? Yes, when it may be had."
So testify these profoundly learned men.
Time expired.
J. B. Moody's Eighth Reply.
Ladies and G-entlemen :
While Mr. Harding is in the affirmative he measures the length
of the speeches. He is getting exhausted, although in the use of
foreign matter and in oft-repetitions his cheek is as hard as a
statue. Hence I must confine myself to a negative argument on
the Scriptures he has so often introduced.
I will next notice his remarks on the deliverance of Israel and
the temple as types of conversion. He is ludicrously fanciful in
the main; but accepting, for argument's sake, we will notice some
things adduced. In these "types," as in the Gospel, blood comes
before water, the sacrifice before the sacrament. But in both Mr.
Harding begins with the water. Is it not strange that the altar of
sacrifice, of burnt offering, of blood, of vicarious death, the sin-
atoning altar should be so totally eclipsed by a basin of water where
the priests washed their hands and feet before going "into the
Church/ 7 the inner court. And is it not strange that the cross, our
altar of sacrifice, where our sins were atoned, the life-giving cross,
which was to attract all men, should likewise be eclipsed by a
pool of water, which also comes after. The man who can see
more in water provided for the body than he can in blood provided
for the soul, who rushes by the offering to the ordinance, and by
Christ to the Church', such a man is a literal! st, a legalist, and my
heart's desire and prayer to God for him is that he may be saved.
Read in Exodus and Leviticus his references with his seventh
speech, then help me pray for him.
In the other type, why did not my opponent begin with Ex. ii.
23, 24: "And the children of Israel sighed by reason of the bond-
age, and they cried, and their cry came up unto God by reason of
the bondage. And God heard their groaning, and God remem-
bered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac and with Jacob."
Ah, that is the way conversion begins; but Mr. Harding skips it,
both in the type and the antitype. Why did he not copy from Ex.
iii. 7, 8, that prayer, with the answer, comes before water, as
proved also in the cases of Cornelius, Saul, etc.? Why did he skip
374 SECOND PROPOSITION.
the good old Baptist doctrine in Ex. iv. 31? "And the people be-
lieved: .... then they bowed their heads and worshipped"
(before baptism). Why did he cot show from chapters viii. 1, 20-
23; ix. 1, 4-6, 13, 25, 26, and xi. 6, 7, that God called them "his
people?" and how he separated and made a difference between
them and the Egyptians! He would not allow even a dog to wag
his tongue against them. Why did he not, like all evangelical
Christians, expatiate on the great passover in chapters xii. and
xiii., where, in consequence of the blood, judgment passed over?
and how that night was to be commemorated by an ordinance
forever? Chapter xii. 42 : " It is a night to be much observed unto
the Lord for bringing them out from the land of Egypt: this is
that night of the Lord to be observed of all the children of Israel
in their generations" (before baptism). Chapter xiii. 8, 9: "And
thou shalt shew thy son in that day, saying, This is done because
of that which the Lord did unto me when I came forth out of
Egypt (before baptism). And it shall be for a sign unto thee upon
thine hand, and for a memorial between thine eyes, that the Lord's
law may be in thy mouth: for with a strong hand hath the Lord
brought thee out of Egypt." The Lord, having saved them in the
awful night when judgment passed over by virtue of the blood, he
proposes at the water of baptism to "show" them salvation as in
the Gospel. Chapter xiv. 13, 14, 19, 20: "And Moses said unto the
people, Fear ye not, stand still, and see the salvation of the Lord,
which he will shew to you to-day: for the Egyptians whom ye have
seen to-day, ye shall see them again no more forever. The Lord
shall fight for you, and ye shall hold your peace. . . . . And
the angel of God, which went before the camp of Israel, removed
and went behind them; and the pillar of the cloud went from
before their face, and stood behind them: and it came between
the camp of the Egyptians and the camp of Israel."
That pillar of cloud and fire was the Lord Jehovah. They were
not yet baptized, but any one who has more faith in the Lord than
in the water will say, they are safe, safe, safe. Moses and his
parents and Aaron were all saved by faith ; and here at the borders
of the Red Sea, before they go down into the water, they are as
safe as they ever will be.
What does Paul say of the faith of Moses up to this time, before
baptism has cut its figure? Heb. xi. 24-29: "By faith Moses,
when he was come to years, refused to be called the sou of Pha-
raoh's daughter, choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people
J. B. MOODY' S EIGHTH REPLY. 375
of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season (before
baptism); esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than
the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompense
of the reward. By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath
of the king: for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible (forty
years before baptism). Through faith he kept the passover, and
the sprinkling of blood, lest he that destroyed the firstborn should
touch them (before baptism). By faith they passed through the
Bed Sea as by dry land: which the Egyptians assaying to do were
drowned."
Let Mr. Harding make the Egyptians "the sins of Israel," and
they are left in the water, to be sure, but that leaves Swedenborg
behind.
We come now to 1 Peter iii. 20, 21. It is assumed that baptism
is the antitype of the salvation of Noah; that Noah was saved by
water, and that baptism also now saves us; that a man is a sinner
until baptized, and that baptism saves him, and this being an anti-
type, the corresponding type must bear resemblance; that is, Noah
was a sinner, and was saved by the flood.
Was Noah a sinner when the flood came? "But Noah found
grace in the eyes of the Lord." "Noah was a just man and walked
with God." This was probably 120 years before the flood. Verse
22 : " Thus did Noah according to all that God commanded him, so
did he." Gen. vii. 1: "And the Lord said unto Noah, Come, thou
and all thy house, into the ark: for thee I have seen righteous
before me in this generation."
Turning to Heb. i. 7 we read: "In faith Noah prepared an ark to
the saving of his house." Notice, the ark is the instrument of
salvation. It was in the ark that he was brought safely through
water. The ark is that that saves, and that that saves must be
entered before the water. Had he entered the water before he
entered the ark he would have been lost. If the ark is to carry
him safe through water, then let him be safe in the ark, shut in by
God's own seal, before the water comes.
This antitypical argument must not ignore this feature of the
type. Was* Noah a righteous, or justified, or saved man before he
was brought safely through water, and was not his salvation
through water a manifestation of this fact? Read 2 Peter ii. 4-9:
" For iFGod spared not the angels when they sinned, and spared
not th old world, but preserved Noah, with seven others, a
preacher of righteousness, when he brought a flood upon the
376 SECOND PROPOSITION.
world of the ungodly, . ... the Lord knew how to deliver
the godly out of temptation." Thus God saved this "preacher of
righteousness" from the flood by locking him up in the ark. Now
the ark typifies Christ, and, before baptism can save a man in the
antitype, he must be locked up and sealed in Christ by divine
power before the waters of baptism get even in sight. Those who
tried to get into the ark through water perished, and only those
who got into the water through the ark were saved. So all who
try to get into Christ through water perish, and those who get
into the water through Christ are saved.
Having shown that Noah was a saved man, a preacher of right-
eousness, etc., and that in the flood God declared the fact by bring-
ing him safe through water, one of the cases mentioned by Peter
where God delivered the "godly out of trial," let us consider also
the statement that baptism is "not the putting away of the filth
of the flesh."
The order of the new covenant under which all are saved re-
quires cleansing before baptism or obedience. The order is as fol-
lows: 1. Prom all your filthiness will I cleanse you. 2. A new
heart will I give you, and a new Spirit will I put within you, and
cause you to walk in my statutes. In Jer. xxxi. 34, Kom. xi. 27,
Hebrews viii. 12, x. 17, this filthiness is called sin and iniquity, and
the cleansing is called "taking away" and "remembering no more."
The order is not only the.same, but the "filthiness" is clearly iden-
tified with sin. This is the only place where the noun rupos is
found, but the verb rupoo is once used, and that in a connection
that clearly shows its Scriptural meaning. Eev. xxi. 11: "He that
is filthy let him be filthy still." "Filthy," in the above, is clearly
not dirt on the skin. If "filth of the flesh" means sin, then bap-
tism does not put it away, and thus the Holy Spirit puts its om-
nipotent denial of this soul-destroying doctrine in the very text
that is used to support it.
Let us look at this in the light of the other Scriptures. Job xv.
15, 16 : " How much more abominable and filthy is man, who drink-
eth iniquity like water." We see from the connection that this
"filthy man" is not one with dirt on the skin, but one .full of iniq-
uity. Ps. xiv. 3: "They are altogether become filthy; there is
none that doeth good: no, not one." Here the "filth" is in con-
trast with "doing good," and thus by the connection w^see its
meaning. See the use Paul makes of this passage when he quotes
it in Romans iii. This expression not only abounds in the Old
J. B. MOODY 'S EIGHTH REPLY. 37T
Scripture, but it is there said "he washed away," "put away," 'Hook
away," "cleansed," etc., and thus we have parallels to the text.
Pov. xxx. 12: "There is a generation that are pure in their own
eyes, and yet is not washed from their filthiness." We have no
doubt but that they had outwardly washed in their ablutions, and
thought that took away their sins, like a generation in this day ;.
but the result is always the same, " pure in their own eyes, yet not
cleansed from their filthiness." A man can't really wash away this
filth of the flesh in baptism, for if so he can really wash away his
own sins with water. This washing must be done by the Lord.
Isa. iv. 4 : " When the Lord shall have washed away the filth of
the daughters of Zion." Ezek. xxiv. 13: "In thy filthiness is lewd-
ness, because I have purged thee." If this had been dirt they could
have washed it away; or if baptism washes away sins, then this
lewdness, with all the other filthiness, can likewise be washed away.-
2 Cor. vii. 1: "Let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the
flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God." If this is
dirt on the skin it is also dirt on the spirit, and they were not to
do this by baptism, for they had already been baptized; but they
were to do it by coming out from the wicked, and being separate,,
and touching not the unclean thing.
In Col. ii. 11, the filth of the flesh is called "sins of the flesh,"
which is put oif without hands and before baptism. In other
places it is called "lusts of the flesh," which are adultery, etc.,
which can hardly be washed away by water. The claim is that
baptism now saves us by washing away our sins. But Peter says
"not by putting away the filth of the flesh," but baptism puts away
dirt from the skin. One who has a heart sprinkled from an evil con-
science has a good conscience, and this good conscience desires to
answer by having the body washed in pure water, or by baptism.
Mr. Harding insists, despite all my efforts to teach him, that
"baptism now saves." I will put on him again his ponderous
brother, McGarvy, "The antecedent of which is water; and the
'statement is, which water doth now save you. In other words,
the passage asserts, not as in the Old Version, that baptism now
saves, but that water now saves. This is the most prominent
change which the Greek text requires, and it requires this impera-
tively. Any one can satisfy himself of this by a glance at the
authorities given in Westcott & Hort, Tregelles, or any of the-
critical commentaries."
Time expired.
J. A. Harding's Ninth Speech.
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The gentleman claims to think that I am becoming exhausted,
and hence the shortness of these speeches (in the published report,
not in the oral delivery). So he claims, but, of course, he knows
better. For, if I were to expose fully all of the misrepresenta-
tions and incorrect statements that, he has made in this debate I
could easily fill an octavo of a thousand pages. But I am a mer-
ciful man, and I don't want to afflict our readers in that way. So
we will not devote much more than four hundred pages to these
first two propositions.
The gentleman claims that in the types the blood always comes
before the water. The paschal lamb was slain before the Israel-
ites passed through the Eed Sea, and were thus baptized unto
Moses in the cloud and sea; and, in approaching the temple, the
altar of burnt offering was reached before the brazen sea with its
ten 1 avers. Exactly; and so it is in the antitype. Christ, the pas-
chal lamb, was slain before any one was ever baptized in his name,
into the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. It was after he
had been slain, buried and raised again that he said, "All power is
given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore and teach
all nations, baptizing them in [into] the name of the Father, and
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all
things whatsoever I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you
alway. even unto the end of the world. Amen." It was after
Christ had shed his blood, after he had ascended on high and sent
the Holy Spirit to men, that Peter preached for the first time in
his holy name. Yes, and the people believed his- wondrous words;
they believed the blood had been shed; they were cut to the heart
with a sense of guilt, being deeply convicted of sin. But for all
that the blood had not yet been applied to them ; they had not yet
entered into Christ, into the death of Christ, into the remission of
sins. But when they cried out in their guilt and fear, Peter told
them to repent, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for
the remission of sins, "and," said he, "ye shall receive the gift of
J. A. HARDING' 'S NINTH SPEECH. 379
the Holy Ghost." Yes, in the type and in the antitype both the
blood and the water come before entrance into Christ, into forgive-
ness of sins, into the Church. In approaching the tabernacle and
the temple first the altar of burnt offering (typifying the death of
Christ) was reached, then the water (typifying baptism), and then
came the entrance into the first room, the type of the Church.
The gentleman, with his usual accuracy (?), says that both in
type and antitype " Mr. Harding begins with the water." Of course
he knows better. He merely said that for temporary effect. He
knows I take none into the water who do not first confess a heart-
felt faith in Jesus as the crucified and resurrected 'Lord and Christ.
And then, as he so frequently does, immediately after making this
statement, which he knew to be incorrect, he proceeds to pray for
me. Strange man ! I have never before met the like of him, and
I presume his match is not to be found in all the world. I don't
know whether to pray for him or not. John speaks of the man
who has committed the sin unto death, and he says of that sin,
" I do not say that he shall pray for it." I am not sure but that
my fallen brother belongs to that category.
He claims that God saved the Israelites before they came to the
water, and showed them salvation at the water. Well, let us see
about that. The word of God says : " But the children of Israel
walked upon dry land in the midst of the sea ; and the waters
were a wall unto them on their right hand and on their left. Thus
the Lord saved Israel that day out of the hand of the Egyptians ;
and Israel saw the Egyptians dead upon the sea shore." (Ex. xiv.
29, 30.) If the word of the Lord is to be believed they were saved
in passing through the sea; and here (see 1 Cor. x. 1, 2) Paul
locates their baptism.
The gentleman spends some time on 1 Peter iii. 21, where we
are told about the ark of Noah, in which eight souls were saved
through water, "which also now saveth you in its antitype bap-
tism (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the earnest
request of a good conscience unto God), through the resurrection
of Jesus Christ." (Hovey's translation.) You remember in the
early part of this debate Brother Moody very strongly asserted
that baptism doth not also now save us. As this was a flat con-
tradiction of what Peter said, as given in our Common Version, I
wondered what he meant by it. He now explains. He says "the
passage asserts not, as in the old version, that baptism now saves,
but that water now saves." Well, what of it? Is not the water
380 SECOND PROPOSITION.
that he speaks of as saving the water of baptism ? Listen, while
I read from the Eevised Version: "The longsuffering of God
waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein
few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water ; which also
after a true likeness doth now save you, even baptism, not the put-
ting away of the filth of the flesh, but the interrogation of a good
conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."
Here Peter says they were saved through water, even baptism.
That is exactly what I believe. As in the ark the family of Noah
passed through the water out of a world of sinners into a world
of righteousness, so the water, even baptism, now saves usj that
is, through baptism we pass out of the world into the Church, out
of the midst of sinners into the midst of saints. You will observe
that Noah, in passing through the flood, left the wicked drowned,
just as the Israelites in passing through the Ked Sea, their bap-
tism, left the Egyptians dead behind them; and just so we, in
passing through our baptism, leave our sins behind us, washed
away in the blood of Jesus.
But, says the sapient Moody, "A man can't really wash away
this filth of the flesh in baptism ; for, if so, he can really wash
away his own sins with water." If the wise gentleman had been
with Naaman when God's prophet told him to wash in the Jordan
and he should be clean from the leprosy, he would have advised
the great warrior about thus : "A man can't really wash away this
filthy disease in Jordan ; for, if so, he can really wash away lep-
rosy with water. Wait till your leprosy is gone, and then go and
bathe to declare the fact." And of course, according to his way,
the priests, at their consecration, ought to have washed after they
entered the temple, and the Israelites ought to have waited till
God struck the Egyptians dead before they went down into the
sea. But God's way, it seems, is very different from his way. The
table of shewbread (the Lord's Supper) and the altar of incense
(the prayers of the saints) were on the inside of the tabernacle,
but the laver for baptism was on the outside.
With regard to the expression, "the filth of the flesh," I would
simply say that it means dirt. The Jews were very punctilious
about their ablutions. They would not eat unless they had dili-
gently washed their hands; when they had come from, the market
they would not eat till they had immersed themselves ; they were
very particular about keeping the flesh clean. Once when they
saw some of the disciples of Jesus eat with unwashed hands,
J. A. HABDING'S NINTH SPEECH. 381
'13iey were amazed, and questioned Jesus about it. (See Mark vii.
1-13.) Peter tells them that baptism is not the mer0 washing of
the body, but it is "the seeking of a good conscience toward God."
.(Emphatic Diaglott.) It is "an embodied request or prayer unto
God," "an earnest request for pardon." (Hovey.) The Baptist
Dr. Winkler, commenting on this passage in the "American Com-
mentary," says truly, "Baptism, as such, has no effect in improv-
ing the outward man." The word rupos is defined by all authori-
ties to mean "dirt, filth, uncleanness, filthiness." And with very
general consent "filth of the flesh" is understood to mean bodily
defilement. No other thought concerning it would ever have en-
tered any man's mind, I presume, had not another interpretation
been suggested in order to get rid of the doctrine of baptism for
remission.
I have now noticed every thing of any consequence in the gen-
tleman's speech, and I propose to devote the remainder of my
space to a consideration of the conversion of Cornelius. It is.,
.generally considered by my friend's side of the house a clear illus-
tration of salvation before baptism, because he received the mirac-
ulous outpouring of the Spirit before baptism. But Brother Moody
shows that he knows his argument on this case is much stronger
and more impressive when not reviewed, for his rule is to hold
it back to the last, when but little or nothing can be said in
reply. I will help him, however, to bring it to the front this
time.
The case is a striking one, and, when closely studied, clearly and
strongly illustrates the fact that men are saved from their past
sins by believing and being baptized. I must be brief in consid-
ering the case.
1. Morally Cornelius was one of the best men that ever lived.
(See Acts x. 1, 2.) He was the first Gentile to come into the
Church of Christ. (Bead the account in the tenth and eleventh
chapters of Acts.)
2. An angel of God appeared to Cornelius, told him his prayers
and his alms had come up for a memorial before God (x. 4), and
directed Mm to send to Joppa for the apostle Peter, and, said the
angel, "He shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do" (x. 5, 6); he
"shall tell thee words whereby thou and all thy house shalt be
saved" (xi. 14).
3. Hence it follows that Cornelius was saved by doing things
$hat he ought to do, by words that Peter told him. And hence it
382 SECOND PROPOSITION.
follows that he was not saved by the miraculous outpouring of
the Holy Spirit.
4. God wrought two great miracles in order to break down
Peter's prejudices against the Gentiles, to show him that he was
not to call any man common or unclean, and thus to induce, him
to go to Cornelius.
5. When he arrived Cornelius said, "We. are all here present
before God, to hear all things that are commanded thee of God."
(Chap. x. 33.)
6. Peter then preached to them the Gospel, and wound up the
sermon by saying of Christ, "To him give all the prophets witness
that through his name whosoever believeth in [eis] him shall
receive remission of sins." Mark you, it is not said "whosoever
believeth eis him shall receive remission of sins." Those wicked
and cowardly rulers of the Jews (John xii. 42) did that, but we
have seen they were not forgiven. Peter said, "through his name
whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. Then
the Holy Ghost fell on them that heard the word, and they spake
with tongues and magnified God. And then Peter said, " Can any
man forbid water that these should not be baptized, which have
received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" "And he commanded
them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." (See x. 43-48).
So we see, beloved, where they reached remission. Peter, after
saying believers receive remission of sins through the name of the
Lord, immediately commanded these believers to be baptized
11 in the name of the Lord." This is the same Peter who said
to a multitude of convicted sinners, "Bepent, and be baptized
every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remis-
sion of sins;" who said (wilting to Gentiles, too), ""Ye have puri-
fied your souls in obeying the truth;" who said, "Baptism doth
also now save us."
One other point remains to be settled, namely, the fact that a
man has miracle-working faith and prophesying power from the
Spirit does not prove that he is a saved man. See what Paul says
about faith that could move a mountain. (1 Cor. xiii. 2.) Study
the case of Caiaphas (John xi. 47-51), and the case of Balaam
(Num. xxii., xxiii., xxiv., and 2 Peter ii. 15, 16.)
Time expired.
J. B. Moody's Ninth Reply.
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Let me now give you what I conceive to be the true interpreta-
tion of 1 Peter i. 22. Some translate, "Seeing ye have purified
your lives." The word is translated by King James about as often
by life as by soul; and we think the Oxford Eevision has life
oftener than King James, though they have soul in this place.
Purification from sin ; cleansing from sin, washing away of sin,
and forgiveness of sin are considered synonymous expressions.
In debating the question of forgiveness of sins, we follow the
word Icatharizo, translated by the word " cleanse," "purge,"
"purify," etc., showing by these Scriptures that this must take
place before obedience to the truth, which they say begins and is
completed in baptism. When we show from the Scriptures that
this purifying is done for us, and must take place before baptism,,
they contradict by quoting this text. Peter says in Acts xv. 9 that
"God purifies our hearts by faith;" and faith must. come before
baptism. But Mr. Harding says the faith that is before baptism
is dead, and then and there is faith made perfect. Hence it is by
obeying the truth that we purify our souls from sin. Of course
their pre-baptism faith, being dead, is no faith at all, and hence
their baptism, being without faith, is no baptism at all; and so
they fail to obey the truth, which requires faith before baptism.
Peter, in the above text, did not use katharizo, but a different
word, with an entirely different radical meaning. A man must be
cleansed from sin by the blood of Christ, must be washed, sancti-
fied and justified "in the Spirit of God." This is the internal
cleansing, or purification, included in the proposition. But a man
being thus cleansed in heart must show his cleansing by a godly
walk, by keeping himself unspotted from the world, abstaining-
from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul. How is a Christian
to glorify God? to be holy in all manner of conversation, etc.?
By walking as children of light, or by "obeying the truth." Thus
we avoid the errors and sins of this life by walking in the truth,
or obedience to the truth. Peter was addressing the "elect," who
384 SECOND PROPOSITION.
had been "sanctified by the Spirit." He further addresses them
in verse ]4 as "obedient children," not the obedience of an alien
to become a child ; and these obedient children were not fashion-
ing themselves according to the former lusts in their ignorance,
but were living in obedience to the truth, and thus kept their
lives pure. This has no reference to the forgiveness of the aliens'
sins. But what of that?
"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." This old
favorite Baptist text is held in doubt by the majority of scholars.
I now propose to my friend that when we come to write the
debate we devote nine thousand words each in collecting the best
testimony on both sides, and then leave it to the reader.. (Mr.
Harding accepted the proposition.) But, granting the genuineness
of the passage, we have nothing to lose, and Mr. Harding nothing
to gain. Of course, if all believers will be saved, then all confess-
ing believers, and all baptized believers, and all obedient believers,
will also be saved. These, and more, are additional marks of
recognition, and they do not deny the first statement. Salvation
predicated of any characteristic subsequent to faith is not in con-
flict with any statement that predicates the same of faith. I go
further, and say that those numerous Scriptures that predicate
salvation of faith do not make null and void those numerous
Scriptures that predicate salvation of something antecedent to
faith. I believe that in the divine mind the saved existed, not
only in character, but also as individuals, from eternity, and their
salvation, as we have seen, is predicated of election, predestina-
tion, effectual call, and also to the covenant, which shows that an
elected and predestinated people were given to Christ, all of whom
should come to him; and to all of whom he should give eternal
life, and should glorify them at last. Here was real salvation in
the divine mind, while faith brought conscious salvation, and
obedience recognizable salvation. I believe all those Scriptures
just as they read, and I love all of them, and I preach all of them.
I believe Mark xvi. 16 just as it reads, not that all baptized be-
lievers may, but must, be saved; not that they should, but that
they shall; and no one in earth, heaven nor hell can pluck a sin-
gle one out of my Father's hand. Does my friend believe all such
shall be saved? No, indeed; yet that is just what the Scripture
asserts. As so much abuse is heaped upon this supposed Scripture,
and such perversions are made of it, I desire to adopt the syllo-
gistic test of that great master logician, Dr. N. M. Crawford, who
J. B. MOODY' S NINTH REPLY. 385
closed his honored life as president of Georgetown College. He
says :
"We propose to subject the doctrines which are professedly
drawn from the Bible to the syllogism, which is the infallible test
of logical accuracy, and is just as applicable to inference drawn
from the Word of God as to any others. Indeed, such a test is far
more needed here than elsewhere, as falsehood or error drawn by
mistake or wickedness from the Word of God is so much more
mischievous than any other error."
A prominent test is, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be
saved." (Mark xvi. 16.) Of this test it is said that it specifies two
conditions, viz., belief and baptism; that whosoever complies with
these two conditions will be saved, and that whoever fails of either
cannot be saved.
In connection with this we pause a moment to notice what has
been laid down as " a rule " to which it is confidently affirmed that
" there is not an exception in the Bible." The rule is laid down
thus: Where salvation is promised a person, or affirmed of him, on
certain named conditions, though it may depend on more conditions
than those named, it can never depend on less. If this rule holds
good, then, in spite of the test above quoted, and the Savior's ex-
press words, salvation may depend on more conditions than those
named, and for want of those additional conditions one who be-
lieves and is baptized may not be saved, " which," in the language
of Euclid, "is absurd," and therefore the rule so boldly challen-
ging contradiction is proved to be false.
Let us return to the text. It contains a universal affirmative
proposition. Using it as the basis of a syllogism, we have the
following: All who believe and are baptized shall be saved. But
John believes and is baptized, therefore John shall b<3 saved. Here
is a syllogism in Barbara, and the premises being admitted, the
conclusion is irrefragable. No other condition can be imposed.
The man that complies with the two conditions, " so-called," must
be saved, or, we speak it with reverence, Jesus Christ is a deceiver.
Salvation is promised to all of a certain class, John being em-
braced in that class. John being included in that class will be
saved without any new or additional conditions. So much for the
affirmative teaching of the text. Now what does it teach nega-
tively? Let us see. All who believe and are baptized shall be
saved. But John is not one of those that believe and are bap-
tized; then John is not saved. The syllogism is faulty, and the
25
386 SECOND PROPOSITION.
conclusion is invalid. A tyro in logic can point out the technical
error; but laying aside technicalities, every one can see that while
the first premise affirms salvation of a particular class, it does not
deny salvation to others ; and for aught that appears her.e, there
may be some other plea through which a man may be saved. And
for this very reason, doubtless, the Savior immediately adds, He
that believeth not shall be damned. The proposition, like the
former, is universal and affirmative. To this also let us apply the
syllogism.
All who do not believe are damned. Judas is one who does not
believe, therefore Judas is damned. Here again we have a sound
syllogism and a valid conclusion. Damnation is affirmed of a cer-
tain class. Judas is specified as included in that class. Admit
the premises and you cannot deny the conclusion.
The text then teaches that the want of faith results in damna-
tion. But does it teach that faith secures against damnation?
Let us see. All who do not believe are damned ; but John does
believe, therefore John is not damned. The syllogism is bad; and
though the conclusion may be true in fact, it does not follow from
the premises; for while damnation is affirmed of a certain class,
it is not denied of those who are not embraced in that class.
To teach the whole truth then both tests are necessary. The
first shows that those who believe and are baptized are saved, and
shows no more. The second shows that the want of faith results
in damnation. But no such thing is taught of baptism.
We will now consider another text closely allied to the preced-
ing: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shall be saved."
(Acts xvi. 31.) This is equivalent to the universal affirmation
all who believe on the Lord Jesus Christ shall- be saved. Almost
identical with this are the words of Jesus, "Whosoever believeth in
him shall not perish, but have everlasting life." (John iii. 16.)
Now let us test these. All that believe on Jesus Christ have ever-
lasting life (or are saved). But John believes on Jesus Christ, there-
fore John hath everlasting life (or is saved). A good syllogism
with a valid conclusion. Life or salvation is affirmed of believers,
and John is specified as a believer. That John hath life, or is
saved, is the inevitable conclusion. Try it negatively. All that
believe have everlasting life. But Judas does not believe, there-
fore Judas hath not everlasting life. Bad in logic for the same
reason as above. While life is affirmed of a certain class, it is not
denied to another. We take therefore the connected text: "He
J. B. MOODY'S NINTH REPLY. 387
that believeth not the Son shall not see life" (John iii. 36.) Judas
believeth not, etc., therefore Judas shall not see life. We find the
same result everywhere. Life and salvation, the consequents of
believing; condemnation the consequent of not believing; but
nowhere do we find salvation the consequent of baptism, or death
resulting from want of baptism.
We take now the noted text, "Kepent and be baptized," etc,
(Acts ii. 38.) There are various modes of interpreting this sen-
tence which we will not now discuss, but for the sake of argument-
concede the interpretation contended for by the advocates of bap-
tismal forgiveness. All who repent and are baptized shall obtain
forgiveness of sin. But John has repented and been baptized,
therefore John shall obtain forgiveness. Admit the premises and
the conclusion is necessary, for John belongs to the class of whom
forgiveness is affirmed. Now let us take it negatively: All who
repent and are baptized shall obtain forgiveness. But Judas is
not one who repents, etc., therefore Judas hath not forgiveness.
Bad in logic; for though forgiveness is affirmed of a certain class,
it is not denied of others; and for aught that appears, there may
be some other way of obtaining it. But -we also read, "Repent and
~be converted (turn), thai your sins may be blotted out." (Acts iii.
19.) The blotting out of sin being equivalent to forgiveness of
sin. We have therefore another syllogism. All who repent and
turn have their sins blotted out. But John repented and turned,
therefore John had his sins blotted out. A sound syllogism and
valid conclusion. Now try it negatively : All who repent, etc., have
their sins blotted out. But Judas does not repent, therefore Judas
has not his sins blotted out. Bad for the same reason as in former
instances because it does not appear but there may be other
ways of having sins blotted out. We therefore turn to Luke xiii.
3-5 : "Except ye repent ye shall all likewise perish," equivalent to,
All who do not repent shall perish. Let us apply the test. All
who do not repent shall perish. Capernaum does not repent,
therefore Capernaum perishes. Sound and valid. No one can
gainsay the conclusion. In regard to the great question, How
shall I be saved ? the answer of Scripture, subjected to the logical
test, is clear and plain and emphatic. Eepent, and thou shalt be
forgiven; believe, and thou shalt be saved. Are there any such
utterances in regard to baptism ? The famous texts do not contain
them. Where then are they to be found? Echo answers, Where?
Time expired.
J. A. Harding's Tenth Speech.
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Before replying to the last speech of yesterday evening there
are two little matters that I want to notice. You remember on one
occasion, when I quoted J. R. Graves to show that " born of water "
means baptism, Brother Moody replied that no man was more ter-
ribly against Campbellism. than Dr. Graves ; and to show the blight-
ing effect his teaching has upon us he told this story: He said
there was once an assembly of Baptists at Brownsville, Tenn.; J.
E. G,raves was invited to preach in our church-house there, and lie did
so with such withering effect that our people never met in that house
again. He simply crushed us out with one sermon.
Of course when my erring brother told that tale I did not be-
lieve it, (1) because it is incredible, and (2) because I had no au-
thority for it but J. B. Moody, and, with me, that means no author-
ity at all. I now have further information. Brother B. W. Saxon,
of this city, superintendent of one of our Sunday-schools here,
lived at Brownsville at the time. He was one of the committee of
brethren who went down to invite Dr. Graves to preach in our
house. He heard the doctor's sermon, which, he says, made no
particular impression upon him, nor upon our people, except by
its length, and by the bad taste displayed in its attacks upon us.
And he says our people met right along in that house until he left
there, which was, he thinks, about two years after the doctor's ser-
mon was delivered. Of course my erring brother did not know
there is such a man as B. W. Saxon, but he ought to have remem-
bered that Moses said, "Be sure your sin will find you out."
Again I say, the way of the transgressor is hard. I wonder, when
he prepares his speeches for the printer, if he will give his state-
ments on this subject in full, or if he will make no reference to
the matter at all. Well, we that read the book will see.
Another little matter: You remember Brother Moody, in his
fourth reply, quoted extracts from the Chattanooga Republican
about the Pikeville debate that were very complimentary to him
and very uncomplimentary to me. I called your attention to the
J. A. HARDING' S TENTH SPEECH. 389
facts that the article was evidently written by a strong partisan;
that he did not write from his own knowledge, for Moody says,
"He caine to me for facts;" and when I called for the name and
address of the reporter I obtained no reply. I have since learned
that the Chattanooga Republican and the Baptist Reflector ivere pub-
lished from the same office. Once more I ask for the name and address
of that reporter. I want to cross-examine your witness. Are you
too cowardly to name him? Do you know that I will expose you
if you do? Do you intend to hold it back till your last speech?
Now we will consider the gentleman's last speech. He tries to
turn the force of 1 Peter i. 22, "Ye have purified your souls in
obeying the truth/ 7 by giving the word "lives" instead of "souls"
as the proper rendering of the Greek. It would not help him in
the least bit if he could make the change; but since the Common
Version, the Eevised Version, Wesley, the Bible Union, McKnight r
the Living Oracles and Anderson, with translators and scholars
generally, retain the word "souls," I guess we will not be particu-
larly disturbed by the gentleman's criticism. His idea is that Peter
was not talking about the justification of the sinner, but about
the holy walk of Christians, who are to keep holy " by walking as
children of light," or " by obeying the truth."
That is all very nice, but it is not what the apostle said. I read
from the Eevision. Listen : " Seeing ye have purified your souls in
your obedience to the truth unto unfeigned love of the brethren,
love one another from the heart fervently: having been begotten
again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, through the
word of God which liveth and abideth." That the apostle here
refers to primary justification from sin is certain, for he refers to
the new birth. He says they purified their souls in obeying the
truth, having been begotten again by the word of God. First they
were begotten again, then they obeyed the truth as Peter says,
obeyed the form of doctrine as Paul says, and then, as both agree,
they were made free from sin. You remember Paul said, "Whereas
ye were servants of sin, ye became obedient from the heart to that
form of teaching whereunto ye were delivered; and being made
free from sin, ye became servants of righteousness." What can be
clearer? How can a man doubt that "obedience to the truth" is
a necessary prerequisite to the purification of the soul, to being
made free from sin ? I am sure I cannot tell.
The verb agnidzo (to purify) is used repeatedly in the New Testa-
ment to indicate the purification of the heart.
390 SECOND PROPOSITION.
The gentleman next discusses Mark xvi. 16, in which Jesus says,
"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." He proposes
that in the report of the debate we shall each devote nine thou-
sand words to this passage. I reply that within the limits agreed
upon he may use as many words as he pleases on this passage,
and that under the same limitations I will use as many as seem to
me to be necessary in reply.
Brother Moody says "this favorite old Baptist text is held in
doubt by the majority of scholars." "But," he adds, "granting
the genuineness of the passage, we have nothing to lose, and Mr.
Harding nothing to gain." "Of course," says he, "if all believers
will be saved, then all confessing believers, and all baptized be-
lievers, and all obedient believers will also be saved."
I reply, if the believer is saved the moment he trusts in his
heart, as Brother Moody teaches, then it is not true that "he that
believeth and is baptized shah 1 be saved." It is not proper to say
of a man that he shall be saved if he is already saved. Accord-
ing to Baptist doctrine a man is not fit for baptism till he is saved,
till his sins have been forgiven; while Christ puts the salvation
after the baptism, Peter puts remission of sins after baptism, and
he says baptism "now saves us." Salvation is in Christ, and Paul
says we are baptized into him, that in baptism we put him on ;
while the Master himself makes baptism a part of the new birth,
a part of the process by which we pass out of the kingdom of
Satan into the kingdom of God.
I was pleased that the gentleman quoted so freely from Presi-
dent Crawford. True, he was a Baptist, and therefore, according
to Brother Moody's rule, ought not to have been quoted by him ;
but that has no weight with me. I am willing to examine any
man's testimony, and to take it for what it is worth. With much
that Dr. Crawford said I have no fault to find. There are some
things he did not say that he ought to have said, that I will call
your attention to. True, as he said, the syllogism is the test of
logical accuracy. We will notice some of his, and present some
others.
1. All who believe and are baptized shall be saved.
2. John believes and is baptized.
3. Therefore John shall be saved.
So argues Professor Crawford. I make one comment, and pass
on. The salvation meant by the Savior in the text must come
after baptism, and not immediately upon the exercise of internal
J. A. HARDING'S TENTH SPEECH. 391
faith; for if when John believes, and before he is baptized, he is
saved in the sense of the text, it is not true that when he is bap-
tized he shall be saved, unless he believes and is saved, and is
then lost, and upon being baptized saved again. The salvation
here comes after baptism, not both before and after.
Take this verse: "He that believeth on the Son hath eternal
life; but he that obeyeth not the Son shall not see life, but the
wrath of God abideth on him." (John iii. 36, K. V.) From this I
draw the following syllogisms :
1. All who believe on the Son have eternal life.
2. John believes on the Son.
3. Therefore John has eternal life.
This is good, and cannot be called in question.
1. Upon him that obeys not the Son the wrath of God abides.
2. John obeys not the Son.
3. Therefore upon him the wrath of God abides.
By comparing these two syllogisms it is seen that the faith that
saves is the faith that obeys. The fact that all men breathe does
not prove that dead men breathe, for dead men are not complete
men. And just so the fact that all who have faith have eternal
life does not prove that a man with dead faith has eternal life; for
as a dead man is not a complete man, so dead faith is not com-
plete faith. I quote from Brother Moody's favorite translation,
the one that he calls the best of all, thus: "Thou seest that faith
wrought with his works, and by works was faith made complete."
(James ii. 22.) "For as the body without the Spirit is dead, so
also faith without works is dead." (James ii. 26, Bible Union.)
Paul told the jailer to believe on the Lord and he should be
saved, but of course he meant for him to believe with the com-
pleted faith; hence he baptized him the same hour of the night;
and then, and not till theo, is it said the "jailer rejoiced, believing
in God with all his house." Paul, you remember, is emphatic in
teaching that men are made free from sin when they have obeyed
from the heart the form of doctrine; and Peter says we purify
our souls in obeying the truth ; hence neither of them ever taught
that a man is saved by faith before obedience.
As we have seen, the salvation mentioned by Jesus in Mark xvi.
16 comes after baptism. It cannot come before it; for, if so, it
it would not be true that "He that believeth and is baptized shall
be saved." It is neither correct nor true to say you will give to
a man that which he already has ; it is not proper to say of the
392 SECOND PROPOSITION.
saved man that he shall be saved. What, then, is the meaning of
the word "saved" in that place? I say it means "forgiven," while
Brother Moody seems to hold that it means eternal salvation. If
I can show that I am right, then it follows that forgiveness comes
after baptism.
Eead Mark xvi. 9-16, and Luke xxiv. 1-47, and you will see that
they are parallel passages, the one being generally much fuller
than the other. They tell about Jesus' resurrection, about Mary
seeing him, about his appeariag to the two men who went down
to Emmaus, about their return and report to . the apostles, about
Jesus suddenly appearing in their midst, and about the conversa-
tion that he then held with his disciples. In that conversation he
said, according to Mark, " Go ye into all the world, and preach the
Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall
be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." According
to Luke, he said: "Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ
to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repent-
ance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among
all nations, beginning at Jerusalem." Notice now the parallelisms
in these two records of the commission. (1) Mark says " all the
world," Luke, "ail nations;" (2) both say "preach;" (3) Mark says
"the Gospel," while Luke refers to it as the suffering and resur-
rection of Jesus ; (4) Luke records the fact that Jesus told them
to tarry in Jerusalem till endued with power from on high before
starting on their work of preaching, while Mark simply states that
they were to go, without naming the day when they were to start;
(5) according to Mark he promises salvation, according to Luke
remission of sins. The angel said of him before he was born, " He
shall save his people from their sins." And John's father, Zacha-
rias, prophesied of his son that he would " give knowledge of salva-
tion unto his people by the remission of their sins." And then
when Peter preached the tirst sermon under this commission, be-
ginning at Jerusalem, as Luke said, he told convicted people to
repent, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remis-
sion of sins. And, to cap the climax, those who received his
word and were baptized were called the "saved." (See Acts ii-
47, Bible Union). That the "shall be saved" of Mark is equivalent
to the "remissions of sins" of Luke from these facts seems abso-
lutely certain to me.
Time expired.
J. B. Moody's Tenth Reply.
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Godet on Luke, page 513, says : " Mark's account is original as
far as verse 8. At verse 9 we find (1) an entirely new beginning;
(2) from verse 8 a clearly marked dependence on Luke. After
that there occur from verse 15, and especially in verse 17, some
very original sayings, which indicate an independent source. The
composition of the work thus seems to have been interrupted at
verse 8, and the book to have remained unfinished. A sure proof
of this is that the appearance of Jesus, announced to the woman
by the angel (verse 7), is totally wanting, if, with the Sinaitic, the
Vatican and other authorities, the Gospel is closed at verse 8."
The late Eevision sets these verses by themselves, with the
remark, "The two oldest MSS. and some other authorities omit
from verse 9 to the end. Some other authorities have a different
ending to the Gospel." W. N. Clark, who has been so strongly
indorsed by my opponent, in his notes on Mark has this to say in
concluding his remarks: "From the historical and ecclesiastical
point of view, the passage is canonical, i. e., it is a part of a book
that the Church has received as a whole into the canon, but the
question remains for the interpreter whether its testimony is to be
received as of equal authority with that of the Gospel in general.
This question must be answered in the negative." Alford has this
note : "It would thus appear that, while the passage was appended
as early as the time of Ireueeus, it was still absent from, the
majority of codices as late as Jerome's day. The legitimate infer-
ence is that it was placed as the completion of the Gospel soon
after the apostolic period The internal evidence which
is discussed in the notes will be found to preponderate vastly
against the authorship of Mark." Note on verse 18 reads: "All
attempts to reconcile this with the other Gospels are futile."
Smith, in his " History of the New Testament," sec. 6, page 704,.
says: "The passage is rejected by the majority of modern critics
on the testimony of MSS. and of old writers, and on the internal
evidence of the diction."
394 SECOND PROPOSITION.
Meyer, whom Mr. Harding calls the greatest living exegete, says :
"The entire section, from xvi. 9-20, is a non-genuine conclusion of .
the Gospel not composed by Mark." In confirmation he quotes
from Eusebius, Victor of Antioch, Jerome, Justin, Clement of
Alexandria, etc., and adds, " Moreover, this external evidence
against the genuineness finds in the section itself an internal con-
firmation, since with verse 9 there suddenly sets in a process of
excerpt-making in contrast with the previous character of the
narration, while the entire section in general contains none of
Mark's peculiarities In individual expressions it is
quite at variance with the sharply defined manner throughout
of Mark." He gives the following list of scholars who have de-
elared themselves "against the genuineness:" Thies, Bolten, Gries-
bach, Gratz, Bertholdt, Eosenmuller, Schulthess, Schulz, Fritzsche,
Schott, Paulus, Credner, Wieseler, Neudecker, Tischendorf, Eitschl,
Ewald, Beuss, Anger, Zeller, Hitzig, Scheukel, Weiss, Holtzmann,
Keim, and various others, including Hoffman. He says of Lach-
maun that he adopted the section, but did not regard it as genuine.
Meyer says of Wescott & Hort's treatment of this matter, which
ought to be in the hands of everybody investigating the subject :
"The most elaborate critical statement of recent times in English
is that of Wescott & Hort, vol. ii., appendix, pp. 28-51. The evi-
dence is weighed with candor and patience, thus affording a strong
contrast to Dean Burgon, the fiery English champion of the genu-
ineness of the passage." He quotes them as saying: "It mani-
festly cannot claim any apostolic authority." And then adds:
"Accordingly these editors in their Greek text inclose verses 9-20
in double brackets."
Dr. G. W. Clark's Commentary, Introduction, page 8: "Since
the appearance of Griesbach's second edition of the New Testa-
ment in Greek (1796) it has become common to regard these
verses (9-20) as not belonging to the original Gospel. A majority
of the latest textual critics have given their verdict against the
passage. Some, with Tischendorf and Meyer, pronounce it spu-
rious, or an apocryphal fragment."
In the "Textual Criticism," by Professor Warfield, edited by
Eev. W. E. Nichol, a very recent and able work, we find one of the
clearest and briefest statements of this matter. For omission of
the verses he gives B, Aleph, L, 22, 743, codex K of the Latin; the
Armenian, and .ZEthiopic; (Clement), (Origen), Eusebius, (Cyril of
Jerusalem) ; and, among the post-Nicene fathers, the hupotheses,
J. B. MOODY'S TENTH REPLY. 395
Jerome, Victor of Antioch, Severus of Antioch. Also such minus-
cules as 15, 20, 300, 199, 1, 206, 209, which preserve knowledge of
the doubt.
Some words are necessary in explanation of this evidence.
Aleph simply omits the passage. B omits it, but leaves a blank
space, which is apparently intended for it. This seems to prove
that the exemplar from which B was copied lacked these verses,
but they were known to B's scribe. As the weight of B is due to
the character of its exemplar, not to the knowledge of its scribe,
this does not effect B's testimony. L closes at verse 8, but adds
at the top of the 'next column: "These also are somewhere cur-
rent, 'But all things that were commanded they immediately an-
nounced to those about Peter. And after this Jesus also himself,
from the east even to the west, sent forth by them the sacred and
incorruptible proclamation of eternal salvation.' These are also,
however, current, after, 'For they were afraid.'" .... And then
our usual twelve verses are inserted. The existence of this shorter
conclusion (to which L gives the preference) is a fortiori evidence
against the longer one. For no one doubts that this shorter conclu-
sion is a spurious invention of the scribes ; but it would not have been
invented save to fill the blank. L's witness is, then, to MSS. older
than itself, which not only did not have our twelve verses, but had
invented another conclusion in their place. The Abbey Martin
tells us of another codex, which he numbers 743, that repeats the
arrangement of L. Codex 22 closes the Gospel at verse 8, mark-
ing it as "the end," and then adds: "In some of the copies the
evangelist finishes at this point; in many, however, these also are
current" and inserts our verses (9-20), closing "the end." The
old Latin MS. K contains the shorter conclusion only, and hence is
a specially strong witness to the omission of our twelve verses.
Proceeding now to estimate the evidence, we note first that the
Syrian text inserts the passage, and when the Syrian witnesses are
sifted out, it is left with Western (D, Latin, Curetonian, Syriac), and
apparently Alexandrian (C, Delta, 33, Memphitic) witnesses only,
and since all Alexandrian witnesses are full of Western readings,
this means with Western witnesses only. For omission we have
the neutral witnesses (B, Aleph), with L, 22, and other support.
Where the Alexandrian reading stands we cannot discover;* but on
appealing to internal evidence of classes, the apparent conjunction
of Western and Alexandrian witnesses is discredited, and we must
decide that the genealogical evidence is in favor of omission. L
396
SECOND PROPOSITION.
may represent the Alexandrian text, and K the primitive Western,,
and in the case of either of these hypotheses the verdict for omis-
sion receives additional strength. Internal evidence of groups,
which throws strong favor on B, Aleph, only confirms genealogical
evidence; and we have the whole weight of external evidence for
omission.
The transcriptional evidence leads to the same conclusion. No
good account can be given of the omission of these verses. To
suppose that they were omitted in a harmonic interest is to pre-
suppose a freedom and boldness in dealing with the Gospel narra-
tives never elsewhere experienced, and that to serve a purpose far
more easily attained.
To suppose that a leaf was lost from the end of the Gospel con-
taining these verses will best of all account for their omission,
but will not account for its wide distribution, nor for the failure
of the beginning of the next Gospel, on the other side of the leaf,
to get lost too. Mark stands very rarely in Greek MSS. at the end
of the book of the Gospels, and the loss of a leaf early enough to
affect the ancestors of Aleph, of B, of L, and of Western K, must
have affected nearly all MSS. as well. On the other hand, the in-
sertion of such an ending is transcriptionally easy to account for.
The abrupt ending of verse 8 demanded something more. That
the scribes felt this is evidenced by their invention of the certainly
spurious shorter ending. Why should not other scribes have
sought and found another tolerably fitting close for the Gospel?
And that this ending does not belong here, but fits its place only
tolerably, is clear on careful examination. The tear at verse 8 is
not mended by verses 9-20. Only Matthew and Luke tell us what
actually happened after verse 8. And if verse 8 demands a differ-
ent succeeding context, verses 9-20 no less need a different pre-
ceding one from that here furnished them. Jesus is presumed to
be the subject in verse 9, but the subject that would be taken
over from verse 8 is the women. The "but" that opens verse 9
does not introduce any thing adversative to verse 8. The new
specification of time in verse 8 is surprising after verse 2. "First"
looks strange here. The identifying description of Mary Magda-
lene in verse 9 is very remarkable after verse 1. Every appear-
ance in'a word goes to show that the author of the Gospel did not
write verses 9-20, as the conclusion of the narrative begun in
verses 1-8. And if so, the transcription al evidence that makes
an insertion here easier to conceive of than an omission has full
J. B. MOODT'S TENTH REPLY. 397
play, and we can recognize verses 9-20 as only another way of fill-
ing up the gap left by the unfinished appearance of verse 8. The
intrinsic evidence is not fully stated however until we add that
there are peculiarities of style and phraseology in verses 9-20
which render it easy to believe that the author of the Gospel did
not write these verses. The combined force of external and in-
ternal evidence excludes this section from a place in Mark's Gos-
pel, quite independently of the critic's ability to account for the
unfinished look of Mark's Gospel as it is left, or for the origin of
this section itself. The nature of the matter included in them,
and the way they are fitted to the Gospel, seems, however, to for-
bid the supposition that these verses were composed for this place
by any scribe. It is nearly as hard to believe that anybody wrote
them for this place as it is that Mark did. They seem to be a frag-
ment rather adopted from some other writing and roughly fitted
011 to the end of Mark. This fragment is certainly as old as the first
third of the second century, and may, as may also the pericope of
the adulteress inserted into John, be taken from the book of the
illustrations of the Gospel narrative which Papias composed, appar-
rently about 120 A.D. Neither is it necessary for the critic to be
able to give an account of the mutilated condition of Mark's Gos-
pel. To recognize that this fragment does not belong at the end
of it does not make it any more mutilated than it was before.
The evident incompleteness of verse 8 is evidence against the
opinion that the Gospel was intended to close at that point, but
no evidence that just this conclusion which does not fit on to
verse 8, nor complete it, nor the subject then in hand was the
conclusion intended. Why Mark's Gospel has come down to us
incomplete we do not know. Was Mark interrupted at this point
by arrest or martyrdom before he finished his book? Was a page
lost off the autograph itself? Or do all of our witnesses carry us
back only to a mutilated copy short of the autograph, the common
original of them all, so that our oldest transmitted text is sadly
different from the original text? There is roo'm for investigation
here; but, apparently, no room for accepting this conclusion for
the one that Mark wrote, or intended to write.
We have purposely chosen all these examples of such a sort
that the evidence can readily be seen to be harmonious through all
the methods. But we have also purposely placed last among them
a case in which the intrinsic evidence, while uniting with the other
forms of evidence in determining this reading, is left still some-
398
SECOND PROPOSITION.
what unsatisfied by its determination. It opposes the acceptance-
of the last twelve verses of Mark as genuine; but it no less
opposes the acceptance of verse 8 as the end of the Gospel. It
consents that this is not the limb that belongs here, but it no>
less insists that some limb does belong here.
Time expired.
J. A. Harding's Eleventh Speech.
Ladies and Gentlemen :
In his ninth reply Brother Moody calls Mark xvi. 16 a good old
Baptist text, and tries to show that it does not put remission of
sins after baptism ; but evidently he is not satisfied with his work
in that line, for in his last speech he tries to show that it is not
Scripture at all. Evidently he would gladly tear the last twelve
verses of Mark out of the Bible if he could; but we are not ready
to let them, go yet. Let us study the matter patiently, and see if
we will have to mutilate our Bible by tearing these verses out.
That there is some doubt with regard to these verses in the
minds of the most candid and scholarly of Biblical critics, it is but
just to state. What is that doubt? How should it affect us?
These are th'e questions that we are to consider.
In studying these questions it is necessary that you should under-
stand the technical use of the words "canonical" and "genuine."
If these verses are inspired, they have a right to a place in the
Scriptures, and are called "canonical." If they were written, as
was the body of the Gospel, by Mark, they are "genuine." If
Mark's work was stopped by arrest, or death, or by any other
cause, and these verses were added by Peter, Timothy, Silas, or
any other apostle or apostolic man, then they are "canonical,"
but not "genuine." Their canonicity I do not doubt; their genu-
ineness is a matter of doubt. Some eminent and learned writers
(as J. A. Broadus and J. W. Burgon) hold that they are both canon-
ical and genuine; others equally learned, while holding to their
canonicity, doubt their genuineness. The reasons against and for
the passage as a genuine production of Mark are summed up by
the Baptist commentator, W. F. Clark, thus:
" (1) The passage is omitted from the two oldest manuscripts,
the Sinaitic and the Vatican. In the latter a blank space is left, as
if the writer knew that the Gospel was incomplete, but was not in
possession of the conclusion. It is omitted also from a few other
manuscripts of much less authority than these two, and in a few
copies of four ancient versions. (2) Eusebius, in the fourth cen-
400 SECOND PROPOSITION.
tury, making more or less use of Ammonius in the second, arranged
the four Gospels in parallel passages on the principle of a harmony,
and from this arrangement these verses are omitted. Eusebius
says, moreover, that they are not found in 'the correct copies' a
statement in which he is followed hy Jerome and others, whose
names are of less weight. (3) As to the internal evidence, there
is no good connection between the passage and what precedes it,
and no allusion in it to the context ; the purpose of it is not a con-
tinuation of the purpose of Mark's record; it has the character of
an epitome, in which it is unlike any thing else in Mark; it contains
certain additions to the statements of the other Gospels, but they
are not in the least like Mark's characteristic additions ; the pecu-
liar words and phrases of Mark are absent, and about twenty words
and phrases are found that occur nowhere else in the Gospel."
"The reasons in favor of the passage are as follows: (1) It is
contained in all the ancient manuscripts except those mentioned
above, and in all the versions. (2) The nineteenth verse is quoted
by Irenseus (about A. D. 170) with the introduction, 'Mark says, at
the end of the Gospel.' From that time on the passage is freely
cited by Christian writers generally, who treat it as they do other
Scripture. (3) It has a place in the lectionaries, or selections of
Scripture for public reading, which were in use in the Eastern
Church 'certainly in the fourth century, very probably much
earlier.' (Scrivener.) It held a place of honor, indeed, in being
taken as the Scripture for a special service at matins on ascension
day. There is no question that the passage came down, to say the
least, from very nearly the same date as the Gospel of Mark, 'or
that it was generally, though not universally, accepted in the
Church as a part of that Gospel."
I trust that he who may read this debate when published will
carefully weigh this summing up by Dr. Clark, and that he will
then consider patiently what I am about to present.
The Eevised Version represents the ripest scholarship of the
English-speaking world of the nineteenth century,- which is equal
to saying that it represents the cream of the scholarship of the
world in all ages. The revisers of the New Testament were thirty-
seven in number twenty-four Englishmen and thirteen Americans.
Of Episcopalians there were 23; Presbyterians, 4; Congregation-
alists, 3; Baptists, 2; Methodists, 2; Unitarians, 2; Friends, 1.
In making their revision the canonicity and genuineness of the
last twelve verses of Mark, as a matter of course, came up before
J. A. HARDING' S ELEVENTH SPEECH. 4Q1
them. Dr. Alexander Roberts, of the English company, has pub-
lished a book called "Companion to the Revised Version of the
Mew Testament." In addition to being a ripe scholar himself, Dr.
Roberts had the advantages of all the debatings and discussions
of that most scholarly body on these verses, and he claims to give
us the conclusion of the revisers. After referring to the facts that
the quotation of the passage by Irenasus is most weighty proof of
the authority of the passage, but not of the authorship of Mark,
he adds:
"On the whole, a fair survey of all the facts of the case seems
to lead to these conclusions: First, that the passage is not the
immediate production of St. Mark; and, secondly, that it is, never-
theless, possessed of full canonical authority. We cannot ascer-
tain its author, but we are sure he must have been one who
belonged to the circle of the apostles. And, in accordaDce with
this view of the paragraph, it is marked off from the words with
which, for some unknown reason, the Gospel of St. Mark ended;
while, at the same time, it is inserted, without the least misgiving,
as an appendix to that Gospel in the Revised Version."
. The following suggestion has been made, and it seems to me to
be reasonable. It is a well-known fact that Paul was accustomed
to have a scribe to write the letters which he dictated, but to fin-
ish them, in the last few words, with his own hand. (See 2 Thess.
iii. 17, and Col. iv. 18.) It is also generally conceded that Mark
got his Gospel from Peter, and that in it he reflects the teaching
of Peter. Now, if Peter was accustomed, like Paul, to close his
letters with his own hand, the authorship of those verses is easily
accounted for thus : Mark wrote the Gospel down to the eighth
verse of the sixteenth chapter as he had learned it from Peter;
the apostle himself then took up the pen, and in a few words
closed the book. He was not willing that any one else should
write those last momentous, all-important words.
We do not know who wrote the last words of Deuteronomy;
Moses did not, for they tell s of his death; but we do not doubt
their canonicity. We do not know the authors of many of the
Psalms ; but they are unquestionably canonical. We do not know
who wrote the letter to the Hebrews; but Brother Moody will
hardly deny that it belongs to the canon. So, you see, even if we
impeach the genuineness of those last verses of Mark, if they are
evidently canonical, their authority is not affected in one jot or
tittle.
26
402 SECOND PROPOSITION.
Irenseus was born about the time the apostle John died, cer-
tainly not many years after; Irenseus knew Polycarp, and listened
to him preach and teach; but Polycarp was a pupil of the apostle
John. And Irenceus quoted from these verses as holy Scripture, and
represented them as having been written ~by Marie. It is certain,
therefore, that they were known long before his time as a part of
this Gospel, or he could not have quoted them with a faith so free
from doubt. But remember that his teacher was an associate and
a pupil of the apostle John. Ah, Brother Moody, we have found
this doctrine of baptism before salvation very early, and in very
good company. No wonder the revisers say it is "possessed of
all canonical authority," and insert it into their revision " without
the least misgiving." And, though they call it an "appendix" to
Mark's Gospel, they claim that it was made by one who belonged
to "the circle of the apostles."
John taught Polycarp, Polycarp taught Irenseus, and IreuaBus
quotes these verses as Scripture, without any misgiving, and
attributes them to Mark. The chief ground for doubting these
verses is that they are not found in the Sinaitic and Vatican manu-
scripts ; but Irenceus quoted the verses as Scripture nearly two hun-
dred years before these manuscripts were written. By whom they
were written, we know not. Is not the authority of this well
known pupil of John's pupil much greater than that of unknown
scribes who wrote nearly two centuries later?
Again, the Peschito Syriac translation was made in the first cen-
tury, in the apostolic period. It is regarded as the best transla-
tion of the New Testament ever made. Its language is that of the
people of Antioch, where the disciples were first called Christians.
The Syrians claim that it was sanctioned by the apostle Thaddeus.
And the scholars of the world admit it to be the oldest of the
translations. It contains these verses. Indeed, all of the transla-
tions contain these verses, and so do all of the manuscripts, except
two, the Sinaitic and the Yaticau. The Vatican has a blank space
left at the end of Mark's Gospel, strewing the writer knew there
was something else to be inserted which he did not have. It is
probable that the manuscript from which he copied had lost the
last leaf of Mark, and hence he left the blank space.
On this subject, speaking especially concerning the Peschito
Syriac translation, Prof. Calvin E. Stowe says: "We are perfectly
safe and within bounds in concluding that at least the historical
books of the New Testament were in circulation in the Syrian
J. A. HAEDING'S ELEVENTH SPEECH. 403
Churches in this Peschito translation as early as the latter part of
the first century. If so, then the Syrian Christians, the near
neighbors and contemporaries and relatives by language and race
of the apostles themselves, read this passage, the last verses of
Mark's Gospel, without question, as a genuine portion of the Gos-
pel of Mark, nearly three centuries before the oldest manuscript
used by Tischendorf was written. Now take this, in connection
with the fact that no one knows either the origin or the history of
the Tischendorf manuscript, while both the origin and history of
the Syrian translation are well known and well attested as to sub-
stance ; and also the fact that an accidental omission, especially
of the last leaf, is much more easily accounted for than an inter-
lined interpolation, which, at that early period, and in those cir-
cumstances, would have been well nigh impossible, and any one
can see that the authority of the Syrian translation must be, in
this instance, altogether superior to that of the Greek manuscript.
To this add the authority, on the same point, of all the translations
of the second and third centuries, and of more than five hundred
Greek manuscripts, and the case is made out." (Prof. C. E. Stowe,
in Christian Union.)
Ah, Brother Moody, you can't tear them out. We have more
than five hundred manuscripts to your two; we have all of the
translations of every age; one of these translations was made
(according to uncontradicted history) in the apostolic age, and
under apostolic supervision; and we have the testimony of a
Christian father, born at the close of the apostolic period, who
says he had the books of the Christian Scripture while daily listen-
ing to Polycarp tell what he had learned from John, and from
others who had seen the Lord; and, finally, Dr. Eoberts, of the
English revision committee, tells us the revisers consider it pos-
sessed of "full canonical authority," and they insert it "without
the least misgiving" as having been written by an apostolic man.
I conclude my argument, therefore, by saying :
"He that belie veth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that
believeth not shall be damned."
Time expired.
J. B. Moody's Eleventh Reply.
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I cannot introduce new matter in this final negative. Hence I
will only refer for a full and impartial discussion of this subject
pro et con to the learned works of Westcott & Hort, especially to
vol. i. ; pp. 24, 25, 60, 61, 113, 565 ; also vol. ii., pp. 296, 298, 299,
and appendix, pp. 21-51. No candid man who reads these testi-
monies can dogmatically assert that Jesus said, He that believeth
and is baptized shall be saved. I fall in with the majority of
modern critics in the opinion that Jesus never uttered these words.
Mr. Briney, in the Newburn debate, after taking these books home
and reading them, said next day that he was astonished to find so
much evidence against the passage. Has Mr. Harding the disposi-
tion to learn, or will he go on asserting, as false teachers must
do? In concluding, I would say that perhaps I have not con-
ducted my part of this discussion to suit all of my friends. I can
see how I could have improved it myself, for I am fallible. If I
had it all to go over, I would not notice the outside matters that
so mar the spirit of the discussion. If the reader thinks I am the
meanest man in the world in the estimation of my opponent, just
let him read his other written debates, and they will find that
Mr. Harding happened to find in each case an opponent as worthy
of his invectives and vindictiveness as myself. Those who have
heard him can testify also. I did not expect any better, nor would
I if we were to debate again, which I hope often to do. Wherever
our brethren mutually desire a discussion, and we are chosen, I
will do my best to serve. My opponent has been as meek and
gentle in this debate as in any of the preceding ones. Hence
there is no new reason why I should not meet him. I have aimed
in this to go over the ground, both affirmatively and negatively as
far as the limits would allow. It has been difficult for me to decide
at times how far I ought to follow after the incidentals that were
not germane to the discussion. With all of his Scriptures before
me to defend and to adjust to the general teaching of the Word, I
have aimed to cover both according to my limits. Generally I
J. 3. MOODY'S ELEVENTH REPLY. 405
have not had his speech before me when I prepared the one to
follow. Mr. Harding has been so slow in preparing his speeches,
that to hasten the publication, I have generally given my next
speech when he brought me its predecessor. So, in those cases,
my reply was not directed at the last speech. The last four
speeches of his I did not see at all, as my trip to Texas compelled
me to prepare my four last speeches before leaving, or materially
delay the appearance of the book. I suffer some disadvantage in
this, but this is my excuse. If I had taken as much time as my
opponent the book would not now be one-half done. Most of
these speeches were prepared during the busiest season of my
life; while the removal and consolidation of papers, business man-
agement, editing duties and associations were all on me. How I
have done it is the greatest mystery to me. I ask my critics to
make much allowance for this. I hope to have more time to pre-
pare my speeches on the coming subject; yet I promise that I will
lose no time. If I have not replied to some things in the last
speeches, remember I did not see them, and my limited space
required me to confine myself to replying to him on some Script-
ures often introduced in the debate.
I am preparing this speech in Austin, the capital of Texas. A
letter just received from my wife intimates what Mr. Harding has
to say about the Brownsville and Pikeville matters. As to the
former, I will say that my iuformation came from such respectable
authority that I still believe it just as I stated it. We both speak
from hearsay, and the matter can be decided by those who are
interested. The Pikeville reporter sat for six days in about six
feet of Mr. Harding's nose, and he knows his name as well as I do,
for I do not remember it. He can get his name if he wants it by
writing to his friends at Pikeville. The "facts" I gave him were
Mr. Harding's abuse of me in his paper. These I turned over to
him without comment, only saying, these are the "facts" concern-
ing Mr. Harding's charges against me, which need no reply or
denial from me. Like my Master, I answered not a word.
By way of recapitulation I can say but little. I undertook to
prove that forgiveness, with like blessings of salvation, is received
before baptism. I have given plain declarations of Scripture in
regard to nearly every one of these blessings, and they predicate
them all of something that must precede baptism. Mr. Harding will
say at one time that faith, love, etc., must come before baptism.
At another he says the faith and love that precedes baptism are
406 SECOND PROPOSITION.
dead, and nothing can be predicated of them. He has Christ in
the water, his blood, his death, his grace and mercy, all in the
water; forgiveness in the water, justification, sanctification, son-
ship, heirship, all in the water; repentance, faith, love, new birth,
Holy Spirit, all in the water. He makes water the wife of God
and the mother of saints. His boasted challenge concerning faith
and physical action has vanished like smoke. Granting him the
fundamental idea that, excepting, as the Holy Spirit does, the mat-
ter of the justification of a sinner before God, faith is a working
principle, yet these blessings are predicated of the works of faith
before baptism. Mr. Harding says repentance is a work of faith.
I showed you that life and salvation are predicated of repentance
in the same way that he says these are predicated of baptism
baptism eis remission, repentance eis life and eis salvation. He
claims confession as an act of faith, and confession must precede
baptism, and salvation is predicated of confession. Whosoever
shall confess with his mouth the Lord Jesus, and shall believe in
his heart that God has raised him from the dead, shall be saved.
For with the heart (not physical action) man believeth eis right-
eousness, and with the mouth (a physical act that is not baptism)
confession is made eis salvation. Here confession is connected
with salvation just like baptism is connected with remission. Mr.
Harding believes the one and denies the other. The eis in one case
he thinks suits his plea, in the other it clearly does not, unless he
can change eis like he does faith, love, etc., when they don't suit
him. Here are Methodists and Presbyterians who have confessed
with their mouth the Lord Jesus, and who believe in their hearts
that God has raised him from the dead. The Bible says they shall
be saved; Mr. Harding says they shall not. Poor Harding! 0,
vain man! who art thou that thou should reply against God? All
of such like Scriptures I have pressed in proof of my proposi-
tions, but, in spite of God's Word, Mr. Harding has caviled to this
good hour. And to support himself he has garbled from Baptist
authors, not one of whom believe Mr. Harding's doctrine. Then,
he fails to prove his doctrine by these authors, and no difference
how much he may prove from them, if he fails to prove his doc-
trine, he has failed of his object, and he and his moderator con-
fess that these authors do not believe their doctrine. These
authors and all good men are with the Bible in rejecting his doc-
trine. So let all good people unite with us on the Bible in insist-
ing that whosoever " believeth hath everlasting life."
J. B. MOODT'S ELEVENTH REPLY. 407
I have shown that Mr. Harding himself does not believe his
proposition. It reads: "Baptism to a penitent believer -is for (in
order to) the pardon of his past sins." He has confessed that he
is fallible, and sometimes sins. Then I suppose when he sins he
is still a believer, and I suppose he repents of his sins. Then is
he not a penitent believer? And when he repents does he not
repent of past sins? Then I take pleasure in introducing to you
this "penitent believer," who does not believe that baptism is in
order to pardon. Ah, my friends, actions speak louder than words.
He could not to save his soul from death prove two laws of pardon
one to the alien and one to the baptized. Has he done it? Dare
he try? Then here is a confessed penitent believer who will not
be baptized like his Mormon brethren in order to pardon, and
why? It must be because he does not believe it. I congratulate
Mm in rejection in practice a proposition so absurd. I trust that
in practice when he sins and repents that he goes to God with con-
fession, and by faith in the atonement made for sin that God for
Christ's sake forgives him and cleanses him from all unrighteous-
ness. I hope that he, nor any other "penitent believer," is so fool-
ish as to run down into the water to get forgiven ess. No one ever
got it there, or ever will, or ever can.
In this debate I have not sought so much to establish or to
defend myself as the doctrine of God's Word. The Jews got a
personal advantage of Christ by false accusations, and so they did
of the apostles. Christ and apostles went down, but their doc-
trine still lives. And so Mr. Harding has sought to overthrow me,
because, I suppose, I am more vulnerable than my doctrine. Very
well ; I had rather be overthrown than for my doctrine to be. Mr.
Harding knows what his people love, and he was engaged to feed
them, and they seem to take it with supreme delight. I pity him
and them, and ask God of his abundant mercy and grace to forgive
them for all the evil they have sought to do me, for " ye have not
injured me at all."
My excess in another speech requires me to stop. May these
pages lead all of its readers to a knowledge of the truth is my
prayer.
Time expired.
J. B. Moody's First Speech.
PROPOSITION:
The Scriptures teach that man is so depraved that he is unable without a direct
enabling power of the Holy Spirit to obey the Gospel of the Son of God.
Gentlemen-moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen :
The issue between iis on this question, like the other, is a vital
one. Mr. Harding claims for his candidate for baptism that he is
a child of the devil, still in a lost state, with none of the blessings
of salvation. I claim for our candidate for baptism that he is a
child of God, in a saved state, claiming for him "the like blessings
of salvation." The faith in Christ that our candidate exercises is
a live faith, bringing Christ, with all his fullness into possession.
The faith that his candidate has in Christ, he says, is a dead faith,
and brings none of the blessings of Christ. By our preaching our
candidate is taught to believe eis Christ. Christ being in the accu-
sative case faith must be limited to him ; not faith in Christ and
the Church, nor in his sacrifice and his "sacrament," but solely in
Christ without the Church, and in his sacrifice without the " sacra-
ment." A divided Christ with us is no Christ. To trust Christ and
somethiug else for salvation is not trusting Christ at all. Hence
the difference between us on this question is equal to the differ-
ence between the saved and the lost state, between heaven and
hell.
And now the issue again is equally vital. He says his candidate
for baptism has been operated on only by the Word. My people
believe that "the Word only" has no more power on the sinner
than on a devil. It may convict either of sin, but the conviction
produces in both exasperation and revived enmity. It may dis-
cern the thoughts and alarm the fears of both, but it cannot regen-
erate or recreate either.
If a candidate comes to us for baptism, and says he has not
been made anew in Christ Jesus, that no power has been exerted
27
410 THIRD PROPOSITION.
on Mm save that which resides in the Word, we hinder his baptism,
because, like his candidate, he is still a child of the devil, and his
baptism would be only a hopeless aggravation of his case.
Now I will let the best lights in my friend's school speak their
faith on this subject, for I am here to discuss the real issue between
the two peoples, and not any private opinion of any one, not even
of my friend.
Mr. Campbell, in his " Christian System," p. 267, says : "All that is
done in us by regeneration God our Father affects by the Word,
or Gospel, as dictated or confirmed by the Holy Spirit." In his
" Millennial Harbinger," vol. i., p. 294, he says : "And when we think
of the power of the Holy Spirit exerted upon minds or human
spirits, it is impossible for us to imagine that the power can con-
sist in any thing else but words or arguments." Here he places
the idea of any distinct power beyond the reach of imagination,
for he says "it is impossible for us to imagine that that power can
consist in any thing else but words or arguments." Again, " Millen-
nial Harbinger," vol. ii., p. 295, he says: "'As the spirit of man puts
forth all its moral power in the words which it fills with its ideas,
so the Spirit of God puts forth all its converting and sanctifying
power in the words which it fills with its ideas."
In "Millennial Harbinger," vol. ii., p. 297, and in "Christianity Re-
stored," p. 362, he says : "All the moral power of God or man is
exhibited in the truth which they propose. Therefore, we may say
that if the light or the truth contains all the moral power of God,
then the truth alone is all that is necessary to the conversion of
men." Again, in "Christianity Restored," p. 350: "If the New and
' Old Testaments contain all the arguments which can be offered to
reconcile man to God, and to purify them who are reconciled, then
all the power of the Holy Spirit which can operate on the human
mind is spent; and he that is not sanctified and saved by these
cannot be saved by angels or spirits, human or divine."
I introduce another witness, Mr. Sweeny. In the Sweeny and
Crawford debate, p. 124, he said: "Let it be borne in mind that I
believe the divine power of the Holy Spirit overcomes the enmity
of the human heart by acting upon it by the medium of divine
truth. That is my position. I contend for the sufficiency, there-
fore, of the truth to accomplish the conversion and sanctification
of sinners."
I introduce the testimony of another witness, Mr. Moses E. Lard,
who says, in "Lard's Review of Campbellism Examined," p. 83:
J. B. MOODY'S FIRST SPEECH. 411
"But what do we mean when we say, the Spirit operates through
the truth? We mean that it operates by the truth ; that is, that
divine truth is itself the vital power by which in all cases the
Spirit effects conversion; in other words, that the Spirit spends on
the mind of the sinner in conversion no influence except such as
resides in the truth, as divine, as of the Spirit. And we shall
further add, that neither in quantity nor in force do we conceive
that this influence can be increased and the human will be left
free." He says that "there is no influence of the Spirit on the
mind of the sinner in conversion, except such as resides in the
truth."
Again, Mr. Lard stated his proposition in his book, "Eeview of
Campbellism Examined," thus: "The Holy Spirit operates in con-
version through the truth only." What do you mean, Mr. Lard,
when you and your people say " the Spirit operates through the
truth?" "Why, we mean that it operates by the truth; I mean
that truth operates; that divine truth is itself the vital power
by which in all cases the Spirit effects conversion." "Does the
Holy Spirit use any other means or instrumentalities in conver-
sion?" "No; for the Holy Spirit operates in conversion through
the truth only," says Mr. Lard.
Mr. Campbell's affirmative proposition in the Kice-Campbell de-
bate reads as follows: "In conversion and sanctitication the Spirit
of God operates on persons only through the Word."
Mr. Briney said in the Mayfleld debate: "The personal power of
the Spirit is not present with the Word in the conversion of the
sinner." Again, he said: "The Scriptures teach that the Gospel
alone is sufficient for the conversion and sanctiflcation of sinners."
Mr. Briney here says in effect that " I deny that there is any per-
sonal power of the Holy Spirit exerted upon the sinner's heart in
conversion."
Mr. Crum, in his debate with J. N. Hall, used this illustration: "I
throw a piece of dynamite in the highway and retire to watch the
passing crowd. The power is in the dynamite, and those who
come in contact with it will feel it. The power is always there,
without increase or diminution, yet the result is ascribed to me."
His point was that the dynamite represents the Word, which is put
in the way of man, and all the power that is exerted is in the Word,
yet the result may be ascribed to the Holy Spirit.
I quote once more from Mr. Campbell, p. 121 of "Symposium" :
"Whenever the Word gets into the heart, the spiritual seed into
412 THIED PROPOSITION.
the moral nature of man, it as naturally, as spontaneously grows
there as the sound good corn when deposited in the genial earth.
It has life in it, and is therefore sublimely and divinely called ' the
living and effectual Word.'" On p. 148 he further says: "The
official service and work thus assigned the Holy Spirit is a standing
evidence that in conversion and sanctiiication he operates only
through the Word. And. as it has already been shown, conversion
in all cases the same work, he operates in this department only by
and through the Word, spoken or written, and neither physically
nor metaphysically." On p. 118 he defines the term only as equiv-
alent to a denial that the Spirit in regeneration operates sometimes
without the Word. Only is therefore made to mean always.
The quotations could be multiplied to wearisomeness; but DOW
we have the issue before us. My proposition requires me to prove
that in the conversion of a sinner (conversion being used in that
wide sense that includes regeneration and sanctification) there is a
divine power exerted that does not reside in the Word, or that is
not of the Word. I do not mean to say that this extra divine
power is not taught in the Word, for I will prove that it is, but
that it is a divine power not delegated to the Word, and which the
Word cannot exert. I maintain for my people that God appointed
means to be used by us, but that in the diligent use of these
means we are entirely dependent upon this additional divine
power. This power is vouchsafed to us in the great commission,
which is prefaced by a declaration of omnipotence, and closed with
a promise of omnipresence with those who engage in his work;
and the emphasis is laid on the divine promise. He did not say,
Lo, go, nor lo, disciple, nor lo, baptize, nor lo, teach all things, but
(l Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the ^vorld." Omni-
present omnipotence is impotence unless that present power is
exerted. We find a parallel in Isaiah xli. 10: "Fear thou not, for I
am with thee; be not dismayed, for I am thy God; I will strengthen
thee; yea, I will help thee; yea, I will uphold thee with the right
hand of my righteousness." In this commission is the whole work
of means, instrumentalities and agencies. Men are to go and dis-
ciple by preaching the Gospel, and to baptize with reference to the
name of Father Son and Holy Spirit, teaching the baptized to hold
fast all things whatsoever Christ has commanded. This appeared
to the disciples, doubtless, as an impossible task; hence he empha-
sized the promise of his presence and power. And why promise it if
present omnipotence is impotent ? Why promise so useless a thingt
J. S. MOODY' S FIRST SPEECH. 413
This promise is made repeatedly. Matt, xviii. 20 : " For where two or
three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst
of them." Also John xiv. 18-23. For a fulfillment of this promise
after Christ's ascension, see Acts xviii. 9, 10: "Then spake the
Lord to Paul : Be not afraid, but speak, and 'hold not thy peace, for
I am with thee, and no man shall set on thee to hurt thee, for I
have much people in this city." Also 2 Tim. iv. 16: "At my first
answer no man stood with me, but all forsook me; notwithstanding
the Lord stood with me and strengthened me, that by me the
preaching might be fully known, and that all the Gentiles might
hear: and I was delivered out of the mouth of the lion. And the
Lord shall deliver me from every evil work, and will preserve unto
his heavenly kingdom, to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen."
Here is clearly seen the divine presence and power, as something
distinct from, and in addition to, the power exerted by men and
means. It was not divine power exerted through successful
preaching, but in order to it. I wish to illustrate this copiously,
so that the power distinct from means may be clearly discerned. -
Turning to Deut. i. 41-45, we find that Israel had girded on every
man his weapons of war, and they were ready to go up to battle;
but the Lord said, Go not up, neither fight, for I am not among
you; lest ye be smitten before your enemies." But, trusting so
much to their men and means, they rebelled against the command-
ment of the Lord, and went up "presumptuously" to battle; but
the enemy chased them and destroyed them. Then they returned
and wept before the Lord, but the Lord would not hearken. If it
is presumption to go to battle with men without divine help, how
can we battle against principalities and powers and spiritual wick-
edness in high places, and deliver the prisoners from the power of
him who leads them captive at his will? In the twentieth chapter of
Deuteronomy, 1-4, we find the case reversed. Here Israel is charged
not to fear when they go to battle against the stronger than they,
for the Lord thy God is with thee. "Let not your heart faint; fear
not, and do not tremble, neither be ye terrified because of them,
for the Lord your God, he it is that goeth with you, to fight for
you against your enemies to save you." Here men and means,
with all the power that is in them, were used, but an additional
divine power was necessary to success. The Lord did not go only
in them, but with them: did not only fight through them, but for
them; and thus, God and man working together, success was
attained. Such illustrations of distinct divine power may be found
414 THIRD PROPOSITION.
on nearly every page of inspired history. The same is seen in the
working of miracles. "Words and other means were often used, yet,
as Nicodemus says, "o man can do these miracles that thou
doest except God be with him." Jannes and Jambres could with-
stand Moses as far as they could counterfeit miracles, but they
soon reached the point where they confessed, "This is the finger of
God." Christ said, in Luke xi. 20, that he cast out devils with the
finger of God; and in Matt. xii. 28 it is said he cast out devils by
the Spirit of God. In all such cases Christ may have used words,
but in addition to his words there was this divine power exerted.
Bead particularly the cases in Acts in., iv. and ix., where the
effect is ascribed directly to divine power. Especially is this true
where the patients, were absent, with no media for the divine
power. See Mark vii. 24-29, and Acts xix. 11, 12. In the first
case there were no words to act upon the patient, and in the other
there were unadapted means, such as handkerchiefs and aprons.
The study of miracles will forcibly remind one of this extra
divine power. The same illustration is strikingly exemplified in
the doctrine of divine providence. In Eom. i. 10 Paul says: "Mak-
ing request if by any means now at length I might have a pros-
perous journey by the will of God to come into you." And in 1
Thess. iii. 11 he says: "Now God himself, and our Father, and our
Lord Jesus Christ, direct our way unto you." Thus we see that,
with all the means of travel, Paul recognized his dependence upon
divine providence. By following Paul in his journey the divine
power in addition to means is obvious.
"The steps of a good man are ordered of the Lord." Hence the
good man "commits his way to the Lord," that the "Lord may
direct his steps." This doctrine necessitates prayer, and prayer is
a seeking of this extra divine power. The man who prays "give
us this day our daily bread" is not asking God's blessing upon the
plows, the hoes, the horses, the boys, the ground, the seed, but it
recognizes and seeks a power that comes through rain, and sun-
shine, and weather, and protection from insects, frost and hail;
where God works outside of means and instrumentalities in our
hands.
The man who tries to war, or work miracles, or go a journey, or
make a crop, has no use for prayer unless he recognizes the power
I am contending for. The same is true in executing the great
commission of our Lord. The preacher needs to be strengthened
and encouraged; hence in Acts iv. 29 the apostles pray. "Lord,
J. B. MOODT'S FIRST SPEECH. 415
behold their threatenings, and grant unto thy servants that with
all boldness they may speak thy Word. And when they had prayed
the place was shaken, and they were filled with the Holy Spirit,
and they spake the Word of God with boldness." Boldness, like
faith and all other blessings, comes from the Father of lights.
Hence Paul invariably asked the brethren to pray that he might
have boldness. See Eom. xv. 30-33; Eph. vi. 18-20; 2 Cor. i. 8-11,
and Heb. iv. 16. These are striking examples of prayer " seeking
help in times of need." If there were sufficient power in the
Word and in appointed means, then, in the language of the "Sym-
posium," "There they are; seek them and not God." The valley of
dry bones in the thirty-seventh chapter of Ezekiel is a striking
illustration of the impotence of means, and potency of the divine
power that accompanies the means, and proves that Christ put the
emphasis in the right place m the great commission.
Some limit the Holy Spirit to the act of inspiration ; hence the
power exerted is the Word only, the Spirit having retired, leaving
"the magnetism in the loadstone," or the dynamite, to act by the
power that is in it. These are the Word only party. Others be-
lieve that the Holy Spirit still exerts himself, but only through the
Word. One may be called by the Word party, and the other
through the Word party, but both deny any power outside of the '
Word, and thus limit the Omnipotent Sovereign Spirit to the Word.
I believe the Holy Spirit operates by the Word, through the Word,
and in addition to the Word; going before if he pleases, as in
creation and inspiration, and regeneration of infants, but always
using the Word as his instrument in the conversion of a sinner.
And I believe that man is so depraved that he cannot render
acceptable obedience to the Gospel unless aided by this divine
power in addition to the Word. I believe this divine power
through the Word, and in addition to the Word, is exerted in cir-
cumcising a man's ears so he can hear, in circumcising his heart
so he can feel and love, in opening his blind eye? so he can see, in
creating him in Christ Jesus, in quickening him into life, in giving
him the new birth, in convicting him of sin, in giving him repent-
ance and the spirit of prayer and supplication, in working con-
fiding faith in his heart, in shedding abroad the love of God in his
heart, in opening his understanding, in bestowing upon him wis-
dom, by working in him both to will and to do, by helping him in
every effort in obedience to the Lord. It is the same divine power
that preserves him unto the heavenly kingdom; it is the same
416 THIRD PROPOSITION.
divine power that will raise him from the dead, so that Christ
truly said, ''Without me ye can do nothing;" and if an inspired
apostle could do nothing without Christ, what can a poor unre-
generate sinner do? The Word to be effectual must be implanted,
engrafted, written in the heart by the Holy Spirit, which heart was
made new by regeneration, and being thus made good ground the
Word or seed engrafted or implanted brings forth fruit to the
glory of God.
Here is the direct divine power that does not disparage means
or men. Men holding this doctrine are the most diligent in the
use of means.
But more. Such are their views of man's depravity, and hence
his impotency, of man's complete dependence and unspeakable
needs; and further, such are their views of the great work to be
done in man, and for man, that the Scriptural doctrine of addi-
tional divine power becomes a necessity. Tell me a man's views of
depravity, and by that I will measure his view of the atonement.
The measure by which we reckon the sinfulness of sin is the
measure by which we reckon the sufficiency of the sacrifice. The
measure by which we mete man's helplessness is the measure by
which we mete the helpfulness of God. Our view of grace is our
measure of gratitude.
I purpose to argue my proposition
1. From the necessity of such additional power as seen in the
helpless condition of man, growing out of his complete, depravity.
2. The necessity for such direct divine power as seen in the unsuffi-
ciency of the Scriptures.
3. The necessity for such divine power as seen in the work to be
done.
4. The necessity for such additional divine power as seen in the
design of Scripture, which will accomplish that whereunto it is sent,
and no more.
5. I will prove this extra divine power from the plain teachings of
the Scripture.
6. I will prove it from the examples of conversion given in the
Scripture.
7. I will confirm the whole by the analogous truth that saints who
have life and light need this additional divine power, so that with-
out it they can do nothing; then surely is it needed by the sinner,
who is in the darkness and death of depravity.
Before taking up the first point, let us remove the rubbish and
J. B. MOODY'S FIRST SPEECH. 417
prepare the way the highway to a knowledge of the truth so
that even a wayfaring man need not err therein. The fallacious
reasoning on this subject is the same as on any other, and on all
other subjects discussed by my opponent's people. It is the bad
logic by which they would uncharitably and eternally condemn all
the uubaptized. In regard to the office work of the Holy Spirit,
certain things are affirmed of certain classes, which things, accord-
ing to logical syllogism, are true in regard to every one in those
classes, but does not deny them to other classes, because the
Scriptures do not furnish the major premises of the negative
propositions. For example, salvation is affirmed of all believers.
Then all believers will be saved. So far as those Scriptures are
concerned, we could not conclude logically that other classes, such
as infants, idiots and disbelievers, would not be saved also. We
could not logically deny the possibility of their salvation, unless
the Scriptures, which we both accept as truth, furnish us with the
negative majo'r premise: "He that disbelieveth shall be damned."
But the Scriptures furnish us with said negative major premise
concerning disbelievers; therefore all of that class shall be damned.
Salvation being affirmed of all who believe does not deny salvation
to other classes and other characteristics, such as to all who love,
all who confess, all who obey, all who endure. Salvation is affirmed
of all, in all these classes, and the opposite of salvation is affirmed
of the opposite classes only where the Scriptures furnish us with
the major premise. So in regard to this question. Certain opera-
tions of the Holy Spirit are affirmed of certain classes, but it is
bad logic, and worse theology, to deny even the same, and much
worse all of the diverse gifts of the Holy Spirit, and the different
administrations of the same Lord, and the diverse operations of
the same God to any and to all outside of those classes. For ex-
ample: He giveth his Holy Spirit to all that obey him. Here is a
universal affirmation concerning all of that class, but nothing in
that Scripture is affirmed or denied of the work of the Holy Spirit
to any outside of that class. To deny any operation of the Holy
Spirit to any other cla^s the Scriptures must explicitly furnish the
negative major premise, such as, "My Spirit shall not strive with
those who do not obey me." There is no such Scripture; hence
some office work of the Holy Spirit may extend to any and to all
other classes. Again: "Because ye are sons God hath sent forth
the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying Abba Father." Here
is not only the affirmation concerning sons, but the sonship is the
418 THIRD PROPOSITION.
reason, and the reason may imply the negative. Grant it, then
what? Simply this, no more, no less: All "sons" have this Spirit
of adoption in their hearts crying Abba Father, and all who receive
this Spirit of adoption in their hearts crying Abba Father are
enabled, if not constrained thereby; or, as the Scriptures say,
"Whereby we cry Abba Father; and thus the Spirit testifies with
our spirit that we are the children of God. For as many as are
led by the Spirit of God they are the sons of God." Now, I am
willing, on account of this "because," to grant the negative; hence
I assert that no one receives in his heart the Spirit of adoption, crying
Abba Father, and whereby they cry Abba Father, but sons of God. If
the Holy Spirit goes to another class, in any other office, he must not
go in this office of sealing their sonship, because they are not sons.
But does this deny that he goes to other classes in other offices?
Does this imply that the Holy Spirit cannot come to another class,
viz., the troubled and sorrowing, in his other office work as a com-
forter? To be sure not. When Christ was going away hiscliseiples were
troubled, and sorrow filled their hearts, and they needed comfort,
and in the plentitude of the Spirit's gifts, and in the diversities of
his operations, he comes to them, administering to their necessi-
ties. The world could not receive him as the Spirit of truth as
long as they love and prefer a lie. But does this deny that the
Holy Spirit can convict the world of sin because they believed
not on Christ ? Does it deny that it goes to any other class in any
other office? Such logic is not only bad, but it is mad; such the-
ology is not only lax, but it is low; such reasoning is not only
fallacious, but fanatical, from all of which may the good Lord de-
fiver us.
God is love, and love is of God, and all who love are born of
God, and knoweth God, whom to know is life eternal. If ye love
me, keep my commandments. One must know from personal con-
sciousness and experience, for he can know in no other way, that
he loves; and when he feels this holy emotion in all his heart and
soul and mind; when under the circumfluent influences of holy
desires, thoughts, purposes and affections his heart, like the
needle, trembles and turns to its true pole; when he knows "in
himself" that the enmity of the carnal mind has been slain, and
the root out of dry ground, with neither form nor comliness that
he should desire him, has become the chiefest among ten thou-
sand, and the one altogether lovely; when with the eye of faith he
can look into the blessed face divine, and say from the great depth
J. B. MOODY'S FIEST SPEECH. 419
of his heart, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God,"
"Lord, thou knowest all things, thou knowest that I love thee;"
when he realizes for himself that old things have passed away, and
behold all things have become new, he may well ask, what is this,
and whence and why? The Word of God can't tell that this is in
the heart, but personal consciousness says "here it is." But
whence came it? The answer is plain. Love is of God, is shed
abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit given unto us ; and we love
him because he first loved us. Hence by experience we feel this
love in our hearts. Personal consciousness says : I know with in-
fallible certainty that this is my inner state ; and then the Word of
God, the other infallible guide, says: This faith, love, joy, peace,
etc., you so sweetly experience are fruits of the Holy Spirit, "shed
abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit given unto us." Any in-
terpretation of any Scripture that contradicts these holy and hal-
lowed truths is false and fatal. Such things are not predicated of
the baptized disciples, but to all who love, and since all must love
before baptism, they are predicated of the unbaptized. Hence the
life and love giving Spirit in conversion must come in these offices
before baptism. Man is so depraved by nature that he hates God;
man is so divine by regeneration that he loves God. Here is the
turning of the inner man in his thoughts and affections, with a
desire to outward godliness, which needs only the directing light
of God's Word to change and purify the outward life "by obedience
to the truth."
Whosoever confesses that Jesus is the Christ (in the Scriptural
sense, that is, with the heart as well as with the mind and mouth,
for God requires all truth in the inward parts) ; whosoever thus
confesses, God dwelleth in him and he in God. If this is not direct
contact, what is? God in me and I in God whenever I spiritually
confess; and since no man can say (in the spirit) that Jesus is
Christ but "by the Holy Ghost; and since confession is before bap-
tism, it follows that there is direct influence and fellowship in con-
fession, and without- this acceptable obedience cannot be rendered
to the Gospel. " He is the author of eternal salvation to all them
that obey him, and "he will take vengeance on all who obey not
the Gospel;" but the one affirms nothing in regard to the opera-
tion of the Holy Spirit in conversion, for the first may have been
so depraved that they could not obey without an enabling power of
the Holy Spirit, and the other may have been so depraved as to
resist the Holy Spirit. To learn about such doctrines we must go
420 THIRD PROPOSITION.
to the Scriptures that teach directly on those points, arid not to
those universal affirmations that over-reach, the particularities we
are here to discuss. Let rny friend come up to the work in hand,
and if he does not, I promise not to go down to any other.
Man is so depraved tliat lie is unable, etc. We notice first some
Scriptures on depravity, and then some that show the disability,
and then some that show the enabling divine power that begins
the good work and carries it on to perfection. Adam fell from
spiritual life into spiritual death, and he begat children in bis own
likeness. They were not mongrels, part holy and part depraved,
but they were wholy given to evil. There was no one that did
good, at any time, or in any way. All alike, they were conceived
in sin and brought forth in iniquity, and they went astray from the
womb speaking lies. All were by nature the children of wrath,
and were led by Satan captive at his will. To prove this, we go
back to the first born, before the invention of evil that led astray
so many; before there were any evil associations to corrupt good
morals. I challenge the darkest pages of human history for a case
which excels in turpitude the character of the first born. He was
taught of God and forewarned. He was a farmer, a most favorable
employment for good morals. His brother was younger, and looked
to him, and his desire was toward him, and Cain ruled over him.
All the aggravation there was, was in Cain's heart. Forewarned of
God, he deliberately murdered his own and only and younger
brother. "And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works
were evil and his brother's righteous." Here is depravity at the
fountain head, as exhibited in the first born. Did the addition of
time and the multiplication of men produce a ray of hope that
changes would evolve any thing but evil out of man's corrupt
fountain? Let God testify (Gen. vi. 5): "And God saw that the
wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagi-
nation of the thoughts of the heart was only evil continually."
This was not a slanderous report that God heard, but it was
what he saw. God did not say this about the. mouth, or the inind,
for these often differ from each other, and the real man may differ
from both. This is what God said about the heart. It is the heart
that God judges, and the man is always what his heart is. Neither
did God tell about the doing or saying of the heart, for both might
deceive. God looked down through the deceitful words and works
of the deceitful heart and saw his thoughts. "As a man thinketh
so is he." The thoughts of the heart may differ from both the
J. B. MOODT'S FIEST SPEECH. 421
doings and the sayings. But, to settle the case for good and for-
ever, God goes down to the deeper depths, and judges the imagi-
nation of the thoughts. Man thinks to do or say only what he has
imagined or conceived, and never all he imagines. Countless
things float before the imagination that the thoughts do not take
hold of, either to ponder or to purpose.
Is it possible that in all this realm of imagination that God saw
no good? Nothing good in the realm of doing, thinking, saying or
imagining? If he had said every act, then we might claim that
there were some good words. If he had said every word, then we
might claim something for the thoughts. If he had said every
thought, then we might claim something good for the imagination.
But God goes to the fountain head, and says " every imagination of
the thoughts of the heart." Not mixed with good and evil, but
only evil. Not so sometimes, but "continually." This -was not
said about devils, but about men; not men in hell, but on earth.
God saw no good in any man, anywhere, or in any way, in all the
earth.
Was it any better after the flood? Hear the wise man (Eccles.
viii. 11: "Because sentence against an evil work is not executed
speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in
them to do evil." Here is the heart again, not the heart of a man,
but the one heart of the sons of men, for there is no difference. Not
liable, or prone, but "set;" not to do good, but evil; not because
God tempts or aggravates them, but because he is longsuffering
and does not speedily execute the sentence against their evil
works. He might well repeat in the next chapter, verse 3: "Tea,
also the heart of the sous of men is full of evil, and madness is in
their heart while they live, and after that they go to the dead."
Jeremiah says (chapter xvii. 9): "The heart is deceitful above all
things and desperately wicked. Who can know it? I the Lord
search the heart and try the reins." This is the Lord's testimony,
after searching and trying the case. He did not say he found some
deceit there, but he found it full; not deceitful like the mind, or
less than the tongue, but deceitful above all things ; not innocently
so, but wickedly; not slightly, but desperately wicked. The full-
ness of the deceit and the desperateness of the wickedness pass-
eth knowledge. "Who can know it?"
The testimony of Christ is to the same end. He likewise tells,
not of a heart, or some hearts, but the heart. He told what was
in it, and what came out of it, and he said not a word about the
422 THIRD PROPOSITION.
pious affections and warm emotions claimed for it. He said: "Out
of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornica-
tions, thefts, false witness, blasphemies, covetousness, wickedness,
deceit, lascMousness, an evil eye, pride, foolishness. All these
things come from within and defile the man." He said of the
most moral class the world has ever produced, those that appeared
righteous unto men, that prayed oft and long, and who loved to
pray and pay tithes, etc. : "Woe unto you hypocrites, for ye are like
unto whited sepulchers, which indeed appear beautiful without,
but within are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness."
"Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within
ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity." Seeing that murder was in
feeling and adultery in a look, he could well say of the best of
them: "There is no life in you." Isaiah i. 4-6 shows that external
appliances make the matter no better, but the rather worse. Paul's
testimony still later is no better. He said the Jews, with much
the advantage every way. were no better than the Gentiles. "No
and nowise," He said he proved this. His previous statement
was: "Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wicked-
ness," etc. "Who knowing the judgments of God that they which
commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same,
but have pleasure in them that do them." Then truly "there was no
excuse." He says further on (vi. 20) : "For when ye were the ser-
vants of sin, ye were free from righteousness," and that "in the
flesh there dwelt no good thing," and that "the carnal mind was
enmity against God, not subject to his laws, neither indeed could
be subjected." He says further that men are so by nature, and
that the natural man cannot know the things that are spiritually
discerned. Hence a man must be born again in order to perceive
or discern spiritual things. A new creation must take place, in
which all things must become new. Jesus says: "A corrupt tree
cannot "bring forth good fruit," and "first make the tree good and
the fruit will be good." And coming to plain language, he says :
"No man can come to me except the Father who hath sent me
draw him," and repeats, "No man can come to me except it were
given him of my Father." Here is both depravity and impotency
too plainly taught for contradiction. John iii. 3 says ye cannot
see; vi. 44-65 says they cannot come; viii. 43 says they cannot
hear; xii. 39 says they cannot believe; Eom. viii. 7, 8 says they
cannot be subjected to the law of God, and they cannot please
God; 1 Cor. ii. 14 says they cannot know God; v. 17 says they can-
J. B. MOODY' S FIRST SPEECH. 423
not do; and this makes the helplessness of man complete. So the
enabling, quickening power of God must come to them, "even
while they are dead in trespasses and sins." The seed must be
sown in good ground, that is, fall into good and honest hearts, and
God cannot find any such by nature. The heart, like the ground,
must be prepared for the seed, and it is not in the power of the
seed to do this, neither was it designed to do it.
Now we see that man's depravity and disability are such as to
require an enabling power. I now proceed to show that the work
to be done in man requires nothing less than the divine power,
and is always predicated of it. Is regeneration man's need? He
must be born "from above" "of the Spirit," "not of blood, nor of
the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." "Of his
own will begat he us with a word of truth." He may use much
means, and many men, but the power is of God, by or through the
men or means. God of his own will exerts himself in all cases
where regeneration occurs. Does the dead sinner need quicken-
ing? Eph. ii. 4, 5: "But God who is rich in mercy, for his great
love wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath
quickened us together with Christ." Must the old man of sin die,
and the new man of righteousness and holiness be put on ? That
new man must be created (Eph. iv. 24 and 2 Cor. v. 17) : "Created
in righteousness and true holiness." "If any man be in Christ
Jesus he is a new creation." Eph. ii. 10: "For we are his work-
manship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath
before ordained that we should walk in them." The good works
are enjoined in God's Word, and a power must be exerted to pre-
pare us to hear, to believe, to obey. This new creation is G-od's
workmanship, and the power to do this does not reside in the
Word. Are their ears dull, so they cannot hearken ? Jer. VL 10 :
"To whom shall he speak and give warning, that they may hear?
Behold their ear is uncircumcised, and they cannot hearken; behold
the Word of the Lord is to them a reproach; they have no delight."
"Hear ye deaf; and look ye blind that ye may see." How? "He
wakeneth mine ear to hear as the learned. The Lord God hath
opened mine ear, and I was not rebellious, neither turned I away
back." Stephen says, "Ye stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart
and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost; as your fathers did,
so do ye." Are they required to love the Lord God with all the
heart, mind, soul and strength? Dent. xxx. 6: "And the Lord thy
God will circumcise thy heart, and heart of thy seed, to love the
424 THIRD PROPOSITION.
Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, that thou
mayest live." Here is the great and first command, which no one
ever obeyed, and never will, and never can, unaided by divine
power. This is the circumcision that is "without hands," that is
"of the heart," "in the spirit," "whose praise is not of men, but
of God ; " it precedes love, which must always precede obedience,
and if that is not divine contact with the human heart, language
is unable to express the idea. The new covenant contemplates
this, and reads: "A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit
will I put within you, and I will take away the stony heart out of
your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will 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 heart, and
they shall not depart from me : yea, I will rejoice over them to do
them good." Here is enabling divine power provided in the new
covenant, and there is salvation in no other. And what will my
opponent do but neutralize these Scriptures by something that is
said of some other class, being effected by some other means?
Paul quotes the new covenant in Heb. yiii. 10, which "reads: "I
will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write
them, and their sins and iniquities will I remember no more." If
this is not immediate contact with the unsanctifled heart, before
forgiveness of sins, then,that idea cannot be expressed in human
language. Paul says this writing was done not with ink, but with
the Spirit of the living God, not in tables of stone, but in fleshly
tables of the heart. Here is a work done in man, and for man,
which the Word cannot do, and is clearly a divine enabling power,
and is before obedience. All of this is done to the heart, God says,
that they may walk in my statutes, and keep mine ordinances and
do them ; not by walking in the statutes and by keeping the ordi-
nances. The unbeliever needs to be convicted of sin, and John
xvi. 8, 9 tells us that when he the Holy Spirit is come, he will
convict the world of sin because they believe not on Christ; and
Stephen, in Acts vii. 51, says that the uncircuincised in heart and
ears do always resist the Holy Ghost, which shows that the Holy
Ghost was striving with them. Now see if my friend does not
turn God into the Word, and Jesus Christ into the Word, and the
Holy Spirit in to the Word, not that these are ever used interchange-
ably in the Scriptures, but because they do not suit his "Word
J. S. MOODY'S FIRST SPEECH. 425
alone" doctrine; he must have all the power in the Word, and if
any power is ascribed to the Godhead, then he must make the
Godhead the Word, or his theory is spoiled.
REPENTANCE.
A divine power is exerted when a man repents. Acts v. 31 and
xi. 18 show that repentance is the gift of God, not that he gives
the privilege, for he commands all men everywhere to repent,- but
when one succeeds in this spiritual exercise it is by divine help.
God gives not the privilege, but the repentance. Eom. ii. 4: "The
goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance." The Greek word for
give and lead in the above are stronger than the English. 2 Tim.
ii. 25: "If God perad venture will give them repentance to the
acknowledging of the truth." In Heb. vi. 6 we find a case in
which it is impossible to renew men unto repentance. In Kev. ix.
and xvi. we find that men tormented with the awful plagues,
scorched with fire and great heat, witnessing the death of a third
of the inhabitants by fire and smoke and brimstone, although
gnawing their tongues for pain, yet they blasphemed God and
repented not of their deeds. All of which go to show that re-
pentance is not brought about by external means, but by an
inworkiog power. If my friend thinks that a man of himself can
obey the Gospel, how is it that with men it is impossible for a rich
man to be saved, and it is only possible with God? Many a rich
man has been saved, and there is nothing in riches any more than
in other evils that environ men to disable them. There is but
one answer to this, and that is that the sovereign God, who chooses
some of all classes, chooses but few of the rich, and gives them
repentance, his goodness leading them into it.
PRATER.
Kom. viii. 26: "Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities,
for we know not what we should pray for as we ought, but the
Spirit himself maketh intercession for us with groauings which
cannot be uttered." Zech. xii. 10: "And I will pour upon the
house of David and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem the spirit
of grace and of supplication." If the infirmities of saints require
the help of the Spirit, surely the infirmities of the ungodly require
as much. If Paul needed the Spirit after baptism to help his
infirmities in prayer, he surely needed this help before baptism;
28
426 THIRD PROPOSITION.
and this is the meaning of James v. 16 : " The inwrought prayer of
a righteous man availeth much." Every true Christian knows by
experience what this inwrought prayer of faith means. My friend
and his people doubtless know how to pray in the letter, but pray-
ing in the Spirit is an expression they must explain away.
FAITH.
1 Cor. xii. 11: "But all these inworketh that one and the self-
same Spirit." Verse 6 also shows that all these gifts are inwrought.
One of these gifts is faith: "To another faith by the same Spirit."
And, lest some oue should say this is extraordinary faith, it goes
on to say: "To another gifts of healing by the same Spirit, to
another working of miracles, to another prophecy," etc. So here
is faith distinct from miracle-working faith, and is inwrought like
all the other gifts. If a man cannot prophesy, or discern spirits,
or speak with tongues, or interpret tongues, except it be given
him, neither can he believe to the saving of his soul except it be
given him. We don't come to the others by practice, neither do
we come to faith by practice, and while all may grow under exer-
cise, yet none of them are produced by exercise. So with our
natural gifts, such as sight, touch, smell, etc. ; these are all given us
for exercise, and they increase with use, but none of them can man
produce. Hence we read, Mark ix. 23 : " If thou canst believe, all
things are possible to him that believeth; and the father said with
tears, Lord I believe; help thou mine unbelief." Luke xvii. 5:
"And the apostles said, Lord increase our faith." Here is divin 
