A debate on baptism and the witness of the Holy Spirit : held in Fairview, Ia. [Ind.] November, 1847 : between Rev. Williamson Terrell ... and Henry R. Pritchard ...

^

fig

,

r-1

T)

oft

Q

^

8

CO

—>

co
Q-

cr

%

'"*

^<

O

5*.

to

00

g

3

fe{ <•*

"

c

o

£

CD

■>

(IQ

S s

->

!2j o

%

" *»!■<

^

o

!2j CS5

— h

,

-a

H C

CL

CD

^v

"O

*5?

*5

-

^^» *

"D

&■

P

«£

ScSB

m

A

DEBATE ON BAPTISM

AND THE WITNESS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT

HELD IN

Fair view, Ma. November, 1847.

BETWEEN

REV. WILLIAMSON TERRELL

Circuit Preacher of the Methodist Episcopal Church,
AND

HENRY R. PRITCHARD,

Evangelist of the Christian Church.

Mr. Pritchard's speeches reported by himself, and Mr. 7
by B. Franklin.

MILTON, IA.

PRINTED BY FRANKLIN & SMITH
1S48.

INTRODUCTION

In presenting the following debate to the pal
is thought necessary to make a few brief remarks by
way of introduction.

1. The debate originated in the unprovoked attacks
of Mr. Terrell upon our people, and especially upon
brother A. Campbell, in the vicinity of Fairview, In-
diana. After those attacks had been made, Mr. Pritch-
ard, residing at that place, felt himself called upon, in
justice to the common cause of our Master, to invite
Mr. Terrell to a public discussion, of the proper issues
between us and our Methodist friends. But even that
was not done until he was dared by the friends of Mr.
Terrell. A correspondence ensued, in which Mr. Priteh-
ard presented six propositions, which Mr. Terrell de-
clined debating. Mr. Terrell presented four proposi-
tions, which Mr. Pritchard finally accepted, and agreed
to debate under the usual and equal rules of contro-
versy, which the reader will find on another page.
Mr. Pritchard selected Mr. G. Campbell, and Mr. Ter-
rell selected Mr. J. Shields, as Moderators, and these
two selected Mr. Burress as President Moderator. It
was also agreed by Messrs. Pritchard and Terrell that
the Moderators should make rules to govern the discus-
sion.

2. The proffers made Mr. Terrell for publishing the
debate will appear for themselves, as an explanation
of Mr. Terrell's not writing out his own speeches. \

4 INTRODUCTION,

am truly sorry that he could not be induced to do so,
that the^ book might be endorsed by him. There are
two reasons for the speeches of Mr. Terrell being so
short. 1. He spoke slow, and consequently did not ut-
ter near as much matter as Mr. P. 2. It was impossi-
ble forme to get every remark he made. But I have
done the best I could to give all his arguments, in the
same order as delivered. How well I have succeeded.
I leave to others who heard to decide.

B. Franklin

DEBATE.

1st. The propositions shall be discussed
ing order, viz.

I. "Immersion is essential to Christian Baptism.*' Mr. Pritchard af-
firms.

2 # "Infant children are proper subjects of Baptism;*' or, "The in-
fant of a believing parent is a scriptural subject of baptism ." Mr.Ter-
reil affirms.

3. "Whenever the Gospel is praached Water Bsptism is essential to
the pnrdon of past sins.'' Mr. P. affirms.

4. 'The Holy Ghost bears an immediate, direct and personal testimony
to the believer in Christ of his pardon.*' Mr. T. affirms .

2d. The discussion shall be in the Meeting House in
the village of Fairview Rush Co. la., and commence
on the 3rd Tuesday in Nov. next and continue four
days.

3d. The daily discussion shall commence at 9 A. M.
and continue until 12; be resumed at 1| P. 3VL and
close at 3| each proposition being the subject of discus-
sion for one day only. The daily time may be changed
by consent of parties.

4th. The disputants shall occupy one half of an hour
alternately during each day commencing with the affir-
mative.

5th. No new matter shall be introduced on the final
negative except in reply to matter introduced for the
first time in the closing speech of the affirmant.

6th. The parties should mutually consider each oth-
er as standing on a footing of equality in respect to the
subject in debate. Each should regard the other as
possessing equal talents, knowledge and a desire for
truth with himself, and that it is possible therefore that
he may be in the wrong and his adversary in the right.

7th. All expressions which are unmeaning or with-

'b BE3ATE ON BAPTISM

out eiTect in regard to the subject in debate should be
strictly avoided.

3th. Personal reflections on an adversary should in
no instance be indulged.

9th. As Truth not victory is the professed object of
controversy whatever proofs maybe advanced on either
side should be examined with fairness and candor, and
any attempt to answer an adversary, by arts of sophis-
try or to lessen the force of his reasoning by wit cavil-
ling or ridicule is a violation or the rules of honorable
con trove rs} r .

10th. Any error in the statement of facts, (if such
should be found, in this paper) shall be corrected by a
reference to the written agreement entered into by the
disputants at Fairview.

H. Nutting.

Jonathan Shields.

H. St. John Van Dakk.

Tuesday, 9 o'clock, Nov. 16th 1847.

The president moderator arose and remarked as fol-
lows:

Gentlemen and ladies: We have convened to-day for
no unworthy purpose; but for the discussion of several
great points pertaining to the Christian religion. The
object of every person present should be to enquire
honestly after truth. Truth is or should be, the great
object on all such occasions, and we should be careful
not to be diverted from that object by extraneous cir-
cumstances.

I presume it is unnecessary to say any thing to the
speakers who are to occupy the stand on this interes-
ting occasion, as to what course they should pursue. —
The dignity of the stations which they occupy, as min-
isters of the gospel, will of course dictate to them bet-
ter than any thing 1 could say, the gravity, candor and
honesty which they should exhibit throughout.

I deem it necessary and of first importance, for the au-

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 7

die rice to observe the most strict order. This is a re-
hgious meeting, and as such is protected by the laws
of our country, and consequently any disorderly persons
may expect to be punished. No indications of appro-
bation or disapprobation should be manifested, as such
is regarded by all well informed persons as indecorous.
Let perfect peace and decorum prevail throughout the
discussion.

[mr. pritchard's first address.]

Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and GentlerrK

1 appear before you at this time, and in this plac'
contend for an item of that religious faith once deliver-
-■ d to the saints: and my prayer to the Author of my
being and the Father of my spirit is, that I may speak,
lis I should speak, — that I may throughout this dfseiis^
sion, be governed and guided by that wisdom, whieh
is from above, which is first pure, then peaceable a,nd
gehtjfe, easy to be entreated, full of .mercy and of good
fruit; and that you my Christian friends, may hear,
with that impartiality, which become those, who are
destined to appear soon before that God, who is ac-
quainted with the thoughts, and intentions vi e\< .y
heart.

The proposition to be discussed this morning rs
following:

"Immersion is essential to Christian baptism/'
This proposition is one that my friend Mr. Terrell, in
the kindness and benevolence of his soul, has made for
me to affirm in this discussion. He, with a degree of
courage, unknown in former ages, seemed unwilling to
'mter into a public discussion with your humble servant,
but upnn condition that, I would allow him to m
propositions for me to affirm, as well as for him--
presuming, I suppose, to understand the sentiments ot
myself, and brethren, better than we do ourselves.

dmire the wisdom if not the courage, mani-iY-*** 1

9 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

by Mr. Terrell, in the wording of this proposition; fo?
he has done the best he could for himself, and party.

A feeling sense of the danger, a man is in, while op-
posing the truth; was not far from him when he wrote
the word "essential" By this word, he supposed he
would be made free, in this discussion from Methodism,
and every other ism — that he would have nothing to
prove, and of course might run in any and every direc-
tion in search of materials, upon which he could make
a speech; fill up his time, and appear to do something
when he is doing nothing.

The only fair and honorable way of debating, among
men of manly courage, and independence of soul is,
to agree upon a proposition, which brings the senti-
ments of both parties, fairly into the discussion. This
has not been done by Mr. Terrell. He well knew that
his sprinkling machinery, would not work, where there
was "much water;" so, of course, he thought it most con-
venient, and safe, for him and his party, to hide it during
this discussion. Small men are sometimes possessed oi
wisdom.

What I believe I am willing to affirm in the presence
of Mr. Terrell, or any other man, and as I most sol-
emnly and conscientiously believe, before heaven and
earth, that immersion is the only christian baptism, I
will proceed to affirm, and defend, in the best way I
can, my faith on this subject.

Mr, Terrell and his party believe, or pretend to be-
lieve, that Immersion, sprinkling, and pouring are all
modes of baptism hut none of them the very thing
which the Lord commanded. If the Redeemer did not
command immersion, will Mr. Terrell have the good-
ness to tell us what he did command?

If he should deny that the Lord commanded us to be
immersed, it would follow, that every time he has im-
mersed a person, he did the same thing the Lord never
commanded him or any one else to do. If he denies
that baptism means immersion, it will follow x that ex-

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 9

ery time he has immersed a person, saying, "I baptize
you," he told something which he knows no man ought.
If he admits that Christ commanded immersion, and
that baptism is immersion, it will follow, that his sprink-
ling, and pouring, have no more to do with baptism,
than eating and sleeping have. If he should tell you,
that baptism means immersion, sprinkling, and pouring,
and that Christ commanded them all to be done, it will
follow, that no one is baptized in obedience to the Lord,
until he is immersed, sprinkled and poured. If bap-
tism means them all, and Christ commanded them all,
what can be more certain, than that we are solemnly
bound to do them all? If he should tell you, that Christ
designed to establish on the earth, just such a church
as the Methodist Church, in which some should be
sprinkled, some poured, and some immersed, will he
have the goodness to tell us, how we are to know, who
to sprinkle, who to pour, and who to immerse? If he
should answer that Christ designed every one to choose
for himself; we will feel under everlasting obligations
to him if he will tell us, why he and his party have sub-
verted the design of Christ, by sprinkling infants, and
taking away from them, their right to choose for them-
selves?

As my friend Mr. Terrell has the reputation of being
a good disputant, and is said, to be possessed of great
reasoning powers, 1 hope he will bring them all to bear
upon this subject to day, and remove some of these dif-
ficulties out of his way. That I do not misrepresent
the sentiments of Mr. Terrell will appear from the fol-
lowing passage, which I find in "Doctrinal Tracts on
page 287.

"With regard to the mode of baptizing, I would only
add, Christ no where, as far as I can find, le^uires dip-
ping but only baptizing: which word, many most emi-
nent for learning and piety, have declared, signifies to
pour on, or sprinkle, as well as to dip. As our Lord has
graciously given us a word of such extensive meaning

1*0 "DEBATE ON BAPTISM

doubtless the parent, or the person to be baptized, If
lie be adult, ought to choose which way he best approves.
What God has left indifferent it becomes not man to
make necessary."

This passage must be extremely interesting, and edi-
fying, to all the members of the Methodist church! —
The soul of my friend Mr. Terrell must "delight itself
in fatness," when he reads, "Christ no w T here requires
dipping, but only baptizing." This never could have
been intended for any accountable being in the world
for it is certainly one of the most stupid things that I
have seen in print. The meaning of it is, Christ did
not require his command to be obeyed in English, buc
only in Greek. This writer says, the word baptize
means to sprinkle, as well as to dip. It the word means
to dip, Christ must have required dipping, unless our
writer intends to say, Christ no where requires dipping,
he only requires dip.

Now, let it be remembered, and never let it be for-
gotten, that this standard work of the M. E. Church
declares, that baptize means to sprinkle, pour, and im-
merse. It gives to bap:izo three meanings, and gives not
an intimation that it has any other meaning. Mr. Ter-
rell then, is solemnly bound to defend his Methodism,
if defended it can be. It will not do for him to resort
to the common, but stupid plea, that he has nothing to
prove for this will only prove to the audience that he
knows he has nothing to prove, sure enough, and that
he is conscious of being unable to prove any thing. I
have never known any one offer that plea, who had any
thing better to offer. To see a man stand up before
an audience, and say, "My opponent has all to do, and!
have nothing," proves him to be a do little, know noth-
ing sort of a thing, and withall a perfect nothing him-
self. If Mr. Terrell is a man, and possessed of the
courage of a man, let him come up to the work, and
prove, if he can, that baptizo means not only, to im-
merse, but sometimes to sprinkle, and sometimes to pour

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. ll

There is no party in the world, that pretends to
baptize in any way, but what practices, either sprink-
ling, pouring or immersion. There is no party known
to me, that claims that any other mode is baptism. — ■
The issue then is, Does baptizo mean only to immerse,
or does it mean to sprinkle as well as to immerse? I
affirm the former, Mr. Terrell the latter.

Before I proceed to the proof of my proposition, I
must premise a little further.

1 wish to inform Mr. Terrell, and the audience, that
hapih) is the only word about which, I affirm any thing
in the discussion of this proposition. I will defend bap-
tizo but 1 will not defend any other word, belonging to
its family. I know that many of the most eminent
men that ever lived, have defended, successfully defen-
ded, not only baptizo, as meaning to dip, but all of its
relations; but this was a work which they were not
called upon to perform.

There are a great many reasons why the advocate of
immersion is not called upon to defend every word,
which belongs to the family of baptizo; some of which
i will give.

1. It is not true of the words of any family, that ev-
ery word in the family has precisely the same meaning;
so of course, in defending one, you are not bound to
defend all.

2. Primitive words very frequently have two or more
meanings, while an instance cannot be found, in all the
history of its derivative, where it has more than one of
the meanings of the primitive word. This is the case
with bapto, and baptizo. Bapto means to dip, and to
ilypi baptizo means to dip, but it never means to dye.

$. A third, and still better reason, why I will not de-
fend any other word, is, baptizo is the only word used,
by Christ and the apostles to designate the ordinance of
baptism. The reason they had for not using any oth-
er word, is my reason for not defending any other.

4. We have not time to examine any other word;

12 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

for Mr. Terrell has refused to debate this proposition
more than one day. If he should find himself hard
pressed for something to say, and should manifest a dis-
position to debate bapto, instead of baptizo, I will inform
him now, that I am prepared to meet him, at any con-
venient time and place, and prove that bapto, has two
meanings, and only two.

The reason why I make these remarks is, I am
well acquainted with the i>s, and ovts of men who
have nothing to say in defence of their positions. You
will hear my friend when he takes the stand, talk about
every thing, except the practice of himself and party.
He will make baptizo mean any thing, every thing, or
nothing, to suit the conveniences of his Methodism. —
Mark what I tell you; he will not dare to affirm that it
means to sprinkle.

As the meaning of every word, in every language,
is determined by its history in the language to which it
belongs; my first argument in support ot my proposi-
tion, shall be drawn from the Greeks themselves. J
have great respect for the opinions of learned men, but
I am not willing to sit down and say a thing is so, be-
cause they say so. Dr. Carson says, and a greater
than he, has not recently spoken; nor. will there in my
opinion, for some time to come. "The meaning of ev-
ery word must ultimately be determined, by an actual
inspection of the passages in which it occurs."

Why should it not be so? Are not the people who
speak alangnage, the best judges of the meaning of a
word in their language? Both Mr. Terrell and myself
for want of more extensive reading, are compelled to
rely on others for the testimony of Greeks. I will there-
fore, proceed to lay before you their testimony, as it is
given by Dr. Carson, in his able, and triumphant work
on baptism.

Polybius, applies the word to soldiers passing through
water, "baptized up to the breast'''

Surely the word baptizo cannot mean to spinkle

AND THE HOLY SP.RlT. 13

here. In wading a river men do not sprinkle but im*
merse themselves up to the breast. That part only is
baptized, which is' unci r water. The part above water
was not baptized. If a little water, when sprinkled
on the face, is baptism, why does Polybius say, that only
is baptized, which is under water?

Plutarch, speaking of a Roman general, dying of his
wounds, says, "that having baptized his hand in blood,
he wrote the inscription for a trophy."

Here the meaning of the word cannot be questioned.
He does not mean that, he sprinkled his hand in blood;
for that would make nonsense; but that he dipped his
hand in blood, to write the inscription. How do men
write? When we write, we all know that we do not
sprinkle, but clip the pen in the fluid. If dipping an in-
strument into a coloring fluid is, by Plutarch called bap-
tizing it; what can baptism be but immersion?

Lucian, makes Timan the man-hater, say, that "If in
winter the river should carry away any one with its
stream, and the person with outstretched hands should
beg to be taken out of the river, I would drive him from
the bank, and baptize him headlong, so that he would
not be able again to lift his head above water"

The meaning of baptizo is fixed in this passage with-
out doubt, to be immersion. If putting a man under
water, so that he cannot lift his head above it, is baptizing
him, what honest man can say, that any thing short of
immersion is Christian baptism? Mr. Carson, remarks
upon this passage from Plutarch, as follows.

"To resist such evidence, requires a hardihood which
I do not envy. Having such examples before my eyes,
I cannot resist God to please men."

From the examples already given, it may be seen,
that when a part only is under vjuier, that part only is
said to be baptized, and when the whole man is under,
the whole man is said to be baptized. That only is bap-
tized, which is under water. Let that be remembered.

Diodoras Liculus, speaking of the drowning of ani-

14 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

mals ill water says, that "When the water overflows
the country many of the land animals baptized in the
river perish. " This needs no comment, to evince to the
most unbelieving that immersion, and immersion only,
is the meaning of this passage. We all know how ani-
mals perish, in the time of a great flood. No man
who values his reputation, would say that animals
perish in the time of a great flood, by having a little
water sprinkled on their faces. The land animals, were
not baptized until they were under the water.

Strabo, saysDr. Gale, is very plain in several in-
stances: speaking of the lake near Agrigentum, a town
on the south shore of Sicily now called- Gergenti, he
says "Things which otherwise, will not swim, do not
baptize in the water of this lake, but float like wood."

"And there is a rivulet in the south part of Cappado-
cia," he tells us, "whose waters are so buoyant th <t if
an arrow is thrown in, it will hardly sink, or be baptized
into them."

In another place, he says, "The bitumen floats atop,
because of the nature of the water which admits no
diving; for if a man goes into it, he cannot sink, or be
baptized, but is forcibly kept above wester. ,"

""Now in these several passages," says Dr. Carson,
"the model meaning of the word is confirmed in so clear
express, and decisive a manner, that obstinacy itself
cannot find a plausible objection. Things which sink
in other waters, will not sink or be baptized in the wa-
ter of this lake. This is immersion, and nothing but
immersion. Sprinkling, and pouring, and popping
and wetting and w ashing and purifying, and embuing y
and dedicating, consecrating, with the various mean-
ings that have ever been forced on this w r ord, are mean-
ings invented merely to serve a purpose."

Why cannot a man be baptized in the water of this
lake? Because the buoyancy of the water forcibly kept
him above. That is, he cannot be baptized because he
cannot go vnder the water. Let that be remembered.

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. K>

Why cannot things which sink in other waters, be
baptized in the waters of this lake? Because they
'■float like wood" do not go under the water, and of course
cannot be baptized without going under. Let that be
remembered.

Why cannot the bitumen be baptized in this lake? —
because it floats atop," and because of the "nature of
the water, which admits no diving." It cannot be bap-
tized because it cannot go under the water, so as to be
immersed. Let that be remembered.

These passages from Strabo, not only prove that
b'jptizo means to immerse, but that it never has any
other meaning: for if it were possible to baptize a man
without immersing him, Strabo never would have said,
he cannot be baptized, because he cannot go under the
water.

If Strabo understood the Greek language, and if he
was competent to decide upon the meaning of a Greek
word, then my proposition is true, and immersionTs es-
sential to christian baptism.

Heradicles Pentieus, moralizing the fable of Mars
being taken by Vulean, says, "Neptume is ingeniously
supposed to deliver Mars, from Vulean, to signify that
wjae'n a piece of iron, is taken red hot out of the fire,
and baptized into water, the heat is repelled and extin-
guished, by the contrary nature of the water."

If the iron, was baptized into water, so as to extin-
guish the heat, it certainly was immersed.

Themistius Orat, says, "The pilot cannot tell but he
may save one in his voyage, that had better be baptized
into the sea, and drowned."

If putting a man under water, so as to drown him, is
baptizing him, what can baptism be but immersion?

The man, who can advocate sprinkling in the face of
testimony like this, has a conscience wholly unlike mine;
and can do, what I would tremble to do. Let Mr. Ter-
rell produce a passage from any one of the classics,

16 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

where baptiBo has the meaning of sprinkle, or pour for
which he contends. I boldly and fearlessly affirm, he
cannot do it. I conclude my address in the language
of Dr. Carson, "Baptizo in the whole history of the
Greek language has but one meaning. It not only sig-
nifies to dip, or immerse, but it never has any other
meaning."

[mr. terrells first reply.]
Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen:

I feel myself in an attitude somewhat different from
what I have ever before occupied. I never occupied
precisely the same ground before, and consequently do
not feel quite as much at home as I could wish, and as
I hope to, after awhile. Our discussion is one most
assuredly of the highest importance. Christian bap-
tism is surely a subject of great moment, and one
the proper understanding of which, is of the highest im-
portance. It is a subject which is viewed by the com-
munity at large, as one of great importance. For my
own part, I felt willing to consider the question to be
discussed to-day a settled question. The debate be-
tween Mr. Campbell and Dr. Rice, in Lexington, Ken-
tucky, I consider, and I think my brethren also consid-
er an end to the dispute, and a final settlement of the
whole question concerning the mode of baptism. My
friend Mr. Pritchard seems to think otherwise, and in-
sists on a discussion of the question. It is therefore
simply to gratify him and his brethren, who appear not
to be satisfied, that I have consented to go into the dis-
cussion and not because there is any uneasiness in the
Methodist church.

It will be necessary for me to place the question
fairly before you, and then I want you to keep it in your
minds. He does not affirm that immersion is baptism
simply; but his proposition is that "immersion is essen-
tial to baptism." Our oppdsers say, that baptize is a spe

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 17

cific action, and that it means to dip. ph'Jigr., immerse,
and consequently all who have not been dipped, are
not baptized. Therefore, the gentleman is not to prove
that immersion is baptism, for we all admit that, but
he is to prove that immersion on'y is baptism. This
■ s what I think he never can do.

The burden of proof rests on my opponent, and on
immersionists wherever the subject is discussed. Mr.
Campbell conceded this, in the debate with Rice. J
will read you his proposition :

"The immersion in water of a proper subject into
the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,
is. the one, onl}' apostolic or Christian baptism." Mr.
Campbell affirms— Mr. Rice denies. If Mr. Campbell
was right, the whole burden of proof rests on my oppo-
nent, and he has no just reason to complain of the pro-
position.

Mr- P. has gone to heathen classics ! This, I con-
fess, was an unexpected move, for such a New Testa-
ment chanpion as he is. I expected that he would go
into the bible, and that we should have line upon line
and precept upon precept. In his resort to the classics
he is against Mr. Campbell, as I will show you, from
the preface of his New Translation, which reads as
follows :

" We would also remind the same class of readers,
that an intimate acquaintance with the Septuagint
Greek of the Old Testament, is of essential importance
in translating the New. The seventy Hebrews who
translated their own scriptures into the Greek lan-
guage, gave to that translation the idiom of their ver-
nacular tongue. Their translation, if I may so speak,
is a sort of Hebrew Greek. The body is Greek, but the
sovl is Hebrew ; and, in effect, it comes to this, that, as
we have no other Hebrew by which to understand the
Hebrew Scriptures, but the Hebrew of the Old Testa-
ment ; so, we have no Greek by which to understand f hr
apostolic writings, but the Greek of the Jewish and
B

I 3 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

Christian Prophet?. The parallelism is so nearly ex-
act, that' it substracts but little from it to allow, that
t ;ere is much advantage in having a correct knowledge
of the Greek classics. The Septuagint being read for
nearly three centuries prior to the Christian era, in all
the synagogues of the Helenistic Jews, and being gen
orally quoted by our Lord and his apostles, must have
essentially effected the idiom of all the inspired wri-
tings of the Christian Apostles; consequently, incom
parably more regard should be paid to the Septuagint,
than to the classic use of Greek terms."

Kow unless he can show that he is a greater man,
than Mr. Campbell, I cannot see how he will justify
himself, in his resort to Greek classics! If Mr. Camp-
Lei; is right, Mr. P. is wrong. Mr. Campbell says* the
Greek of the classics is not the same as the Greek of
the Scriptures. Here then, the great leader of immer
sicnism is against him, and on my side of the question
Yes, he says " incomparably more attention should be
given to the Septuagint of the Old Testament than to
the classics."

But 1 consider the gentleman has failed in his refer-
ence to the classics — signally failled, and he ever must
fail to get any support from that direction. Cam-
bellites say, baptize in an action. Well, let me refer to
the classes and see what kind of an action.

Hippocrates directs concerning a blister plaster, if it
1 e too painful, " to b iptize or nvdden it with breast milk
yption ointment.*' Did he intend, that the plas-
ter should be immersed in breast milk? Is this th*
direction physicians are accustomed to give concern-
ing blister plasters? Evidently the word is used a*
having the sense of moistening.

Now you will remember that the gentleman's pro-
position is a universal proposition, and if I produce
one case where the Greek word baptizo does not mea*j
immerse, or one place where it means any thing else;,
he must most signally fail. That I have now produced

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 19

one such a case, I think, every person present must be
fully convinced.

Aristotle speaks of a substance, which, " if it is press-
ed, dyes {baptei) and colors the hand." Here I find an-
other exception to his universal proposition. All must
see that there could be no immersion, and yet, my
friend affirms that immersion is essential to baptism.

Helodorus says, k ' Josephus baptized the city." Sure-
ly he did not immerse it ! What will my friend do with
this case ?

Origin says, " the prophet b&p'ized the wood upon
the altar." There evidently was no dipping but pour-
ing water upon the wood. He cannot make this case
mean immerse. I want his special attention to this case.

I have no disposition to stay amongst the classics
long. I rely upon my bible for proof, and expected a
bible argument from a man so habituated to extol the
New Testament, and had made no calculation, to see
him leave his bible and resort to heathen writers. But
I think, 1 have now fully met him with classics, and
given several cases which must ever stand as unan-
swerable objections to his universal proposition.

If my friend is right, none are baptized but those who
are immersed, and consequently that all the world are
in error, except the few Baptists, who are contending
for my friend's universal proposition. But I proved
that he is mistaken, and that even a blister plaster was
said to be baptized, when it was clear that only a little
breast milk had been sprinkled on it. And 1 now in-
quire of the gentleman, what it is that causes a blister
plaster to be painful? Surely it is because it becomes
dry and hard, and requires to be moistened. And how
is that done ? by immersing it? 1 would inquire of
any respectable physician, in this large and respecta
ble assembly, if he ever directed a blister plaster to be
immersed to soften it and cause it to become easy ?
Physicians #lo not deal in metaphorical terms, "put in
plain literal language, which is easily understood, and

20 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

remembered. Here then we have baptism, and no im-
mersion, as clear and plain as language can make it.—
And my friend can never get over it.

Again ; Eusebius speaks of being " baptized in tears."
Will the gentleman say he was immersed in tears? —
T think he will not. Then immersion is not essential
to baptism, as he vainly affirms. Did you ever know
a man to be immersed in tears ? This is no figurative
use of the word, but a plain matter of history. His-
torians do not deal in figurative language, but in the
most plain matters of fact. We all know what it is to
weep over a penitent son. It is nothing strange. All
know too, that there is no immersion about it. It
therefore is a strong case against the arguments of my
opponent and the whole Baptist ranks, and one that
can never be answered.

It is not necessary for me to examine all the quotations
he has made from the classics, for I admit the word
laptko sometimes means immerse, or that that is one
of its meanings ; but what I deny is that it universal-
ly has that meaning. His finding an instance, there-
fore, where it has that meaning, does nothing towards
sustaining his proposition. I am therefore through with
ray reply to ail he has said, which I think can at all
bear upon the point.

I have nothing further to do, unless I should advanoe
with counter-evidence ; but, as I see my time is almost
out, I shall not do this, and will give place, and hear
what disposition he will make of the cases I have in-
troduced.

[mr. prttchard's second addrbbs.]
Gentlemen Moderators :

Mr. Terrell commenced his reply by informing yoa,
that he was well satified with the way this question
has been settled by Mr. Rice, and others. Methodists
are quite easy, and well satified ; but myself and breth-
ren are uneasy and dissatisfied, and want discussion

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 21

that we may save our cause. If Mr. Terrell is so well
satisfied with the way the question has been settled,
why did he commence the war, by assailing us in this
country without cause? Mr. Terrell did not expect
you, my Christian friends, to believe this assertion ; for
he knows that you all know better.

If Mr. Terrell was really in good solid earnest when
he made that assertion, I must confess that he and hi*
party are more easily satisfied, than I and my brethren
can possibly be.

Mr. Ewing, an eminent defender of his ranfism, says
" Baptizo means to pup." Mr. Terrell says, " I am well
isfieaV' Mr. Ewing says, "pap means a small smar*
quick sound." Mr. Terrell says, " Methodists are well
satisfied with that." Mr. Ewing says, " We should be
baptized by having a little water papped upon the
turned-up face." Mr. Terrell says, u Methodists arc
quite easy, and well satified." Mr. Beecher says,
''baptizo means to purify" Mr. Terrell says, " I am
well satisfied with that too ;" any way to keep from
going " down into the waer" as the apostles did. And
finally Mr. Rice, his great champion of washing mem-
ory, says, the word in debate means, " to wash in any
way." And Mr. Terrell says that it is; we JY-etho-
dists are more than satisfied with the way that Mr.
Rice has settled the question.

For a man to be satisfied with all the ways that tlits
question has been settled by Mr. Rice, and others, he
must have a time-serving conscience, that will stretch
in any way.

Mr. Terrell tells you, that he was surprised to see a
New Testament champion go to the classics, and not to
the bible, to prove his proposition. And I too, am a>
much surprised as he can possibly be, that the grea!
champion of Methodism — the hero of the fraternity,
who has been fighting the battles of his party all over
the State, for a number of years past, should not know
ihatthe classics are the highest authority in the world.

22 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

in determining the meaning of the word in debate,

I suppose the gentleman thinks that, as we have no
creed but the bible, we should not permit our children
to use any other book but the bible, in the study of
Grammar, Mathematics, and Natural Philosophy.

Bro. Campbell, the gentleman says, is against me
in going to the classics, to find the meaning of words
in the New Testament. This is strange. I now ask
Me, Terrell, if Bro. Campbell has ever said, that bnptizo,
and all words indicating outward physical specific
action, mean one thing in the classics and another in
the New Testament? Let Bro. Campbell speak for
himself:

"It has been a question amongst theologians,
whether the sr cred use, that is, Jewish and Christian,
agrees with the classic use of this word ; whether in
one sentence, the New Testament writers use baptiw,
as do all other writers of that age ; a most singular
question in such a class of words — words indicating out-
ward physical specific action. Such words are not the
subjects of idiomatic and special law. It would be in-
deed adopting a very dangerous principle and prece-
dent that this word means one thing out of the New
Testament, and another in it. The usage of the age
and the context, must in all cases decide the precise
meaning of the word — a law of philology which I have
published as often as any of my contemporaries, not
only in this case, but in all others." Lexington De-
bate, p. 89.

As I apprehend Mr. Terrell knows but little about
the writings of Bro. Campbell, I feel inclined to read
one more passage for his illumination :

,; Mr. Rice, has no authority for claiming for baptizo
a special court, or special code, or in any way to ex-
empt it from the common rules of interpretation. It
is not a word of idiom, as I have frequently observed,
to dip, to sprinkle, to pour, like other outward, physical,
and well defined actions, are not affected by any na-

AKD THE HOLY SPIRIT. 23

tlonal peculiarity. Men perform these actions in ail
ages, languages, and countries, in the same manner. —
Erntisti has given him no law, any more than Gregory
X to interpret the word in dispute, in any shade of
-ense, differing from Josephus, the Septuagint, or the
Greek classics." D e b a t e , p . 1 82 .

If Mr. Terrell is as well acquainted with the writings
of Bro. Campbell, as he pretends to be, how could ho
make the assertion that he is against me, in going to
the classics ? Has he not read the debate ? If he has
read the writings of Bro. Campbell, as he says he has,
has he not seen where he has said again, and again,
that bopiho is not a word of idiom ? and that it means
hi the New Testament, what it means every where else?

Mr. Terrell, in spending so much of his time, as he
did, in reading from Bro. Campbell, reminded me of
the editor who was so hard pressed for materials to till
up his paper, that he said —

"These two lines that look so solemn,
Are just put here to fill the column."

Bro. Campbell is not alone ; for he is sustained by
the most eminent men of all parties. Dr. Carson says :

" The meaning of a word must ultimately be deter-
mined by an actual inspection of the passages in ivhich it
cemrs" Carson on baptism, p. 56.

Ernesti says, " The sense of words depends on the
usus loquandi. This must be the case, because the sense
of words is conventional and regulated ukotyby wsuge.
Usage then being understood, the sense of words is of
course understood." Principles of Interpretation, p. 2o.

x\°:ain, Ernesti says :

" The principles of interpretation are common to
sacred an \ {profane vir.i in /.v. Of course the Scriptures
are to be investigated by the same rules as other books.*'

Prof. Stuart, remarks upon this :

" If the Scriptures be a revelation to men, then they
are to be read and understood by men. If the same
la wfi of language are not observed in this revelation as

~4 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

are common to men, then they have no guide 'to tbe-
right understanding of the Scriptures.' 1

Thus speaks Carson, Ernesti, Stuart, and common
sense. Indeed there is not one great man in the world
except Mr. Terrell, but what agrees with Ernesti, and
Stuart, that the usus Iquandi lis the highest authority in
ascertaining the meaning of words.

The reason doubtless, why Mr. Terrell regarded my
appeal to the classics as an unexpected move was, be-
cause he knew that the classics do not countenance his
sprinkling, as a meaning of baptizo. All the reply he
could make was to say, "it was an unexpected move."
Mr. Rice, Mr. Terrell's favorite, instead of saying it was
an unexpected move, said, "The apostles did not speak
classic Greek; for they could not have understood it."
The Apostles of Christ speaking as the Spirit of God
gave them utterance, and yet could not understand or
speak the Greek language. What a pity it is, the Spi-
rit of the Lord had not have had an opportunity of ta-
king a few lessons in Greek, in the same School with
Mr. Rice.

Mr. Terrell it seems has found it very convenient
notwithstanding my move was so unexpected, to favor
us with a few passages from the classics. 1 am grati-
fied to see the old bcist'.r plaster of Lexington memory
Tipon the carpet to day; for I apprehend it will dra\o
sorely upon Methodism, before this discussion shall close.
I will read you the remarks of Dr. Carson upon the
blister piaster, about which Mr. Terrell has had so ma-
ny things to say after Mr. Rice.

"Hippocrates," says Carson, "uses this word some-
times, and a! wops in the sense for wieh I contend. We
have seen that he uses bapto very often: I have not found
baptizo more than four times. This circumstance suffi-
ciently proves, that though the words are so nearly re-
lated, they are not perfectly identical in signification.
The first occurrence of it is on page 254. ''Baptize it
again in breast milk and Egyptian ointment." He m

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 25

speaking of a blister which was first to he dipped (bapto)
in the ail of roses, and if when thus applied, it should
be too painful, it was to be dipped (baptizo) again in
the manner ahove stated."

Stronger evidence of immersion could not be desired.
The blister plaster, if too painful, was to be baptized in
breast milk and Egyptian ointment; not the milk and
ointment sprinkled upon the plaster. What can be
plainer.?

But, lest some should think that probably Hippocrates
used this word in a sense, differing somewhat from oth-
er writers of his age, I will let him decide in what sense
he used it. Speaking of a ship sinking by being over-
loaded, he says:

"Shall I not laugh at the man who baptizes his ship by
overloading it, and then complains of the sea, that it
en^ulphs it with its en go."

"Is it possible that a mind really thirsting for the
knowledge of God's laws, can resist such evidence. —
Such a baptism would surely be an immersion." Here
we discover that the word baptize in the writings of Hip-
pocrates, means not only to put in, but to put under the
water.

His second example was Eusebius's account ot the
Apostate who was baptized in suffering and tears. Mr.
Terrell certainly does not intend to say, that the suffer-
ing and mental agony of that Apostate were so great
that he shed two or three drops of tears. This would be
sufficiently ludicrous without any reply. The fact is,
if Eusebius did use the word baptizo, he could not have
meant any thing else, but that the anguish of that A-
postate was so great that he was overwhelmed in suffer-
ing and tears. Baptizo literally means to immerse,
and figuratively to overwhelm.

The Greeks used the word baptizo just as we use the
word immerse. How often do we say, "He is immersed
in suffering, immersed in debt, and immersed in busi-
ness? i can produce examples numerous and various

'i6 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

where the Greeks speak of persons baptized in suffering,
in debt, in calamity: but who would understand them
to mean any thing differing from what we mean, by
"immersed in debt, in calamity, and in. business?"

In looking over some of the works, published by the
party to which Mr. Terrell belongs, I find where the
writers give this from Eusebius among other examples
from the classics; and while they give the original of
other passages, not one of them has dared to give the
original of this. This circumstance has led me to doubt
whether Eusebius used the word baptizo. If he did not,
the passage has nothing more to do with this discussion .
than it has with a discussion on universal salvation.
I do not know what word he used, but I deny that he
used the word baptize. Let Mr. Terrell show that he
did if he can. If Mr. Terrell should fail to show that
Eusebius used the word about which we are debating,
what respect must this congregation have, for that
which he manifests, when he makes Eusebius say, what
he never did say.

The passage from Aristotle has nothing to do with
this discussion. Aristotle does not use the word bap-
tizo. about which we are debating. Bapto, the word
used by him, means color as well as to dip. Baptizo
means to dip, but it never means to color. The color-
ing matter of which Aristotle speaks was in water, and
when it was pressed down under the w r ater with the
hand, it would color the hand. He does not say the
hand was immersed, sprinkled or poured, but that it
was colored. But the fact is, the hand was both im-
mersed and colored. I stated in my first speech, that
lapto had two meanings, one to dip, the other to dye.—
But with bapto we have nothing to do to-day, Baptizo
is the only word used in the bible to denote the ordin-
ance of baptism; so it is the only word, about which
I affirm any thing in the discussion of this proposition.
As I have proved that it means to immerse, let Mr.

AM) THE HOLY SPIRIT. 27

Terrell prove that it means either to sprinkle, pour or
color, if he can.

Helodorus, Mr. Terrell says, speaks of "Josephus
baptizing the city." If it were not for the seriousness
of the subject I would laugh right out at this. I knew
that Josephus, in speaking of a city being ruined or
sunk by robbers, says, " Those, indeed, even without
faction, afterwards baptized the city in ruins;''' but that
Helodorus, or any one else ever said, that " Josephus
baptized the city," is something new.

His last example is a clear case of immersion.

The Prophet Elijah, as we learn from 1 Kings, 18
chap., made an altar, and made a trench about the
altar, put the wood in order, and poured twelve barrels
of water on the alter, and wood; so that the trench
was filled, and the altar and wood covered with Avater.
He then called upon the God of his Fathers, and lire
fell from heaven and consumed the altar, the wood,
and the sacrifice while immersed in water. Origin, in
speaking of it, says, the fire came from heaven and
consumed the wood, while it was baptized in water.
It would be a splended miracle to record, for Origin
to say, the Prophet performed a mighty and stupend-
ous work. Well, what did he do ? Why he caused
wood to take fire and consume, upon which a few
drops of water had been sprinkled.

Having shown that the reply of Mr. Terrell is no re-
ply at all, and having proved that baptizo among the
classics means to immerse, and only to immerse, 1 will
in the remaining part of my address, offer m}*" second
argument; which shall be drawn from the testimony
of eminent men, on Mr. Terrell's side of this question.
If he wishes to reply to this my second argument, let
him show that my brethren are those who agree with
me that immersion only is baptism, have said as much
in favor of his sprinkling!, as eminent men of his party
have in favor of the truth.

As John Calvin seems to be closely related in some

28 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

way to the Father of sprinkling, I will commence
with him.

Calvin. " The word baptizo signifies to immerse and
the rite of immersion was observed by the ancient
church.

Luther says : " Baptism is a Greek word, and may
be translated immersicn, as when we immerse some-
thing in water, that it may be wholly covered."

Beza, says, " Christ commanded us to be baptized ;
hy which word, it is rertai , imm r.sim is signified."

Vitringa, says, " The act ol baptising is the immer-
sion of believers in waters. This expresses the force
and meanmg of ihew> d. Thus also it was performed
by Christ and his apostles."

Hospinianas, says, " Christ commands us to be bap-
tized ; by which word it is cer am immersion is sig-
nified."

Girtlerus, says, " To baptize, among the Greeks, \%
undoubtedly to immerse, to dip ; and baptism is im-
mersion, dipping. The thing commanded by our
Lord, is baptism, immersion into water."

Buddeus, says, " The words baptizein and haptisonos,
are not to be interpreted of sprinkling, but always of
immersion."

Salmasius, says, " Baptism is immersion, and was ad-
ministered in former times, according to the force and
vieani-ig of the word."

Venema, says, " The word baptizein, to baptize, is
nowhere used in the scripture for sprinkling."

Having now heard nine of the German witers of
the era of the Reformation, I shall next adduce the
opinions of the modern German critics or ecclesiastical
historians.

Professor Fritsche, says, " That baptism was per-
formed not by sprinkling, but by immersion, is evi-
dent, not only from the nature of t e word, but from
Rom. vi. 4.

Augusti, says, " Baptism, according to etymology and

AND THE HOLY SFIRIT. 29

usage signifies to immerse, submerge, &c. ; and the
choice of the expression betrays an age in which the
latter custom of sprinkling had not been introduced,''

Bkevner, says, " The word (baptizo) corrosponds in
signification with the German word, taufm } to sink in-
to the deep."

The author of the Free Inquiry respecting baptism,
says, " Baptizo is perfect l :dty identical with our word
immersion or submersion, if immersion under water
is for the purpose of cleansing or washing, then the
word means cleansing or washing."

Bretschneider, in his Theology of 1828, says, " An
entire immersion belongs to the nature of baptism. —
This is the meaning of the word." This writer is con-
fessedly the most critical lexicographer of the New
Testament.

Paulus, says, " The word baptize signifies, in Greek,
sometimes to immerse, sometimes to submerge." He
does not say, with Mr. Terrell, it sometimes means to
immerse and sometimes to sprinkle.

Rheinhard, says, " In sprinkling, the symbolical
meaning of the ordinance is wholly lost"

Sholz, says, " Baptism consists in the immersion of
the whole body in water."

Bretschneider, says, " In the word baptizo and bap-
tisma, is contained the idea of a complete immersion
under water ; at least so is baptima in the New Testa-
ment."

I shall conclude the testimony of the modern Ger-
man scholars by that of Neander^ whose amiable can-
dor adds lustre to his fame as a historian. In his letter
to Mr. Judd he observes : " As to your question on the
original rite of baptism, there can be no doubt what-
ever, that in the primitive times it was performed by
immersion, to signify a complete immersion into the
new principle of the divine life, which was to be im-
parted by the Messiah." Henton's history of baptism,
page 54 to 57. (Time expired.)

30 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

[mr. Terrell's second reply.]

Christian friends; I hope I shall not be understood \>v
what Mr. P. ma}' say of me. He represents me as say-
ing the apostles could not understand classic Greek. " I
hope I shall be able to make myself understood with-
out your relying upon his representation. I have
brought the leader of his party to show that apostles did
not write classic Greek. But I did not say that they
could not understand it. The gentleman read from Mr.
Campbell, in the Debate with Mr. Rice, to show that
what I said of Mr. Campbell was not correct. Accord-
ing to the quotation he has made Mr. Campbell has
crossed his own track. The reason perhaps, of his thus
crossing his own track was, that he was hard pressed
by Mr. Rice.

"But 1 am not done with New Testament usage— I
willshowyou from the Debate— [Here Mr. T. took up
the Debate between Campbell and Rice, and after tur-
ning the leaves back and forth closed it and said,] How-
ever it is not necessary for me to read.

Mr. Pritchard has told you what course I would pur-
sue in this discussion. I have known for some time that
he was a man of a great deal of sagacity, but I did not
know that he was a prophet before. It does not require
a great deal of sagacity, however, to tell what course
he will pursue.

He told you that the blister plaster is on the carpet. —
1 did not know the blister plaster was on the carpet be-
iore, but thought it was on his immersion. I think yet
that it is on immersioti. and I am bound to make it stick.

Hippocrates did not say it was to be d.pped, as the
gentleman says. It was not customary to dip plaster-
but to anoint them. Mr. Taylor, however, has made it
appear that it was not the plaster, but the blister — the
aore place on the man that was to be baptized. They
did not dip the sore place, but washed it, as was custo-
mary, in such cases.

The gentleman tells you that baptism of tears is fig-

AND THE HOLY 6P1RIT. 31

uratire. What is it a figure of? ]s it a figure of im-
mersion? It cannot be a figure of dipping. It is a fig-
ure of sprinkling, if it be a figure at all. But it cannot
favor immersion, whether it be figurative or literal. I
then, contend that it is decidedly in my favor, and a-
gainst Mr. P.

Mr. P. differs from Mr. Campbell, for Mr. C. main-
tains that the word iaptizo not only puts a person under
water, but the termination z», brings him out again
If Mr. P. is right, the great leader of his party is wrong'
Is Mr. P. a greater man than Mr. Campbell? His
friends would hardly allow that he is. Be that as it
may, they differ very widely, and I shall leave them to-
reconcile the difference among themselves.

The gentleman tells you that I read from Mr. Camp-
bell merely for the purpose of filling up rny time. I
confess that it is somewhat of a waste of time to read
his productions, but on occasions like the present, it
sometimes becomes necessary. His sentiments, I know,
are erroneous, but owing to the importance my friend
and his party attach to them, it is necessary occasional-
ly to quote him.

I will now read from the Debate, page 78:

"My idea is," says Mr. Campbell "that the word ori-
ginally meant not that dipping should be performed
frequently, but that it indicated the rapidity with whir-.
the action was to be performed; that the thing shoui i
be done quickly; and for this reason the termination xo
is never used when the word is employed in connexion
with the business of dyers and tanners. But the wor 1
baptiw is ;i ways used to express the ordinance of bap-
tism. This is the best reason I can give for the change
of the termination into zo.

"With regard to the frequent occurrence of this wor-)
in the New Testament usage, 1 said that there might b;
some good reason given. And that reason is found in the
fact ihixlbapio means to dip, without regard to contiu
uance long or short, but baptizo intimates the subject of

32 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

the action is not necessarily long kept under that into
which it is immersed."

To this Mr. Rice replied by saying, after showing that
Joseph us speaks of the baptizing of a ship which sunk
to the bottom and never got out, "But the sinking of
the ship, says my friend, Mr. Campbell, was merely ac-
cidental. And so, if we are to believe Mr. Carson, is
the raising the person out of water. For he says,
'whether the thing goes to to the bottom oris raised out
of the water, cannot be learned from the word baptizo.*
But I ask is not the raising the person out of the water
an essential part of his baptism? The gentleman, how-
ever, dips them by the word, and raises them out of the
water by accident"

If the ship was baptized and sunk to the bottom, and
the termination 10 did not bring it out, as Mr. Campbell
says. But, if Mr. Campbell is right, when it sunk to the
bottom, they must in some way have got it out again
But Mr. P. says Mr. Campbell is wrong, and, as I said
before, we will .eave them to fight it out among them-
selves.

The gentleman has read from Martin Luther and
others to prcve his proposition. Not one of his witness-
es says, it means tdtrays to immerse. Martin Luther
does not say , that it always means to immerse, but that
it seems to require immerse. This comes greatly below
his universal proposition, that baptize always means to
immerse, or that immersion is essential to christian bap-
tism.

I will now read from several learned authorities, ah#
to show what they have said on my side of the question.
1 will first read from Parkhurst: he defines the word
baptize, "to immerse in or wa.\h with uater in token of
purification."

Dr. Owen says, "Baptizo signifies to wash, as instan-
ces out of all authors may be given."

Adam Clark, says, "In what form baptism was ori-
ginally administered, has been deemed a subject wor*-

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 33

'thy of serious dispute. Were the people dipped or
sprinkled? for it is certain bapto and baptizo mean
both."

The gentleman says, I must not go to pedo-baptists,
but to immersionists for authority on this question. It
is absurd for him to require me to prove my practice
from Baptist authorities, as that would contradict all
their preaching. But he says, he proves his position
by pedo- baptist authorities. But not one of his witness-
es from the pedo-baptist ranks, says that nothing but
immersion is baptism. No, my Christian friends not one
of them says any such a thing. He must then go to
some place else for authority to prove his exclusive
proposition. He believes that immersion alone is bap-
tism, and this he has labored to prove, but in this attempt
he must fail. Yes,*my christian friends, he evidently
must fail — there is no help for him.

I will here present another argument. It is this:
His doctrine contradicts the whole tenor of scripture.
It excludes from the kingdom of God all who have not
been immersed. I want him to show from God's word
that immersion only is baptism. But I am certain that
no man can show from that holy book any such an un-
reasonable and exclusive doctrine. JMo, my christian
friends, he can prove no such an absurd doctrine. On-
ly think how many of the best> most pious and learned,
in all denominations, such a doctrine at once cuts off
from the mercy of God. He must be convinced that
he cannot make out his doctrine from the bible, and
therefore has fled to the classic Greeks, and even there
I have headed him, and brought good classic authority
to show that the word baptizo means sprinkle and pour
as well as immerse. And I have proved from Mr.
Campbell the great leader of his party, that the word
did not mean the same among the Greeks it did among 1
the Jews. Mr. Campbell is then, against the gentleman.
In going to the classics, to find the meaning of words.
In this Mr. Campbell has shown himself to be more con

C

34 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

sistent than the gentlemen, inasmuch as they are both
advocates of the bible, and while Mr. Campbell sticks
to his bible, he departs to the classics. Thus you see,
my christian brethren that I have already put one New
Testament champion to flight, and pursued him to the
Greek classics, and then followed him up so closely that
he will now be compelled to leave them. I cannot tell
where he will go to next.

I have now shown that he is not sustained by the
classics, that he is not sustained by pedo-baptist au-
thorities and that he is not sustained by the bible. But;
brethren. I bless God, that Methodists draw their faith
from God's holy book, and not from the Greek classics.

As my time has now almost expired, and it is abou:
-noon, I will close till I hear from the gentleman.

Adjourned to meet at half past 1 o'clock.

[mr. pritchard's third address.]
Gentlemen Moderators :

Mr Terrell commenced his last speech by telling you
that I had misrepresented him in saying, that he had said
the apostles could not understand, or speak classic
Greek. I am fearful his hearing is greatly at fault. —
What did I say? I said that Mr. Rice, in his debate with
Bro. Campbell said, the Apostles. did not speak classic
Greek; for they could not have understood it. Now, if
the gentleman will turn to his third speech on the ac-
tion of baptism, he can see it for himself.

Mr. Campbell^ he tells you, has crossed his own track,
in asserting one thing in the New Testament and ano-
ther in his debate with Rice. The difficulty is not that
Bro. Campbell has crossed his own 1 track, but that Mr
Terrell seems incapable of understanding him. Doei
Bro. Campbell assert in the New Testament that bap-
tizo and all words indicating outward, physical action,
are subjects of idiomatic or special law? Mr. Terrell
knows he does not. Does he in his debate with Rice
assert, that such words as law,jlesh spirit, sacrifice ar&

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 35

not the subjects of special law? Mr. Terrell knows he
says no such thing. In the New Testament Bro. Camp-
bell was talking about the qualifications of a good
Translator, and says, "that an intimate acquaintance
with the Septuagint Greek of the Old Testament is
of essential importance in translating the New."

Bro. Campbell has always said in common with the
most eminent men of all parties, that some words in.
the New Testament are the subjects of idomatic 01
special law. But that he ever said that baptizo, or any
other word indicating outward, physical, and well de-
fined action is a word of idiom, to be tried in a special
court, as a heretic is tried, by a special law is not true-
Mr. Terrell has taken what Bro. Campbell. said with
special reference to one class of words and .applied it
to another class; and then with a look which seemed to
indicate that he felt himself possessed of all wisdom,
and all knowledge said, "Mr. Campbell has crossed his
own trcCk."

But the reason why he crossed his own track he tells
us was, because he was hard pressed in the debate with
Rice. Well, great men will disagree in opinion. His
Bro. Jinkins, a Presiding Elder in the M. E. Church, ir;
Tennessee, did not think Bro. Campbell very hard pres-
sed; for when he had read the debate, he just put that
thing called Methbdism down, came out, confessed and
obeyed the truth, and "now preaches the faith which he
once destroyed." Mr. Campbell must have been truly
hard pressed.

The gentleman made one effort in his last speech t<
be a little smart once in his life. I was highly pleased
to see him smVe at his own wit, while the people present
could see nothing worth smiling at. lie never heari
of a blister plaster on the carpet before. There are a
great many things in this world he has not heard of. —
When I spoke of the blister plaster being on the carpet
all present understood me, except Mr. Terrell.
Mr. Terrell now tells us, that it was. not the blister:

36 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

plaster but the sore place on the man that was to be
oaptized. Is this true? Let us see. Hippocrates says,
dip the plaster in rose oil, and if when thus applied, it
.should be too painful, it must be taken off, and dipped
(baptizo) again in breast milk and Egyptian ointment.
That is according to Mr. Terrell, take all the sore place
off of the man and dip it in rose oil; then apply it to
the man and if it should be found to be too painful, take
all the sore place off again, and dip it in breast milk and
Egyptian ointment. This is too small for a great man
like Mr. Terrell. He will have to get Mr, Taylor, or
some one else, to help him to something better than
that.

Instead of proving as I called upon him to do, and as
he is solemnly bound to do, that Eusebius used the word
about which we are debating, he takes it for granted
rhat he did and calls upon me to show what it was a
figure of. It is certainly a very stupid act for a man in
a discussion to take for granted, the very thing he has to
prove. If Eusebius did use the word baptizo, it was a
figure of the same .thing the baptism of Christ was,
when he was baptized in suffering for the sins of the
world. No man who loves the Redeemer will say, that
when he was baptized in suffering, he only had a few
drops of it sprinkled upon him.

Luther, Mr. Terrell tells you, does not say the word
baptize means only to immerse; but that it may be-
translated immerse. He says more than that, Will
you hear him sir?

"And although it( immersion) is almost wholly abol-
ished (for they do not dip the whole children, but only
pour a little water on them) they ought nevertheless to
be wholly immersed and then immediately drawn out,
for that the etymology of the word seems to demand.' 1

The etymology of the word, he says, demands that
the person to be baptized be wholly immersed and im-
mediately drawn out. By the way, Mr. Terrell com-
plained of me, for not adopting the view of Bro. Camp-

AWD THE HOLY SPIRIT. 37

bell that biptizo both puts a person under water and
draws him out. Well, Bro. Campbell has Luther, and
many of the most eminent men with him. While he
is in such good company he has no need of my de-
fence.

Mr. Terrell, I suppose, thinks that he has most tri
umphantly answered my second argument by reading
from Dr. Clark where he says, "baptizo means to sprin-
kle as well as to tHp. n He certainly deserves a vale of
thanks from the Methodists, for proving that Methodism
is right, by the testimony of Methodists.

Why did he not if he wished to meet my argument
fairly, show that men on my side of the question have
said as much in favor of his practice of sprinkling as
the most eminent men on his side have in favor of the
truth. The whole of his reply amounts to about thi>:
Methodists say, that Methodism is the truth; therefore
Methodism is the truth.

It is absurd, he tells you, for me to call upon him to
read from Baptists in favor of his rantism. But why
is it absurd? Have I not appealed to those who prac-
tice sprinkling to prove, that the literal and proper mean-
ing of baptizo is to immerse, it was absurd only be-
cause he had nothing else to say.

Not one of my witnesses he tells you, said that bap-
tism .always means immersion. Was it because he did
not or could not hear, that he made this assertion? l<
seems to me, that he does not know half of the time
what he does say.

1 have not time to read -over and over again the same
things, for the benefit of my friend. He must pay be;
ter attention. I will, however, for the purpose of show-
ing you how unfounded his assertion was, repeat the
testimony of one of them, and it is but the testimony
of them all.

Buddeus, one of my witnesses says, "The words bap-
tizein and baptismos are not to be interpreted of sprink-
ling, but always of immersion."

$&' Debate on baptism*

Can you heat* his words sir, that baptizo the very
word about which we are debating, is not to be inter-
preted of sprinkling, but always of immersion.

Mr. Terrell became very religious towards the close
of his last speech and said among other things, "I draw
my faith from God's holy book, and not from the clas-
sics." I am unable to say, whether it was because we
were going to dinner before he spoke again, or because
he had nothing else to say to fill up his time, that he
made this assertion. Nor am I right certain it is true.
Will Mr. Terrell have the goodness if he pleases to tell
us, in what part of God's holy book he finds his mourn-
er's bench, his class-meeting, and his band society? 1
think he will hardly affirm in this discussion, that these
prominent parts of his faith are drawn from God's holy
book.

He again reiterates the assertion that baptizo did not/
mean among the Jews what it did among the Greeks.
We will let Josephus, a Jew, who wrote his history in*
the Greek language in the days of the Apostles, decide
this question for us. He certainly ought to know in
what sense the Jews, used Greek words; better than
any man now living can. He uses baptizo very often,
and always in the sense of immersion. Speaking of
the storm threatened destruction to the ship that carried
Jonah, he says;

"'When the ship was on the point of sinking, or just
about to be bapiizcdP

Did this Jew who never used a Greek word in the
sense of the classics, mean that, "When the ship was-
on the point of sinking, or just about to have a few-
drops of water sprinkled upon it?" If the ship was on .
the point of sinking under the water, I suppose it was
just about to be immersed. What can be plainer?

I could bring forward passages numerous and various
from the writings of Josephus, equally as strong and
decisive as this; but one or two more will suffice for the
present. Speaking. of some of the misfortunes of Ces-
tius, he says;

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. SO-

"After this misfortune of Cestius, many of the Jews
©f distinction left the City, as people Swim away from

a baptizing ship."

I wonder if the people in the days of Josephus were
<o silly, as to jump overboard and swim away from a
ship, because it had a few drops of water sprinkled
upon it! It must hav e been, if my friend Mr. Terrell's
position be correct, that baptizo means to immerse a-
mong the Greeks and to sprinkle among the Jews. It
is vain for a man to reason against facts. We have
had enough unfounded assertion. Let himgive us more
argument and less assertion, and we will listen to him
with more pleasure. Let him produce one example in
the writings of any Jew, where baptizo, means any
thing but immerse if he can. 1 fearlessly affirm he
cannot do it. As this is a point upon which many
graceless assertions have been made without any proof,
t cannot dismiss Josephus without hearing him once
more. Speaking of the drowning of Aristabulas by com-
mand of Herod, he says;

"Pressing him down always as he was swimming,
and baptizing him in sport, they did not give over till
they entirely drowned him."

Can anything be more express and exact than this?
The boy was swimming in a pond, andthe Gallatiansby
command of Herod, b iptized him by pressing him down
.inder water, so as to drown him. What can baptize
mean among the Jews but to put under water? Let it be
remembered and never let it be forgotten that Josephus
was a Jew, and wrote his history in the Greek language
m the very days of the Apostles. The reason why Mr.
Terrell and his party put in. this miserable jlea is, be-
cause they know that the whole Greek world pronounce
the condemnation upon their rantism. As enough has
been said to convince any one, whose mind is blinded
by the working of a per-blind theology, 1 wiH proceed
to my third argument which shall be drawn from the
use of the word lathe bible.

40

DEBATE ON BAPTISM

"Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into
death; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead
by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk
in newness of life." Rom.vi: 4.

"Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen
with him." Col. 11: 12.

No language could be employed in human speech
that could more definitely fix the meaning of this word,
than the language of the spirit in these two passages
1 solemnly think that the spirit of all wisdom inten-
ded to lock up the meaning of this word, so that men
who would practice sprinkling might be left without
excuse — that they might do it knowing that the Spirit
of the Lord had said, that when we are baptized, we
are, "buried in baptism." I would not for a thousand
worlds like this, have water sprinkled upon me in the
name of my Lord, and then give the lie to common sense
by saying, that this is what the Spirit of God means
by being buried in baptism.

How can Mr. Terrell or any other man of his party,
who has sprinkled into his congregation a hundred per-
sons or more, stand up before them and read the words
of the Spirit "v:e are buried with him in baptism" when
he knows, and they know, that it is not true? He never
can make it mean "buried with him in sprinkling." Let
it be remembered and never let it be forgotten by you,
that the spirit of the Lord says, that Christians "are bv-
rkd with the Lord in baptism."

I have only time to mention one more fact from the
New Testament; and that is Christ did not command,
the water to be baptized upon the people, but the people
to be baptized in the water. It was not the wa-
ter that was to be baptized upon the people, but the
people were to be baptized in water. Now, the mis-
take of Mr. Terrell and his party is, that they ranthe
the water upon the people, instead of baptizing the peo-
ple in water, as Christ commanded us to do. We can
sprinkle w r ater upon a man, but to sprinkle a man in water

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 41

is something that cannot be done. It will not do to say,
they were sprinkled of him in Jordan, or poured of him
in the river Jordan; but it will do to say, they were im-
mersed of him in Jordan.

As Mr. Terrell has repeatedly asserted that the word
about which we are debating, does not mean in the
New Testament what it does in the classics, I would be
pleased to have him substitute his sprinkle instead of
baptizo in a few passages. I will risk the whole dis-
cussion upon the assertion, that it Will make the mosi
perfect, or the most consummate nonsense in every
passage where baptizo occurs. This fact alone ought
to settle the question.

If Mr. Terrell is unwilling to try his sprinkle or pour,
as a translation of baptizo, I will risk the controversy
upon the assertion, that the word immerse will make
good sense in every passage, as a translation of baptizo.

It will not do for Mr. Terrell to say, as some of his
party have said, that the reason why baptizo cannot
be translated sprinkle is, baptizo is & generic word, and
sprinkle is specific ; for I defy him or any of his party to
produce any word which expresses physical action, in
any language, that will make generic sense, and spec fir
nonsense at the same time. Why d©es not baptizo
make generic sense, and specific nonsense when it is
translated immerse ? Is immerse generic?

I must now say a word or two on the preposition
en, commonly translated in. In the discussion I had
last winter with Mr. Manford, I affirmed what I sol-
emnly believe to be true ; viz : that en means in when
it denotes the place, and by when it denotes the agent.
I defended this in the presence of the champion of U-
niversalisni of Indiana, and 1 am now prepared to do
it in the presence of Mr. Terrell.

My fourth argument in support of my proposition
shall be drawn from the fact, that Christ has used the
strongest word in the Greek language for the action of
immersion, to denote the ordinance of baptism. If

i'2 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

baptize does not definitely express the action oflm-
mersion for which I contend, then there is no word in
the Greek language that does. I" suppose no one will
say the Greeks have no word for immerse. Let Mr.
Terrell show what that word is, if baptizo is not the
one. Let him show that the Greeks have a word
which definitely expresses the action of immersion, if
baptizo is not the word. I assert he cannot do it. —
The Greek language has in it words which mean to
sink, to dive, but none of them can definitely express
the action of immersion, if baptizo does not. The
Greek language also has in it words which mean to
sprinkle, to pour, and to wesh, but no one of them was
}*ver used by the Redeemer to denote the ordinance of
baptism.

For the satisfaction of all desirous to be assured of
the true meaning of baptizo,! will present some of the
other Greek words, which relate to the use of water :

1. Lavo, to wash the body.

2. Pluno, to wash the clothes.

3. Niht), to w T ash the hands, the face, the feet.

4. EUkeo, to pour.

5. Riintizo, to sprinkle.

If it had hav t e been the design of the Lord to com-
mand either sprinkling, pouring, or washing the face.
the Greek language would have furnished him with a
word to express the very thing he designed. But it is
known to every one who knows the Greek Alphabet,,
chat neither niptn, ckleo, nor ranlizo was ever used by
him to denote the ordinance of baptism : a clear proof
that he neither commanded sprinkling, pouring, nor
washing the fa c, as Mr. Terrell and his party do.

As I have shown, that the Greek language has in it
words for sprinkle, pour, and -wash, will Mr. Terrell
have the goodness to us, and kindness to his cause and
people, to tell w r hat word in that language definitely
means to immerse, if baptizo is not the word. A fail-
ure here (and fail he must) will be fatal to his causa
in this- country. (Time expired.)

AND THE HOLY SPHtlT. 43-

[mr. Terrell's third-reply.]
Sentlemen Moderators — Christian Friends:

I am liable to be mistaken. I might have misunder-
stood the gentleman, in his representing me as saying
that the apostles could not understand classic Greek.
He now says Mr. Rice said they could not understand
classic Greek, and not me. I did not quote from Mr.
Rice but from Mr. Campbell. What has Mr. Rice to
do with this discussion ?

I shall not have much to say about my friend's last
speech. Much of it was not to the point, and there-
fore, it is not necessary 1 should follow him in all his
wanderings.

I shall now notice the plaster and Ii think it will-
stick. The gentleman will be glad to get this plaster
off before we are done with it. I see it is already be-
coming painful to him. As I told him before, it is not
on the carpet, but on immersion. No plaster ought to
be dipped to make it easy. As I said before, physicians
do not order blister plasters to be dippe f but wet, in
order to make them easy, when they become painful,
by being hard. The gentleman cannot get away from
this plaster.

The gentleman has been so kind as to tellyoa what
course I would pursue. I have known for some time
that Mr. Pritchard was a man of great sagacity, but I
did not know before that he was a j.Tcphc! I

I shall now notice the gentleman's argument on Ro.
6, and Col. 2: 12. In order to sustain the doctrine of
my friend, these passages should read dipped into wa-
ter ; but this is not the language. But the apostle says
they were " baptized into (hath'' and not dipped into
water. If :t was a literal burial, it was a literal resur-
rection. But it cannot be a literal burial, for the resur-
rection is by an action of fait ■ and not by an action of
num.. Many pedobaptists, it is true, admit this passage
r x> be baptism by immersion.

I. will now notice Matthew 3. 1 am glad the gentle-

&£ DEBATE ON BAPTISM

man referred to this passage. Here we are informed,
that they should be baptized with the Holy Spirit and
with fire. Some might say they should be baptized in
the Holy Spirit, as Mr. Campbell did, but there was no
literal immersion in fire. Where does he find the
baptism of fire. Mr. Campbell says, the baptism of
fire is hell. He therefore, has to go to hell to make-
out his exclusive immersion theory. The gentleman
cannot find a clear case of immersion in the bible.

The Jews said, to John the Baptist, " Why baptizeth
thou if thou be not that prophet." But where did the
Jews learn that that prophet should baptize? Why,
the prophet Isaiah had said, " he shall sprinkle many
nations f and the prophet Ezkiel said, " Then will 1
sprinkle clear water upon you." Heb. 10 : 12. We
have an exposition of the language just quoted from
the prophets. It reads thus : " Let us draw near with
<i true he-art, in full assurance of faith, having our
hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies
washed with pure water." Now, you can wash the
body, by sprinkling, pouring or immersion. Sprinkling
water is washing in a religious sense.

1 have now some counterarguments to offer, which
i will introduce by a quotation from Mat. 3: 7, 11 :
^ But when he saw many Pharisees andSadducees
come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation
of vipers, who has warned you to flee from the wrath
to come ? Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repent -
aiK-e : and think not to say within yourselves, we have
Abraham for our father ; for I say unto yom that God
is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abra-
ham. And now also the axe is laid unto the root of
the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not
forth good fruit is hewn down and cast into the fire.
I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance ; but
he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes
I am not able to bear : he shall baptize you with the
Hodv Ghost and with fire." The Savior also com

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. <5?

manded them to tarry in Jerusalem till they shouldbe
baptized with the Holy Ghost. Mr. Campbell renders
this passage, " He shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit."
Was the baptism of fire by immersion ? I quote Acts
2: 1, 7, which I think will throw some light on the sub-
ject : " And when the day of pentecost was fully come,
they were all with one accord in one place. And sud-
denly there came a sound from heaven, as a rushing
of mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they
wire sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven
tongues, like as of fire, and it sat upon each of ti&m.
And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and be-
gan to speak with other tongues, as the spirit gave
them utterance. And there were dwelling at Jerusa-
lem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under hea-
ven. Now when this was noised abroad the multitude
•came together, and were confounded, because they
jaeard them speak every man in his own language. —
And they were all amazed, and marveled, saying one
to another, Behold are not all these which speak Gali-
leeans ? And how hear we every man in our own
tongue, wherein were born."

This extraordinary event brought great multitudes
<ol the people together to hear the apostles preach. —
This was that which was spoken by the prophet Joe!.
" and it shall come to pass m the last days, says God,
that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh." Here is
a case in which baptism was performed by pouring. —
In this case it was administered by the Almighty him-
self, and he certainly did it in the right way. God
himself c ertainly could understand Greek, and knew
what he meant by the word baptize, and in fulfilling
"iis promise, that he would baptize with the Holy
Giiost, shed forth this which they saw and heard —
poured out the Spirit upon them. God's way of ad-
ministering baptism was by pouring, but the gentle-
man's way is by dipping. Here 1 plant my stake*
down, and from here I shall not be moved. I call the

46 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

gentleman's-special attention to this argument drawn
from God's Holy book. Will he say they were dipped ?
If he does, I wish him to remember that Peter said, at
the House of Cornelius, the Holy Ghost fell on them
as on us at the beginning. God poured it out, shed it
forth, and it fell on them. This was the baptism of
the Holy Spirit, and there was no dipping or immersion
in the case. This perfectly accords with Titus 3:5:
" He saved us by the washing of regeneration and re-
newing of the Holy Ghost." Mr. Campbell says the
baplfem of fire is plunging into hell, and if the termin-
ation zo brings them out again, as he says, they will
be plunged into hell and brought out again. Immer-
sion must be substantiated, if he has to go to hell for
the proof of it. " I indeed baptize you with water, but
he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with
fire." Mr. Campbell sends them to Hell to get their
baptism, and if they have to go to hell to get their
baptism, it will do them no good. The legs of the lame
are not equal. I suppose Mr. Campbell would say
that baptizo takes them into hell and zo brings them
out. Here I take my stand. From this stand I cannot
be moved. The gentleman may bring all his strong
forces, but he never can get over this.

Here we have a definition of the Greek word bapti-
zo from God himself, and, as I said before, he under-
stands Greek. He never can get over this. If I couM
even believe that baptize is a specific action, I would
not immerse, because the Lord has defined it to mean
pour, which is also a specific action.

Now, the gentleman claims to be a New Testament
man. Let him then, come up to the work and meet
me like a man. Let him leave the classics and come to
his bible, or his friends will suppose him afraid of hb»
bible, after all the flourishes he has made over it. 1
defend my cause by the word of God, and need no oth
er authority. The gentleman quotes many others. 9
suppose he needs them, but I do not need them ? ami

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 47

'simply quote them, to meet Greek with Greek and
classics with classics.

You can see now, Christian friends, what his loud
claims stand upon. He depends upon Greek classics,
and various uninspired authors, and n®t on scripture
But I appeal directly to the word of God, and establish
my position by the most clear language of scripture.

I will now proceed directly to another passage of
the word of God. It reads thus: "And as he spake,
a certain Pharisee besought him to dine with him : and
he went in and sat down to meat. And when the
Pharisee saw it, he marveled that he had not first
washed before dinner." Luke 11: 37,38. I will also
read you a passage from Mark 7; 1, 5 : " Then came
together unto him the 'Pharisees and certain of the
Scribes, which came from Jerusalem. And when
they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled,
that is to say, unwashed hands, they found fault. For
the Pharisees and all the Jews, except they wash their
hands oft, eat not, holding the traditions of the elders.
And when they come from the market, except they
wash, they eat not. And many other things there be
which they have received to hold, as the washing of
cups and pots, brazen vessels, and of tables."

In the 4th verse where it is said, " when they como
from market, except they wash, they eat not," the
Greek is baptize. The gentleman would hardly say
the cups, pots and tables were immersed ; yet it is
baptize in Greek. Certainly they did not dip their ta-
bles. Here baptize is properly translated wash, and
the circumstances show that it would not have done to
translate it immerse. I want the gentleman's atten-
tion to this argument. Will he tell us whether he be-
lieves the cups, pots, vessels and tables were immersed?
lie never can get over this. No, my Christian breth
ren, he must fail here, as he has already done on
every point we have had before the audience.

I now come to another argument, founded upon the

48 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

baptism of the Israelits, in the cloud and in the sea.~
Paul speaks of it thus : " Moreover brethren, I would
not that you should be ignorant, how that all of our
fathers were under the cloud, and all passed
through the sea ; and were all baptized unto Moses,
in the cloud and in the sea." 1 Cor. 10: 1,2.

Here was a baptism, but no immersion, for the
scripture says they passed through the sea dry shod. — ■
I know that some men try to make it immersion, but if
it was, it must have been an immersion on dry ground.
'There could have been no other kind. This passage
has always stood in the way of immersionists, and the
gentleman will find it in his way on this occasion.

I see that my time is pretty near out, and I want to
hear what my friend can say to these argu ments, and
Therefore shall take my seat.

[mr. pritchard's fourth address.]
Gentlemen Moderators;

Mr. Terrell has told you that he had known for some
time that I was a man of great sagacity, but he had not
learned that I was a prophet. Well, I do not profess
to be either a prophet or the son of a prophet. A man
who is acquainted with the history of the past can tell
something of the future without being a prophet. —
When I told you that he would make baptizo mean any
thing and every thing or nothing, to suit the convenien-
ces of his party; was I not right? When I told you
that he would affirm nothing and deny all in this dis-
cussion; was I not right? When I told you that he
would not try to prove that Eusebius used the word
baptism of suffering; was I not right? When I -told
you that he would not meet me upon the true issue, but
would take a wild goose chase all over creation m
search of materials to fill up his time; was I not right?
If the exact fulfilment of a number of predictions be
any proof to him, that a man is a prophet, I do hot
know but that I shall convince him that I am something

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 49

of a prophet as well as a man of great sagacity. 1 hope
he did not use the word sagacity in its original signifi-
cation. The word sagacity comes from the word sag,
which signifies a dog. I hope he did not mean thai I
am a man of great dogishness.

Mr. Terrell now tells you that he might have been
mistaken, in regard to the Apostles speaking classic
Greek, and asks, what Mr. Rice has to do with this dis-
cussion? Sure enough; what has he to do? Why did
Mr. Terrell introduce him in this discussion, by tell
of his mighty work? He has certainly forgotten that
Mr. Rice's name filled an important place, in his speech-
es. By repeating his name so often, Mr. Terrell re-
minded me of an editor in Ohio, who had nothing on
hand to fill up his paper; so he said, "I cannot think I
any thing to put in this place just now;" and these
words just filled it up.

Mr. Terrell, instead of telling you how he and his
party are buried in sprinkling, tells you that Rom. vi: 4,
reads, we are baptized into death, not dipped in water.
This was a wonderful discovery. Wonder if it was* o-
riginal! It must be, for there are but very few great
men on the earth who could conceive a thing so zpie^-
did! It matters not so far as my argument is concern-
ed, whether we are baptized into death, mud or milk: for
if we are buried when we are baptized into death, of
course we must be when we are baptized in water. —
Mr. Terrell has certainly forgotten that it is the
meaning of baptizo, and not water, we are looking after
to day. The Spirit of God says, "we are buried in bap-
tism," and no man living or dead can make that name
buried in sprinkling.

But he says, we cannot be buried in a literal sense,
for the Apostle says, we are raised by faith. The Apos-
tle sa} T s no such thing. His language is; "wherein al-
so ye are risen with him through the faith of the opera-
tion of God ;" which means no more than that we are
introduced into a new life, after baptism, through faith
D

50 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

in Christ. Mr. Terrell has been so long in the practice
of baptizing people without faith, that he seems to be
incapable of understanding the Apostles, when they
connect faith and baptism together. When we are
baptized in water, into the death of Christ, it is always
through faith in the Redeemer that we are raised to a
new life. He says, I cannot find a clear case of im-
mersion in the bible. Let him make some effort to
dispose of the language of the Spirit which says, we
are buried in baptism, before he favors us with any
more assertions of the kind. We greatly prefer mod-
esty in assertion, and strength in argument, to seeing a
man trample under his feet the language of the Spirit

Mr. Terrell quotes the words of the Prophet, "then
will I sprinkle clean water upon you," as if that pass-
age had any thing to do with baptism, more than it
has with the Lord's Supper, or feet washing. His ob-
ject doubtless was, to have me spend my time in talk-
ing about such little things, but I am not disposed to-
gratify him, for if he does not know that it has nothing
to do with this discussion, he is more stupid than I
think he is.

But he told you, that sprinkling a little water on the
face was washing the body. This is so ludicrous of it-
3eif, that it needs no reply. If his Methodism be true.
Paul ought to have said, having our hearts sprinkled
from an evil conscience, and our faces sprinkled with
a little water. How can any subject under all these
heavens bejinade plainer than the Apostles have made
this, by first telling us, that we are buried in baptism,
and then, that when we were baptized "our bodies
were washed in, pure water." I apprehend that the
gentleman and his party will be as sick of the bible as
they were of the classics, before this- discussion shali:
end.

But to prove that "buried in baptism/' means sprin
kled, or poured, or washed, or something else, the gen
tieman has in great haste left eYery passage in fcke

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. if

New Testament where the word baptize is found, and
made his appeal to the second of Acts, and to the out-
pouring of the Spirit, as if that out-pouring was ex-
pressed by the word about which we are debating. To
appeal to things to find the meaning of words, is, in
the language of Ernesti, most M egregious trifling."' —
Our knowledge of things depends upon the meaning
of words, and not the meaning of words upon out-
knowledge of things. It is then, " deceptive, fallaci-
ous, and most egregious trifling, to appeal to things to
find the meaning of words."

Ernesti says : " Language can be properly interpre-
ted only in a philological way. Not much unlike these
fanatics, and not less hurtful, are those who, from a
similar contempt of the language and from that ignor-
ance of them which breeds contempt, depend in their in-
terpretations rather on things than on words. Nor will
this mode of exegesis at all avail to convince gainsay-
ers, for they themselves beast of interpreting in like
manner by things.'* p. 27.

Universalists sustain their dogma of universal salva-
tion, by precisely the same kind of argumentation.—
In a discussion I had with Mr. Manford, about one year
ago, I had to meet the same arguments from him that
I have from Mr. Terrell to-day. I affirmed that aion
means absolute duration without end, and I proved it
by the classics. Mr. Manford replied, that the classi-
cal meaning of the word, had nothing to do with its
New Testament meaning; for, said he, the Apostles
did not speak classic Greek. If the word does mean
duration without end in the classics, it can only mean
a lim'ted time in the New Testament. This is precise
ly the same course pursued by Mr. Terrell. If, says
he, with Mr. Manford, baptizo does mean to immerse
in the classics, it can mean nothing more than sprin-
kle, or wet, or wash, in the New Testament ; for the
Apostles did not speak classic Greek. How admirably
these two yoke-fellows pull together.

t$ DEBATE ON BAPTISM

Mr. Manford, to sustain himself in his assumption,
appealed to things not connected with the word in de-
bate, as Mr. Terrell has done. God is too merciful
ar.d good to punish his creatures forever and ever. —
God poured out the Spirit, says Mr. Terrell, therefore,
huried in baptism can mean nothing more than buried
in sprinkling, in weting, or bedewing. I hazard nothing
in saying, that the most scandalous and ridiculous no-
tions, the most shameful perversions of the word of
God, and all the sentiments of infidels and sophists
can be sustained, and are sustained, and kept up by
the use of the same means. Universalists have sus-
tained their miserable per-blind theology, and gained
over to it many honest well-meaning persons, by an
urgumentem ad homenem built upon a supposed charac-
ter of God, which they have created in their own minds
by the assistance of a distempered imagination. So
Methodists have sustained t>heir rantum by telling us
that there is not water enough in some countries to im-
merse — that Jordan is nothing but a "little wet water
stream" — that in some parts of the world it is too cold
to immerse — that it is indecent and immodest to im-
merse a female — and finally that the Lord poured out
the Holy Ghost, and therefore sprinkling is baptism ;
as if any or all of these things, had any thing to do
with the meaning of baptizo.

His argument is this: The Apostles were to be
baptised in the Holy Spirit. But the Holy Spirit was
poured out from heaven. Therefore, pouring out, and
baptism are one and the same thing.

I must be permitted to make a few arguments of the
same kind for the edification of the audience, and the
gratification of Mr. Terrell.

1. The Spirit was to convince the world of sin. But
the Spirit was poured out from heaven. Therefore,
pouring out, and convincing of sin are one and the
same thing.

2. The Holy Spirit was to bring to the remembrance

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 53

of the Apostles all things that Christ had said unto
them. But the Spirit was poured out. Therefore,
bringing to remembrance, and pouring out are the
same.

3. A penitent believer is to be immersed in the
creek. But the water in the creek was poured out
from the clouds. Therefore, pouring out from the
clouds, and immersion in the creek are one and the
same thing.

Now, I ask, what has the pouring of the Spirit from
heaven to do with the baptism of the Spirit, more than
the pouring of the water from the clouds has to do with
an immersion in water, after it came from the clouds?
If you were to see a man, who, when he was informed
that a person was immersed in the creek, would try to
find the meaning of the word immerse, by finding how
the water got into the creek, you would think him a sim-
pleton. Equally as profoundly learned and logical is
that man, who, when he is informed that the Apostles
were baptized in the Holy Spirit, tries to find the mean-
ing of the word baptize, by finding how the Spirit came
from heaven.

By the way, I would like to ask Mr. Terrell, how he
knows that the Spirit was poured? The classical
meaning of the word translated pour is undoubtedly to
pour; but words in the New Testament he says, do
not mean what they do in the classics. If he should
answer that this word (ekkeo) has not changed its
meaning, I will be pleased to know by what law of
philology he causes one word which expresses outward
physical action to change its meaning, and not another
of the same class. If the Greek word for immerse in
the classics means pour in the New Testament, why
may not the classic word for pour, mean immerse in
the Testament ? I fear his argument will kill his proof.
As Mr. Terrell has already distinguished himself in this
discussion for learning and sagacity, I hope he will
give a good reason why one of these words has changed
its meaning and not the other.

54 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

Having examined the logic of Mr. Terrell, and
proved that his course is contrary to reason, to com-
mon sense, and to all the established rules of interpre-
tation, I will proceed to examine the passage upon
which he relies to prove, that buried in baptism means
to have a little water sprinkled on the face.

When Pentecost had come, it is said, that, " sudden-
ly there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing of
mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they
were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven
tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them."

Now, here it is said, that the Spirit came from hea-
ven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the
house where they were sitting. If all the house was
filled bjr the Spirit, of course they were immersed in it.
But Mr. Terrell will tell you that it was the sound that
filled the house. Was it the sound that sat upon them?
It is said that, it filled the house, and it sat upon them?
Jf sound is the antecedent of the it of the second verse,
what is the antecedent of the it that sat upon them ?
h cannot, be tongues, for tongues are in the plural num-
ber. We can probably find the antecedent of it, by
the language of the thirty- third verse, which reads:

u Therefore, being by the right hand of God exalted,
and having received of the Father the promise of the
Holy Spirit, he hath shed forth this, which you now
see and henry

When did they see the Spirit? When it sat upon
them. When did they hear the Spirit ? When it came
from heaven, as a rushing mighty wind. It was the
Spirit which came from heaven ; it made the sound, it
filled the house, it sat upon them, it they saw, and it
they heard. What can be plainer ? There is no sense
in saying the sound filled all the house, when it is
known that it filled not only that house where they
were sitting, but every other house in Jerusalem.

Having finished his argument to prove that pabtize
means to pour, Mr. Terrell proceeds immediately to
prove that it means to wash. But if it means to pour,

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT, -55

It does not mean to wash. Certainly he will not say,
that pouring and washing are one and the same thing.
Is there an old lady in this county, who does not know
that there is a vast deal of difference between pouring
out clothes, and washing clothes ?

His first proof for washing was, Mark, seventh,
chap.: " And when they came from the market, except
they wash (Gr. baptize) they eat not."

A Methodist Commentary which I have in my pos-
session says, that the word baptize in this passage
should be translated bathe, or that, that is the meaning
of the word, and refers to Lev. 15: 11, to prove it.

(Here Mr. Terrell said — Read it sir.)

Mr. Pritchard. I will with the greatest pleasure. —
Benson, in his Commentary which I have in my hand
says : " And when they came from the market, except
they wash, — Greek baptize — bathe them?.elves, as the
word probably ought here to be rendered (see Lev. 15:
11,) they eat not." Lev. 15: 11, to which he refers, re-
quired a Jew, after he had touched a person who was
unclean, as he always did at market, to go and wash
his clothes, and bathe his whole body in water. A Jew
bathed his body, by going under w T ater, head and ears.
This the New Testament calls baptizing. What can
baptism be but immersion ?

Mr. Terrell seems to think that I will hardly say, that
the cups, and pots, and other vessels were immensed.
Yes I will, and prove it too. If he will take up his bi-
ble and turn to Lev. xi 32, he can see that they were
taken to where there was plenty of water, and put in-
to, and under the water, and remained immersed under
water till evening, that they might be cleansed. This
the New Testament calls baptizing them. What can
be stronger in favor. of immersion ?

My fifth, and last argument taken upon this propo-
sition, shall be drawn from the well known fact, that
immersion, and immersion only was practised by all
Christians, east and west, for thirteen hundred years af-

Sffi DEBATE ON BAPTISM

ter Christ ; except in a few cases where the Pope, or
some of his tribe, allowed pouring in danger of death,
where immersion could not be had. I will sustain
this argument by the testimony of some of the most em-
inent men that ever lived. The Edinburgh Ency. de-
serves to be heard first. It says :

" In the times of the Apostles, the form of baptism
was very simple. The person to be baptized was dip-
ped into a river or vessel, with the w r ords which Christ
had ordered, and to express more fully his change of
character, generally assumed a new name. The im-
mersion of the whole body was omitted only in the case
of the sick, who could not leave the beds. In this case,
sprinkling was substituted, which was called clinic
baptism. The Greek church, as well as the Schisma-
tics in the East, retained the custom of immersing the
whole body ; but the Western (Roman Catholic) church
adopted, in the thirteenth century, the mode of baptism
by sprinkling, has has been continued by the protes-
tants, baptists only excepted." Art. Baptism.

Bassuet : " The baptism of John the Baptist, which
served as a preparative to that of Jesus Christ, was
performed by plunging. In fine, we read not in the
Scripture that baptism was otherwise administered ;
and we are able to make it appear, by the acts of coun-
cils, and by the ancient rituals, that for thirteen hundred
years, baptism was thus administered throughout the
whole church, as far as was possible."

Dr. Whitby : " It being so expressly declared here,
that we are buried with Christ in baptism, by being
buried under water, and the argument to oblige us to a
conformity to his death, by dying to sin, being taken
hence; and this immersion being religiously observed
by all Christians for thirteen centuries ; and the change
of it into sprinkling, even without any allowance from
the Author of this institution, or any license from any
council of the church, being that which the Romanist
still urgeth to justify his refusal of the cup to the la-
ity." Note on Rom. 64.

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 57

Winer, in his Lectures on Archaeology, says, " Af-
fusion was at first applied only to the sick" (are Meth-
odists all sick?) "but was gradually introduced for oth-
ers after the seventh century, and in the thirteenth cen-
tury became the prevailing practice in the West. But
the Eastern church has retained immersion alone as
valid."

Van Caellu : " Immersion in water was general until
the thirteenth century ; but among the Latins it was dis-
placed by sprinkling ; but retained by the Greeks."

Professor Stuart : " We have collected facts enough
to authorize us now to come to the following general
conclusions respecting the practice of the Christian
church in general, with regard to the mode of baptism,
viz : that from the earliest ages of which we have any
account, subsequent to the apostolic age, and down-
ward for several centuries, the churches did generally
practice baptism by immersion ; perhaps by immersion
of the whole person ; and that the only exceptions to
this mode which were usually allowed, were, in cases
of urgent sickness, where immersion could not be prac-
ticed. It may also be mentioned here that aspersion
and affusion, which had in particular cases been now
and then practiced in primitive times, were generally
introduced, and became at length quite common, and
in the Western church, almost universal, before the
Reformation."

(Time expired.)

[mr. Terrell's fourth reply.]
Gentlemen Moderators — Ladies and Gentlemen:

I am not surprised at the earnestness and zeal mani-
fested by my friend, Mr. Pritchard, on the present occa-
sion. The manifest failure he hasmade, and the circum-
stances which surround him, are sufficient to create some
warmth within him. He has considered himself the
champion of immersion, and the open opponent of all
the sprinklers in the land, and now having made such

58 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

an evident failure, it is quite sufficient to rouse up his
zeal.

One thing I look upon as exceedingly unbecoming on
an occasion like this, and not only so, but contrary to
our rules of discussion. What I allude to is the fact,
that he has charged me with attempting to deceive. I
cannot look upon this in any other light, but as ungen-
tlemanly and unchristian; as also conflicting with our
stipulated rules of debate. I have tried to spare his
feelings and the feelings of his friends, and hope to con-
tinue so. My Christian friends, let us try to manifest at
least a kind spirit.

In regard to the baptism of the Holy Ghost I would
ask this intelligent audience, what has my friend, Mr.
Pritchard, said? He has informed us very kindly and
confidentially that Jesus says, "they shall be immersed
in the Holy Spirit." This is exactly what this audience
came here to hear him prove on this occasion. He has
begged the whole question in controversy, and assumed
ibr granted the very point in dispute. We want to hear
him prove that Jesus ever taught immersion in the Holy
Ghost. But I shall now leave his begging of the ques-
tion, and call your attention to the very language of the
sacred scripture.

"And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they
were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly
there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing migh-
ty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sit-
ting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues,
like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them; and they
were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak
with other tongues, as the spirit gave them utterance."
Acts 2: 1,4.

This passage says, "And it filled all the house where
they were sitting." I would ask what filled the house?
The passage says, "and there came a sound from hea-
ven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the
house where they were sitting." Is it not clear that

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 59

"iQ\ the sound, filled the house? I maintain that the
word "sound" is the antecedent to the word "it." But,
my friend, Mr. Pritchard, wants to know whatis the an-
tecedent to the word "it in the third verse. I answer
that "tongue" is the antecedent to the word "it." Not
tongues, as the gentleman had it, but tongue. I argue
that it was the sound that filled the house; and certain-
ly they were not immersed in sound! This would be
ridiculous. How would you go about it, to immerse in
sound — for instance, how would you immerse in a clap
of thunder? This would be a difficult task for immer-
sion ists to perform!

How could any one be immersed by pouring? The
gentleman did not tell us; but in the place of doing so
got on to the word "it" and we had then nothing but
it, it, it, IT.

I showed in my last speech, that the baptism of the
Holy Ghost was performed by pouring. The prophet
said, "it shall come to pass in the last days says God,
that I will pour out my Spirit." Now will the gentle-
man be so good as to tell us how any one could be im-
mersed, by pouring? This, I think, would be anew way
of administering immersion. He may charge me with
trying to deceive as much as he pleases. But I shall
pay no attention to it; but shall just let it go for what
it is worth. I have just quoted the word of God, and
it says, the Holy Ghost shall be poured out. This is the
scripture mode, and this is what I shall contend for. —
The baptism of the Holy Ghost then, was administered
by pouring, and the Savior does not say, as he has
said, that they shall be immersed in the Holy Ghost.
There is no such passage in the bible.

His proposition is a universal proposition. He does
not simply undertake to prove that immersion is baptism
or that in some cases they immersed, in the apostolic
age; but he contends that immersion was invariably
practiced, and nothing else. Yes, he contends that noth-
ing else is baptism. But I have now found an exception

60 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

to his universal proposition, and that in the plainest
and clearest language. The Lord himself said, when
speaking of the baptism of the Holy Ghost, "it shall
come to pass in the last days, says God, that I will pour
out my Spirit. Here I have planted my stake, and here
1 expect to stand. The gentleman cannot escape. He
can never find any immersion in the baptism of the
Holy Ghost. He may talk of their being baptized in
the Holy Ghost, but he can find no immersion in the
Holy Ghost. It was not a sound that was poured upon
them, but it was the Holy Ghost. There was no im-
mersion in the case.

I could dwell much longer here, if I thought it neces-
sary; but it is certainly not necessary. The passage i
have now introduced is too clear to be misunderstood.
My christian friends I feel that I occupy ground that
cannot be shaken. My position is impregnable.

Mr. Pritchard wishes me to give him a word from the
Greek language that means to immerse if baptizo does
not possess that meaning. To gratify the gentleman,
I would say, then, that kataduno means immerse 1 sup-
pose. But this word is not used in reference to bap-
tism in the whole bible. I suppose this will satisfy the
gentleman. But baptize, they did not use in the sense
of immerse.

I will proceed to give the gentleman some more from
the good book, seeing that he is a great man for scrip-
ture. Heb. 9 10, we have the word baptisms where
it cannot mean immersions. "Which stood only in meats
and drinks and divers washings, and cardinal ordinan-
ces, imposed on them until the time of reformation."
Here we have washings from baptisms, and I defy him
to make immerse of it. He cannot show that this lan-
guage requires immersions.

Heb. 10: 22, lono is translated wash.

Heb. 6: 2, we find the "doctrine of baptisms." Mr-
Campbell renders this, "doctrine of immersions." But

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 61

1 deny the correctness of this rendering; it was not di-
vers immersions, but divers washings.

My argument on the baptism in the cloud and in the
sea, remains untouched and unmoved. J have showed
clearly that it could not have been an immersion in
that case. They passed through the sea dry-shod.—
Could they have been immersed and remain dry-shod,
1 think hardly. In this case they were evidently sprink-
led. The rain from the clouds, fell upon them and bap-
tized them. I invite the gentleman's special attention
to this, and hope he will tell us how they could have
been immersed, and remained dry-shod. He must re-
member that the water must have come from the cloud
and that it could not have immersed them, for the wa-
ter of the sea was parted, that they might pass through
dry-shod.

The gentleman tells you that there is nothing
said in the scripture about bringing water to baptize. —
Well, can he refer to anyplace where it says any thing
about going to a river or a pond to immerse. Not one
such a place can he find in the whole bible. Yet he
makes it an argument against the sprinkling mode, be-
cause we do not read of any place, which states in just
so many words, that water was brought to baptize! —
But I would inform the gentleman, that we have very
good evidence that they did bring water for that pur-
pose. The Philipian Jailor was baptized in the house,
and if they did not bring water to baptize him, they
baptized him with water that had been brought for some
other purpose, and consequently was there ready for
the purpose. The Jailor heard the word of the Lord
and believed in the prison, and then was brought out
into his own house, and was baptized with all his house.
This case presents an unanswerable argument against
immersion, and in favor of sprinkling. As he was
baptized in his house, he could not have been immersed,
but must have been sprinkled or poured. How will
the gentleman get over this case? He never can get
over it, but must make a complete failure.

82 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

The gentleman has followed in the common train of
all immersionists, and in so doing, has repeated over
the old assertion, that immersion was invariably prac-
ticed during many hundred years. But in this he ha>'
overlooked one important consideration. He knows
that clinic baptism was practiced during all that time.
Clinic baptism was the baptism of sick and weakly per-
sons who could not be baptized in any other way but
by sprinkling or pouiing. This shows that the gentle-
man's exclusive immersion was not known, or believed
during this long period.

Let me here briefly rehearse the arguments, as they
have been presented. He set out to establish that bap
tize meant exclusively to immerse. This he undertook
to do first from the classics. But here he made a total
failure. Among the authorities quoted to show that
he is in error here, was one who speaks of baptizing
with tears. This he has not shown to be immerse m
tears and he never can. Another authority speaks of
baptizing the blister plaster. This evidently meant
wetting and not immersion. On this passage he has
made a complete failure. When he found that he must
fail on the classics, he turned to men of learning.—
Here he aiso failed. He then turned to the bible. We
here met him, with bible authority, and showed that
pouring was the mode of administering baptism. I
examined the divers baptisms, and showed that it could
not be divers immersions, but that it must be divers
washings. The gentleman told us that we find no ac-
count of bringing water to baptize. In reply I ask him
to show an account where they are said to have gone
to a river to baptize and produced the Jailor as an in
stance where immersion could not have been practiced r
as it was administered in the house.

I now call the gentleman's attention to the baptism
of Lydia. She was baptized on the bank of a river.
How will the gentleman make immersion in this case?
Could she have been immersed on the river bank?-

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 63

Surely not. The plain state of the case is, that she wa?
sprinkled.

I will yet introduce one more case as an exception to
the gentleman's exclusive immersion. I allude to the
baptism of St. Paul. He was baptized standing up.
which is clearly proved by the words of Annanias,
"Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling
on the name of the Lord." Here, my christian friends
is a case that bids defiance to Mr. Pritchard. He could
not have been immersed standing up. How would he
immerse a man standing up. This language, is wholly
unlike that of immersionists. This, then forms another
exception to the gentleman's exclusive immersion the-
ory. And he never can get over it.
[Time expired.]

[mr. pritchard's fifth address.]
Gentlemen Moderators :

Before noticing the few things which I have noted
in the last speech of Mr. Terrell, I will finish the argu-
ment I was upon when my time expired.

You doubtless observed, that the passage which I
read from Professor Stuart, stated, that sprinkling wap
"gradually introduced, and became at length quite
common, and in the Western church almost universal,
before the Reformation." The Edinburgh Encyclopedia.
from which we have already quoted, says : " In thi?
country (Scotland) however, sprinkling was never used
in ordinary cases till after the Reformation." Article
Baptism.

One says, it was introduced before, and the other that
it was never wed till after the Reformation. Well, 1
care not which is righfy for they both show that this
thing called sprinkling was introduced a thousand or
fifteen hundred years too late, to be a part of Christ-
ianity.

We will now hear the learned Easnage, who, iw
speaking of the answer which Pope Stephen gave the

64 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

French clergy, about the lawfulness of pouring water
on the sick, says: ' ; It allows sprinkling only incase of
iminent danger ; that the authenticity of it is denied
by some Catholics; that many laws were made after
this time in Germany, France, and England, to compel
dipping, and without any provision for cases of neces-
sity ; therefore, that this law did not alter the mode of
dipping in public baptisms ; and that it was not till
five hundred and fifty-seven years after, that the legis-
lature, in the Council of Revenna, in the year thirteen
hundred and eleven, declared dipping or sprinkling in-
different."

Here is the authority for which Mr. Terrell has been
looking all day ; and it is the authority of a set of poli-
tical demagogues who cared neither for God, religion,
nor the bible. We frequently hear Methodists boast
that they are more liberal than we ; for it is a matter
of indifference with them, whether a man is sprinkled
or immersed. This politico Ecclesiastic Council de-
clared the same thing more than five hundred years
ago. It is astonishing to see how precisely children
ape their parents, and how apt they are to regard the
language of their mothers, as thp purest in the world.

1 will conclude this, my fifth argument, in the lan-
guage of Dr. Wall, the great and distinguished Pedo-
baptist historian ; than whom, but few, ever possessed
more knowledge of the history of the Christian church.

He says : " No branch of the nominally Christian
church, however corrupt in other respects, has dared to
change the law of immersion into sprinkling, except
the Roman hierarchy, and those churches which derived
sprinkling from that polluted source."

Again he says: "This is so plain and clear by an
infinite number of passages," (that the primitive Christ-
ians immersed) " that as one man cannot but pity the
weak endeavors of such Pedo-baptists as would main-
tain the negative of it ; so also we ought to disown and
show a dislike of the profane scoffs which some people

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 5

give to the English antipedobaptists, merely for their
use of dipping. *. * * * * It is a great want; of
prudence, as well as honesty, to refuse to grant to an ad-
versary what ytocertainly true, and may be proved so* r
H. I. B.p.462T

It is true, he says, and may be proved true, that im-
mersion was the primitive practice; and it is a great
want of prudence, as well as of honesty, to rufuse to
grant what may be proved by an infinite number of
passages. But I wish you, my Christian friends, to
remember, and never let it be forgotten by you, that
Dr. Wall, the mighty champion of pedobaptism, has
declared that, "No church, however corrupt in othe :
respects, has ever dared to change the law of immer-
sion into sprinkling, except the Roman hierarchy,
those churches" (such as the Methodist) " which ar-
rived sprinkling from that polluted source.'' 1

What can be plainer than, if Methodists derive their
sprinkling from the Romish Church, the mother of all
the modern sprinkling parties, they did not receive it
from the Lord.

I am indebted to Mr. Hintoil, the author of this his-
tory which I hold in my hand, for the testimony of
most of the persons from whom I have read in sup-
port of this my last argument. I come now to the
last speech of Mr. Terrell.

He commenced by telling you, that I had changed
him with an attempt to deceive. It was Ernesti,
not me. Hear him again. "Any method of interpre-
tation not philological is fallacious. Moreover the
method of gathering sense of words from things is
gether deceptive and fallacious." It was Ernesti then,
and not me who said, that his method of gathe
the sense of words from things is deceptive, fallacious.
and most egregious trilling.

But he wants to know, who ever saw an immersion
by pouring? I answer, just as many as have seen
t aptism by pouring. But I must ask another question.
E

68 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

Who ever saw a person buried in pouring? or who ever
saw a man's body washed in pure water, by having a
few drops of water sprinkled upon his face ?

But he wishes me to tell where I fmg^the baptism of
fire. He has told us that baptizo means to wash, to wet,
and to moisten. Now, will he have the goodness to
tell us where on earth he finds the fire, in which he
can either wet, moisten, or wash a man. You can nei-
ther sprinkle, pour, moisten, wet, or wash a man in fire;
but you can immerse him. Mr. Campbell, he says,
goes to hell for his baptism. I have only time to say,
this is not true. I will tell him all about the baptism
of the Holy Spirit and fire when we come to debate
the last proposition, if he dare introduce them where
they properly belong.

He says, it is not tongues, but one tongue, in Acts 2: 3,
and that this tongue is the antecedent of the it of the
third verse. Mr. Terrell has certainly paid but very
little attention to his bible. It is tongues, and I again
ask how tongues can be the antecedent of it. That
sound, I fear, has filled his eyes, as well as his ears. It
was the Holy Spirit which came from heaven, it made
the sound, it filled the house, it sat upon them, it they
saw, and it they heard. It will be impossible for any
man now living to make it appear that it was not the
Holy Spirit, but mere sound which came from heaven,
and filled the house.

I called upon Mr. Terrell some time since to produce
a word in all the Greek language, which definitely ex-
presses the action of immersion, if baptizo does not. —
After taking some time to think, he says, " kataduno I
suppose will do." Well, kaiadvno I suppose will not
do. Duno, without the kaia, means to sink, and lata
means down; so the two words when put together,
mean to sink down. Katabapto means to dip down, but
kataduno means to sink down. Katabapto is used to ex-
press the action of dipping down, or dipping deeply; but
kataduno is applied to things which sink of themselves.

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 67

as the apparent sinking of the sun in the ocean. We
will hear Mr. Carson upon the difference between du-
no, or dune in, or baptizo. " The obvious and charac-
teristic distinction," says he, " between the two words
is, that dunein is a neuter verb'' (a great word this, to
definitely express the action of immersion) "signifying
to sink, not to cause something else to sink. But a
thing that sinks of itself, will doubtless sink to the bot-
tom. But baptism signifies merely to dip, without re-
spect to depth or consequence."

Duno then, never can be made to definitely express
the action of immersion ; for it is a neuter verb, signi-
fying to sink, not to cause something else to sink.

What I have now said upon kataduno, I suppose Mr.
Terrell will let pass without any notice, as he has
everything else that I have said. If I were a man, I
would be a man. When I enter into a discussion with
a man, I will reply to what he says, or I will give it up
and go home. To make out that baptizo means to
sprinkle, pour, wet, wash, moisten, or something else.
he quotes the divers baptisms, Heb. 9: 10. If he will
make himself acquainted with the law of Moses, he-
will find that all the Jews had to immerse themselves,
their cups, pots, and everything that was used by
them, every time they became unclean, as the last act
of their cleansing. They had divers immersions; we
have but one. A single Jew would, in all probability,
have to immerse himself, or something that belonged
to him, more than five hundred times during the course
of his life ; which would certainly make " divers bap-
tism" among them. If his sprinkling is alluded to in
Heb. 9: 10, it certainly must be among the " carna !
ordinances,'" for it is not among the baptisms.
, The children oflsreal were not immersed in the cloud,
and in the sea, he says, for the ground was perfectly
dry. I have often been made to smile when I have,
heard Methodists say, they could not have been im-
mersed for the ground was dry, and in less than one

t»8 DEBATE ON EAPTISM

minute turn to Psalms and read the passage, "The
sky sent out a sound and the clouds poured out water"
to show how they were baptized. In one breath they
say, the ground was perfectly dry, and in the next, that
the clouds were pouring out water upon it. I should
take it, that the ground was very dry while the clouds
were pouring out water upon it. The fact is, there
was no water about their baptism. They were down
in the sea, and the cloud came down upon them and
covered them over ; and thus they were " baptized in
the cloud, and in the sea, as the Spirit of God says
they were. It was in the cloud, and in the sea, and
not by water poured out of the cloud or sea that they
were baptized.

But there is no account, he says, in all the New
Testament, of the Apostles going after water to bap-
tize with. That is very true, and the reason of it is
the Apostles were not Methodists. If they had been.
they would have been telling us all the time about the
water, they sent for, or had in the meeting house to
sprinkle with. The New Testament says, they went
to, and baptized in the river. That will do me.

But Paul, he tells you, was baptized in a house
standing up. It is true that Paul stood up to be bap-
tized, but it is not true that he was baptized in the
house. We always make the people stand up to be
baptized, but Methodists make them kneel down. God
says, according to their own showing, stand up. just as
we do ; but Methodists, after proving that the Lord
commands us to stand up, say, come and kneel down. —
The Lord says, be baptized, but Methodists say, be
sprinkled. It seems to me that they are determined
to obey the Almighty in nothing.

But we are told by some of his party, that there is
no " locomotive power in the w r ord arise," and therefore
it did not take him out of the house. I did not sup-
pose that the word arise took him out of the house, but
■hat it put him on his feet and he walked out. It was

AXD THE HOLY SPIRIT. 69

not necessary to tell Paul to arise and go so far East,
and so far West, till he came to water, and then he
must go down into the water so deep to be baptized;
for Paul was not a child, nor a fool; but knew all things
that were essential to baptism before his conversion.
When we talk to children or block-heads we express
everything, but to talk to men of sense in that way
would be to offer them an insult; because things which
are understood are seldom if ever expressed. To
illustrate this, I will suppose Mr. Terrell to be sleep-
ing in an upper room in some house in this place, and
one of you go up in the morning and say to him, arise
and eat your breakfast. Now, it is not necessary to
tell him all he has to do before he can eat his break-
fast, such as get out of bed, dress yourself, come down
stairs, wash your face, comb your head, come in, sir
down to the table, and help yourself or be waited upon
by some one else, and be sure to chew your meat and
bread before your swallow them. To tell him all this,
would be to insult him. But suppose he were disposed
to carry out his beautiful logic, and instead of prepar-
ing for breakfast would say, the word arise means to
get up and stand right where you are ; so he gets tip
and stands up in bed. You wait some time, and final-
ly go up to see what is confining him to his bed, and to
your utter astonishment you find him in bed, without
his clothes, standing straight up. You say to him.
why don't you come to breakfast? He replies, you
told me to arise and eat, and there is no locomotive pow-
er in the word arise, it means to stand up where you
are. By thus carrying out his principles into practice.
he would cause you to think that his Methodism had
made him mad. It was enough to say to Paul, " aris<-
and be baptized," for he understood all the rest. Paul,
speaking of himself and others, says, " we tore buried
with Christ in baptism. 7 ' This will do me.

But the jailer, he says, was baptized in the jail. —
How can a man who has read his bible, make such

7t) DEBATE ON BAPTISM

an assertion ? Acts 16th says, that the jailer " brought
themo^" of the jail, that Paul preached in his house,
(not in the jail.) and after he had heard the word of
God, " he took them" from his house and washed their
stripes, and was baptized, he, and all his straightway.
And after his baptism, " he brought them into his house"
again. They were not in the jail when they preached,
but in his house ; they were not in his house when
they baptized, but went out to do it, and after baptism
came back " into his house." If in a house is the place
to baptize, why did the Apostle go out at midnight to
baptize the jailer?

I wonder if Mr. Terrell cannot make it appear that
Philip baptized the Eunuch in some house, jail, or on
>iry ground. If he can prove that coming out of the
jail and going to water to baptize, means to stay in
jail, why not prove that going " down into the water"
to be baptized, means to be baptized on dry ground ?
He certainly can, if he will try, make it out that going
down into the water means nothing more than sprin-
kled in some house, or poured in some jail.

I must now, in the remaining part of my address,
recapitulate my arguments.

1. My first argument was, that baptizo, in the whole
history of the Greek language, has but one meaning.
It not only means to immerse, but it never has any
other meaning.

This argument was sustained by the testimony of
some of the wisest and most learned of the Greeks,
and others who wrote in the Greek language ; who
without exception declared that, that only is baptized
which is under water. Indeed, some of them testified
that a thing could not be baptized, because it could
not go under water; showing beyond the reach of con-
troversy, that nothing short of immersion can possibly
be baptism.

If the testimony of the whole Greek world is to be
rejected, where shall we go to find the meaning of a

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 71

Greek word ? If the Greeks do not understand their
own language, pray tell me who does? It is a little
too silly to hear Methodists of this country say, that
the Greeks are not competent to decide upon the mean-
ing of a Greek word. The effort to show that the
Greeks are not competent witnesses upon the meaning
of baptizo, is all to serve a purpose ; for they know
that the Greek world is against them. The testimony
ofStrabo is of itself sufficient to settle the question;
for he says, that in the water of a certain lake a man
cannot be baptized, because he cannot go under the
water. Now, I ask any man of reason, if Strabo would
have said that a man could not be baptized because
he could not go under the water, if he could have been
baptized by having a few drops sprinkled upon his
face ? Let Methodists decide, as they have to give
an account to their God in the day of eternity.

Mr. Terrell made no direct reply to this my first
argument ; but he tried to get rid of it by saying Bro.
Campbell was against me in going to the classics. —
But 1 proved by Bro. Campbell, Prof. Stuart, and Er-
nesti, that the " Principles of interpretation are com-
mon to sacred and profane writings, ' and that the
word baptizo means in the New Testament what it
means everywhere else.

He said baptizo was a word of idiom. But I proved
that words which express outward physical action, are
not the subjects of idiomatic or special law ; and that
they mean the same in all languages, nations, and
countries. To this Mr. Terrell has made no reply.

His next effort to get rid of my argument was, that
words among the Jews did not mean what they did
among the Greeks. But I proved by Josephus, a Jew,
who wrote his history in the Greek language in the
very days of the Apostles, that baptizo among the
Jews, in the days of Apostles, meant to immerse, and
only to immerse. To this he has made no reply.

His first example for another meaning was from

12. DEBATE ON BAPTISM

Hippocrates. But I proved by Hippocrates that the
word baptizo in his writings meant to immerse, am
only to immerse. "Shall I not laugh at the man.''
says he, "who baptizes his ship, by overloading it
and then complains of the sea, that it ingulfs it with
its cargo." The putting of a ship under water, he says,
was baptizing it. This causes the old blister plaster to
draw so severely upon his Methodism, that he found it
very convenient to say nothing more about it.

His second example was, the baptism of suffering
and tears which he professed to quote from Eusebius*
But I denied that Eusebius used the word baptizo, and
pall upon him again and again to prove that he did ;
but he has found it most convenient, and safe for him-
self and cause, to say nothing more about it. This
was another splendid failure, and a beautiful comment
upon his honesty to boot.

Thus my first argument stands unmoved, showing
that baptizo before, and in the days of Christ and the
Apostles, meant to immerse, and only to immerse.

2. My second argument was drawn from the testi-
mony of the wisest, the most eminent, and learned
pedobaptists of the world ; who, with one voice declare
that my proposition is true ; and that "baptizo is not
to be interpreted of sprinkling, but always of immer-
sion." Now, is there any reason why men should
make the confession that they are wrong and others
are right, if they knew that they were right and others
v rong ? Who does not see that nothing but the force
of truth, combined with Jmnetfy, could have caused
them to confess that sprinkling is not baptism, and
jjiat baptizo always meant to immerse.

To this argument Mr. Terrell replied, that Dr. Clark,
a Methodist, said, that it meant to sprinkle, as well as
to immerse. For this argument he ought to be called
Williamson Terrell the Great; for if a man can prove
his principles right by one of his own party, he cer-
tainly must be great.

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 73

3. My third argument was drawn from the use of
the word in the bible. I proved by the Apostles that
when a man was baptized, he was " buiied in baptism/'
This never can be made to mean buried by having a
few drops of water sprinkled on the face. I also
proved that Christ commanded the people to be bap-
tized in water, and not the water to be baptized upon
the people. Now, you cannot sprinkle a man, but
you can immerse him; so it follows that immersion
was the thing commanded by our Lord. You can
sprinkle water upon a man, but you cannot sprinkle
a man in water. Christ commanded the man, and not
the water to be used. We can immerse a man in wa-
ter, but we never can sprinkle him in water. This
argumen.t Mr. Terrell has said nothing about. It never
has been, nor never can be answered. Let that be
remembered.

4. My fourth argument was, that baptizo is the only
word in the Greek language which can definitely ex-
press the action of immersion; or if baptizo does not,
there is no word in that language that can express the
action of immersion. The Greek language has a word
for sprinkle, a word for pour, and a word for wash, but
none of them was ever used to denote the ordinance
of baptism ; a clear proof that Christ neither com-
manded sprinkling, pouring, nor washing. If he used
the strongest word for immersion in the Greek lan-
guage, what can be plainer than that immersion was
the thing intended ?

5. My fifth and last argument, was drawn from the
fact, that the whole Christian church, East and West.
practiced immersion only, for thirteen hundred years
after Christ. To this universal proposition the only
exceptions are, some two or three persons who were
thought to be too sick to be immersed, and consequent-
ly the Pope, or some of his tribe allowed them to be
sprinkled. The truth of this argument Mr. Terrell has
not disputed, nor will he, for he knows it is true. I

74 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

have also proved in connection with this, that when
the change was made from immersion to sprinkling,
that it was done by the Western or Roman church. —
Sprinkling is a part of Catholicism. " No church," says
Dr. Wall, " however corrupt in other respects, has ever
dared to change the law of immersion into sprinkling,
except the Roman hierarchy, and those churches which
derive their sprinkling from that polluted source"

As you have all heard the arguments on both sides,
we leave the question, without deciding upon the ef-
fort of Mr. Terrell. What little he has said, you have
all heard. I would however have been greatly pleas-
ed, if he had only had manly courage enough to come
up and meet my arguments fairly ; but 1 did not ex-
pect it, and consequently am not disappointed. Meth-
odists know that the best thing that can be done for
Methodism is not to join issue with any one, upon any
point.

I thank you all for the candid hearing you have
given us both.

[Time expired.]

[mr. Terrell's fifth reply.]
Gentlemen Moderators — Ladies and Gentlemen:

My friend, Mr. Pritchard makes a great parade over
Dr. Wall, how great a man he was, what he knew of
the history of the church &c. &c. Dr. Wall was an im-
mersiohist many other absurd notions, notwithstanding
and held the gentleman speaks so highly of him.

I wish to set the gentleman right, on the quotation
from Acts 2. I did not say that tongues are not spoken
of in the passage, or I did not wish to be so understood;
bat it was a tongue that sat upon each of them, and not
to?igues, as he will have it. It was the tongue of hre
that sat upon each of them. He says the same thing
that sat upon each one of them, filled the house where
they were sitting. I cannot understand him.

Mr. Pritchard called upon me to produce a word that

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 75

signifies to immerse if baptizo does not. I have produced
kataduno. But he is not pleased with this, and says it
means to "dip downy Well then it means to immerse.
He has not then made any thing here. Does he not
mean that the ship was sinking, and not that kataduno
means sinking down?

He may twist as many ways as he pleases, but there
was no dipping in the baptism of the Holy Ghost, nor
can he ever find any. On the contrary, as I have be-
fore told him, the Holy Spirit was poured out. He has
tried hard to turn this pouring into immersion, but he
has not succeeded, nor do I intend that he shall suc-
ceed.

The gentleman does not like what I have said about
kataduno. When that word is used relative to the
sinking of a ship, does it not mean sinking down?
Surely it does. I have then, found a Greek word that
signifies immerse without going to baptizo. This the
gentleman defied me to do; and I think I have now
done it to his satisfaction.

1 have argued that there was no dipping in the Red
Sea; and after all the gentleman's efforts, he has pro-
duced none. I have showed that the water was pour-
ed out of the cloud upon them, but he will have it that
they were baptized in the cloud. This, however, does
not suit his case; for he will not say they were dipped in
the cloud. No, my christian friends, there was no dip-
ping here, unless my friend Mr. P. will refer to the
Egyptians. They were all immersed. He would not
wish to follow their example!

I read you the account of the jailor's conversion,
from Acts 1G, but the gentleman seems not pleased
with it. But I cannot help that. It says, "they were
cast into the inner prison." Well, an inner supposes
an outer, most certainly. When the jailor "brought
them out," it was only out of the inner prison, into the
■ rnter prison, where his house was. This is clear from
Paul's language when he said "let them bring us out,"

76 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

Did he throw himself upon his dignity, and say this,
when he had already been out, andoff to the river bap
tizing? No, my friends, I am not willing to accuse the
apostle of acting in this way.

It was not strange to baptize in a house in that day
Paul was baptized in a house ; and what goes to show
that he was not immersed was that he was baptized
standing up. Annanias said to him, arise and be
baptized and wash away thy sins.

Not only so, but it does not prove immersion to refer
to where the scripture speaks of their going down into
the water, for I myself have gone down into the water
and poured a man. A journal of this

[Here Mr. Pritchard called for the reading of the
fifth rule. The moderators examined the rule, and
decided Mr. Terrell out of order, and he proceeded.]

The gentleman has failed, signally failed. He de-
fines baptism dip. But I have brought kataduno, whic\~
signifies immerse, and have abundantly shown th&tbap-
tiw cannot invariably have that meaning. But here
his failure has been complete, and obvious to all.

My friend's first appeal was to the classics. But
this proved unfortunate for his cause ; for they come
so far short of sustaining his exclusive position, that [
have shown from some of the most distinguished of
them that the word in question was used where it
could not mean immerse. The case of the blister plas-
ter is sufficient on this point. I have certainly shown,
that baptize, in that case could mean no more than to
wet or moisten, and that it could not mean immerse.
What has Mr. Pritchard done with this case ? He has
never extricated himself from the difficulty he was in,
and he never can. He evidently failed.

Again, he referred to distinguished Christian wri-
ters, but with no better success than he had among the
classics. Which one did he quote, who says immer-
sion alone is baptism ? Not one of them ; but on the
contrary, I have referred to some of them, who state

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 77

ihe opposite. Here he also made a most signal
failure.

He finally came to the scriptures, and quoted from
the sixth of Romans, to prove that we are buried. But
1 showed that they were not buried in baptism, but
" buried in baptism into death" They were not buried
in water, but in the likeness of the death of Christ. —
He contends that the resurrection here is literal ; but
in this he is wrong : it is not literal. It was by
faith they were raised, and not by a preacher's arm, as
Mr. Pritchard would have it. Here he also failed.

The term baptize in Acts 2d, does not mean im-
merse. This I have already shown repeatedly. I tried
to get him to notice the baptism of fire, but this I could
not do.. I showed that if the baptism of fire means the
ire of the bottomless pit, as Mr. Campbell has it, that
■he wicked would be dipped in it r and raised up out of
:. But I could not get the gentleman to go down to
the pit.

]\ T ow, my Christian friends, I consider the question
settled, not by your humble speaker, but by the word
of God. The gentleman has gone from the word of
God, to the classics, and from the classics to the learn-
ed, and from these to the opponents of immersion, and
then after all his preaching against opinions, he has now
-pent the most of his time in quoting from the opinions
of men, and speaking of them. The scripture is not
clear enough for him after all.

Another argument I have offered, which is that im-
- ion is so inconsistent that persons would frequent-
? compelled to do without baptism a long time
/.ere we to confine ourselves to it exclusivel} 7 . This
-ee in the practice of the Reformers. They gen-
erally build their meeting houses conveniently to wa-
ter, but still they have to go miles to the water,
very frequently have to defer it. I cannot think the
Lord would have appointed that wfci&h in so many
Instances would be impracticable,

78 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

Philip was baptized in the first water they came to,
after he heard the word— yes in it, if you prefer it. I
immerse, but I am the opponent of this exclusive im-
mersion system.

I was not afraid to discuss the subject longer, but
four days is long enough.

He may have so little to do that he can spend more-
time in debating, but the arduous duties devolving on
me as a circuit preacher, are so great that I have not
more than four days' time to devote to debating. It
the gentleman has nothing else to do, his situation is
•different from mine. I am busily engaged all the time,
and it was with difficulty I could spare the time even
agreed upon, from my {pressing engagements.

My Christian friends, you have now heard us on one
proposition, and are now prepared to decide whether
all who are not immersed, are to be regarded as never-
having been baptized, and as living in disobedience to
the command of God " be baptized." Are you now
willing to decide that all the good and pious people
ill all the pedobaptist ranks are unbaptized and living
in disobedience to the commandment of God, and con-
sequently in sin ? Are you prepared to disfellowship
all such, and declare that they are not in covenant re-
lation with God? Are you prepared to decide that
all who have died without immersion, have died in dis-
obedience to the commandment of God ? Are yoei
prepared to say that the sick who cannot be immersed
must therefore die in disobedience to God? Such is
the dreadful predicament into which the gentleman's
exclusive immersion runs him.

Thank God, Christian friends, the Lord does not re-
quire impossibilities at our hands. He has left us to
chose whichever mode we may see proper ; and if one
mode is not practicable, another is. Not only so, but I
have showed that the baptism of the Holy Ghost was
pouring, which the gentleman has never got over. No.
he has not got over it, but has made a most manifest
failure.

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 79

He has referred to the expression " buried by bap-
tism into death," but here he failed, for they were not
buried in water, but into death; and the resurrection
was not literal, but they were raised through the faith
of the operation of God who raised him from the dead.
A man who is immersed is raised up by the preacher's
arm, and not by faith.

I ask then, what becomes of the doctrine of exclu-
sive immersion ? It is not sustained by the classics
It is not sustained by the learned and distinguished
Christian writers. It is not sustained in the scripture.
No, .my friends, and it cannot be sustained by any
good authority. You see then, the position the gentle-
man occupies. He has set out to establish the exclu-
sive doctrine of immersion. His position is not that
immersion is baptism, for we all believes this ; but we
do not believe that immersion only is baptism.

Christian friends, I feel warm on the subject, and I
think you are convinced by this time that Mr. Pritch-
ard has failed to establish his position, and ever must
fail.

I might go on at great length, but I deem it unneces-
sary ; I think the question settled ; and although my
time is not out, I think it useless to detain you at great-
er length.

£0 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

Wednesday, 9 o'clock, Nov. 17th, 1847,
PRAYER BY REV. SNYDER.

The president moderator read the second proposition

as follows:

The infant. of a believing parent is a proper subject of
Christian Baptism.

Mr. Terrell rises:
Gentlemen Moderators:

Truly was the subject discussed on yesterday an im-
portant one: the one to-day surely is of no less impor-
tance. The question to be discussed this morning leads
us directly to enquire whether our children are left out
of the visible church of God, entirely out of the cove-
nant of promise, without any provision for their eternal
welfare. Now the gentleman agrees with me, that
baptism is the act by which we enter into the church:
for, in our correspondence, he offered to affirm that
baptism when preceded by faith and repentance, is di-
vinely appointed for the remission of sins and induc-
tion into the church of God. My proposition reads:
The infant of. a believing parent is a proper subject of Chris-
tian baptism.

As I expect to be straightened for time, as i was on
yesterday, I shall proceed directly to the subject without
further preliminary.

I. My first argument is, that baptism is the appoint-
ed token of church membership, in Christ's kingdom.
Infants by the Abrahamic covenant are made heirs. —
In proof of this I will read from Gen. 12: 2, 3. "I will
bless them that bless thee, and curse them that curse
thee, and in thee and in thy seed shall all of the na-
tions be blessed." I will also read from Gen. 15: 4.
'" And, behold, the word of the Lord came unto him,
saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall
come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine
heir."' I will also read you a passage found, Gen. 17 :
2, 10. " And God said unto Abraham, Thou shaltkeep
my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 81

their generations. " This is my covenant, which ye shall
4eep, between me, and you, and thy seed after thee,
Every man-child shall be circumcised." You will
bear in mind, that it says this shall be an everlasting
covenant, and not that it is to terminate. This is the
Christian or the gospel covenant, spoken of in Galla-
tians 3: 14, and reads as follows : " That the blessing
of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus
Christ; that we might receive the promise of the
Spirit through faith. Brethren, I speak after the man-
ner of men ; though it be but a man's covenant, yet if
it be confirmed, no man disannuleth, or addeth thereto.
.Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises
made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many ; but
as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. And this
I say, that the promise which was confirmed before of
God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and
thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make
the promise of none effect." Here the apostle pleads
the claims of the Gentiles. This covenant was con-
firmed of God in Christ four hundred and thirty years
before the giving of the law, and pointed to the Christ-
ian dispensation, and consequently was not done away.

although " Christ was the end oi the law ', &c.

Will the gentleman excuse this one, &c?

Mr. Pritchard said, You are excusable.

Mr. Terrell proceeds.

The law, I say, did not disannul the covenant. In-
fants are not then excluded, but are in the covenant
and should be recognized, for they were in the Abra-
hamic covenant, and the Abrahamic covenant is the
Christian covenant. In Genesis 17 chap, we are as-
sured that the Lord would establish his covenant, and
Ro. 4: 16, we are informed that the promise was sure
to all the seed. The condition is by faith. Abraham
Is the father of many nations, and the promise is by
faith. The conditions of the covenant have always
been the same. It is now as it was then, faith in God.
F

82 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

Abraham had strong faith in God, and it was counted
unto him for righteousness. The condition of pardon
is now the same as it was then — it is faith in God. —
This brings me to my second argument or proposition,
which is as follows :

2. The church of God -is the same in. both dispensations
On this point I will read you Isa. 60: 1, 5. "Arise,
shine ; for thy light is come, and the glory of the Lord
is risen upon thee. For, behold, the darkness shall
cover the earth, and gross darkness the people : but
the Lord shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be
seen upon thee ; and the Gentiles shall come to thy
light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising : lift up
thine eyes round about, and see ; all they gather them-
selves together from far, and thy daughters shall be
nursed at thy side." This was the church of God
among the Jews.

Again : I will read from Isa. 72: 1. "For Zion'ssake
will I not hold my peace, and for Jerusalem's sake will
I not refit, until the righteous thereof go forth as bright-
ness, and the salvation thereof as a lamp that burn-
etii." The same church, the righteous, were to go
forth as a lamp that burnetii, and the Lord promised
to give it a new name. The Lord said, " the Gentiles
shall come to thy light ;" that is the light of the church ;
and the covenant was said to be an everlasting cov-
enant, that could not be disannukd, and made with the
seed of Abraham, and not merely those under the law,
but aM the church of God every where, in every dis-
pensation, If you will read Isa. 65: 15, you will find
it asserted, that the churches are called by the sa.m^.
name — they are both called Zion and Jerusalem. But
the church was to have a new name ; it was to be
called by the Christian, name, and you will find the
apostle equally as explicit, Ro. 11: 17 : " And if some of
the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive
tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them par
takest of the root and fatness of the olive tree, boast .not

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 88

against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest
not the root, but the root thee. Thou wilt say then
the branches were broken off, that it might be graffed
in. Well; because of unbelief they were broken off:
and thou standest by faith. Be not high-minded, but
fear : For if God spared not the natural branches, take
heed lest he also spare not thee. Behold therefore the
goodness and severity of God ; on them which felL
severity ; but towards thee, goodness ; if thou continue
in his goodness : otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall
be graffed in ; for God is able to graff them in again.
For if thou wert cut cut of the olive tree which
is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature
into a good olive-tree, how much more shall these,
which be the natural branches, be graffed into their
own olive tree? For I would not, brethren, that ye
should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be
wise in your own conceits, that blindness in part is
happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be
come in." Now the Jews were broken off. From what
were they broken off? The church most certainly. —
The Gentiles were grafted in. What w T ere they graft-
ed into ? Into the church, the very same church, the
Jews were broken off from. The Jews are represented
as common citizens here, and the Gentiles as foreign-
ers, or those afar off. The middle-wall was broken
down, and the Gentiles initiated into the same church
with the Jews. On this point see also Eph. 2: 12, 21.
" At that time ye were without Christ, being aliens
*rom the common wealth of Israel, and strangers, from
the covenants of promise, having no hope, and with-
out God in the world : but now, in Christ Jesus, ye
who sometimes were far off, are made nigh by the
blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made
both one, and hath broken down the middle wall oi
partition between us : having abolished in his flesh th-
enmity, even the law of commandments contained in

84 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

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 come and preached peace to you
that were afar off and to them that were nigh. For
through him we both have access by one spirit unto
the Father. Now therefore ye are no more strangers
and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints and
of the household of God ; and are built upon the
foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ
himself being the chief corner stone; in whom all the
building, fitly framed together, groweth unto a holy
temple into the Lord : in whom ye are also building
together for an habitation of God through the Spirit."

As my argument is to be a scripture argument, I
will read another passage from the 15th chapter ot
Acts : " And after they had held their peace, James
answered, saying, Men and brethren, harken to us: —
iSimeon hath declared how God at first did visit the
Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. —
And to this agree the words of the prophet as it is writ-
ten, After this I will return, and will build again the
tabernacle of David, which is fallen down ; and I will
build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up : that
the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all
the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the
Lord, who doeth all these things." Here, it is said,
the Lord will build again his tabernacle — not build a
new one, as my friend would have it, but build again
that which had fallen, down. God's church was that
which had fallen down, and that which he declared hv.
would build again ; this he has done, and as his church
is the same in all ages, and as children were put in by
positive law, it follows that they are still entitled to
membership, unless the gentleman can show positive
law to exclude them. Till he shows this, they are en-
titled to the ordinance of baptism.

The olive tree spoken of was the church, and the Jews

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 85

were cut off from the church, because of unbelief. —
The Gentiles were brought in by faith, and are no
longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow-citizens —
members of the household of God. This shows that
the church remains the same, and that the Gentiles
were merely brought into it.

(Time expired.)

[mr. pritchard's first reply.]
Gentlemen Moderators — Ladies and Gentlemen:

1 agree with my friend Mr. Terrell that the proposi-
tion to be discussed to-day is a very important one; but
not more important than the one we discussed on yes-
terday. Thatitis important, and very important to
know who are the proper subjects of baptism, as well
as of every other institution of the Lord all agree. —
With me, baptism, prayer, the Lord's supper, and every
other commandment of the Lord, have their proper
subjects; and no man, woman, or child can submit to
any of them in obedience to the Lord, but he who is
prepared according to the word of God. Mr. Terrell,
and myself seem not to have been taught in the same
school — we have studied under different teachers and
consequently have come to different conclusions. It
seems to be the opinion of himself and party, that a
person can come to God and obey his commandments,
as well without faith as with it; but I apprehend he
will learn a lesson either in time or eternity, that 1 ha\ >■
long since learned from my old teacher, viz — "That he
who comes to God must believe'' before he can acceptably
obey the Lord.

The real issue between us upon this subject is.
Does the Lord require those who neither believe
nor understand the Gospel, to obey his comandments
without faith. The law of the Lord, under which 1
feel solemnly bound to act, and under which, I think,
every conscientious man who understands it will act.
says, "He that bdicveth and is baptized, shall be saved.**

b6 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

Mark the language! It does not say, that he who is bap-
tized without faith, reason, or understanding, and af-
terwards obtains faith around a mourners-bench, or
some other place, shall he be saved; but he that belie-
ceih first, and is then baptized, shall be saved. I will
then, forever maintain, that the very law of baptism
itself, forever excludes from this institution all who do
not believe. Mr. Terrell in. his hurried and confused
way of speaking, has said, in one half hour, almost
every thing he has to say, in favor of his infant sprink-
ling; and who, I am constrained to ask, but himse^
would ever have thought, that the passages which he
has brought forward proved that infants were to be bap-
tized without faith, reason, understanding, apprehen-
sion or comprehension? Not one of them, so far as I
now remember, speaks of infants, as the proper sub-
jects of baptism, or of any thing else.

It seems to be rather a difficult matter for him to read
his notes this morning, which by the by, if I am not
mistaken in the writing, were supplied by some other
hand. The embarrassment and confusion manifested
by him this morning, I suppose arise from the fact,
that he has something to prove to-day. Something to
prove did I say? Something that he knows he cannot
prove, I should have said:

He commenced his address by an appeal to the vul-
gar feelings of fathers and mothers, as if the people of
this country were possessed of no more sagacity, than
to be wheeled into his infant sprinkling dogma without
reason, argument, or proof. I know the people now
present too well to believe, that any thing short of evi-
dence, reason, or necessity will turn them from the Old
Jerusalem Gospel, to the newfangled notions of mod-
ern Pe do -baptists parties.

The question, he says, is, shall we have our children
baptized and brought into the church? or shall we leave
them out of the church, without any provision for their
dernal well-being? Mr, Terrell and his party are belie-

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT, 87

vers in infant damnation, and he, without intending it.

has most fully declared his faith in this horrible dogma

<**' the Romish Church, by saying, "unbaptized infants

are out of the church, without any provision for their

eternal well-being." If unbaptized infants are without

my provision for their eternal well-being, what can be

more evident, than, that they are without God, without

iope, "children of wrath, and liable to eternal dan, notion ."

1% will not do for Mr. Terrell to attempt to deny this

item of his party's creed, for I am prepared to prove that

Methodists believe, in common with their Old Mother,

the Romish church, that, if infants are not baptized for

the remission of original sin, they are without God.

"'children of wrath, 5 ' and exposed to eternal damnation

in the world to come. Let him put me to the proof if

he dares,'

I agree with him, he says, that baptism is the -act
through which we pass into the Christian Church and
into the Gospel covenant. I believe with all my heart
that penitent believers are baptized into Christ:
but I do not agree with him in his horrible Methodist
notion, that all unbaptized persons are without God.
and without any provision for their eternal well-being.
I was truly gratified to hear him say, that baptism is
-he act through which we pass int> the Christian Church
and into the Christian covenant; for if I am not very
much mistaken, he will find this into fatal to his cause,
before this discussion shall close.

But he told you that the church has been the same in
all ages, and that infants always were in the Church
and of right ought to be, where ahme there is safety. —
iiut did he prove, or did he try to prove, that they were*
always baptized into it, and that this baptism was es-
sential to their eternal well-being, in the world to
■ome?

The door into the Jewish church was just as as wide,
as the door into the world; and all the Jewish children
entered into that old fleshly establishment, as they en-

8S DEBATE ON BAPTISM

tered into the world by natural birth. But he asserted
among the thousand and one assettions which he has
made without proof, that the covenant of circumcision
was the Christian covenant. Mr. Terrell had certain-
ly forgotten that he said, but a few minutes before, that
I agreed with him that when we enter into the Gos-
pel covenant, we are baptized into it. Were the fleshly
seed of Abraham baptized into the covenant of circum-
cision, Mr. Terrell? Error is an inconsistent thing, and
very disgraceful, and distructive to the understandings
of those who hold it.

But infants, he says, were in the Abrahamic covenant.
The issue is not whether infants were in the Abrahamic
or any other covenant; but whether they are proper
subjects of baptism. To prove that infants were in
the covenant, and that they entered into it without bap-
tism, comes not within a thousand miles of his propo-
sition. The argument is this:

Children were in the Abrahamic covenant.

But they entered into it, not by baptism, but by nat-
ural birih

Therefore, children cannot enter into the Abraham-
ic covenant, without being baptized into it I ! Mr. Ter-
rell must think that we are a silly stupid set.

I must say a word or two more about the covenant
of circumcision being the Gospel covenant. The cov-
enant of circumcision excluded from the Jewish church ?
and put to death all uncircumcised male members:
"That soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath
broken my covenant," says the Lord. Now. it is a
fact, that the Christian covenant forbids any man te
be circumcised, "if an} 7 " man among you shall be cir-
cumcumcised, Christ shall profit him nothing." See
Gal. 5: 2. Now. if Mr. Terrell's position be true; then
we have it, that, if you are not circumcised, you shall
be cut off from the people of God, and if you are cir-
cumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. That is, ii
you obey you shall be damned, and if you do not

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 89

obey you shall be damned. Poor infant sprinkling, how
art thou strained for proof?

These infant sprinklers are lame both in their heath
and their heels; they can neither see the inconsistencies,
nor step around the difficulties, absurdities, and con-
tradictions into which they have immersed themselves,
in their theological embarrassments. I do not recol-
lect to have ever heard an argument in favor of infant
sprinkling, but what directly contradicted the bible,
or some item of the> man's creed who offered it. Mr.
Terrell, to prove the identity of the Jewish and Christ-
ian churches, said ; they are one and the same, because
they both have the same name. This argument, which
he seems to have borrowed from Mr. Mc'Cealla, is a
strange thing under the sun. Two men are one and
the same man, because they are both called John or
James ! ! A man and a 'monkey are one and the same,
because they are both called creatures of God ! If all
his arguments for identitii are as strong as this, he will
certainly convince his Methodist friends, that the Jew-
ish and Christian church are one and the same church.

But, before he had fairly finished this argument for
identity, he told us that the Christian church was to
have a new name — it was to be called by the Christian
name. Then, I suppose, the two are one and the same,
because they have the same name ; and then again,
they are one and the same, because they have not the
same name ! Mr. Terrell is a profound thinker.

This is in good keeping with another argument of
his party. To get rid of the difficulty, that Christ did
not command the apostles to baptize infants, they tell
us, that it was not necessary that he should , for the
Jews baptized Proselytes and their children from the
days of Moses, to the days of Christ; and that Christ-
ian baptism is nothing more than Jewish proselyte
baptism continued. But, when we call upon them for
the authority they have for baptizing infants, they tell
us, that the Gospel covenant anciently required chil-

#0 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

dren to be circumcised, and that baptism has come in
the place of circumcision — for " baptism is the same seal
in another form." It is certainly very interesting to
know, that baptism and circumcision existed together
from the days of Moses, to the days of Christ; and yet,
that baptism did not exist till it was called into exist-
ence to fill the place of circumcision which was done
away. If I were the advocate of such a theory ■, I would
abandon the lame theology of my party, embrace,
obey, and preach the truth.

The Abrahamic covenant, he says, is the Gospel cov-
enant. That is, as I understand him, the covenant
which the Almighty made with Abraham, is the same
that he makes with every Christian. Does he mean
the covenant concerning Christ? the covenant con-
cerning the land of Canaan? or the covenant of cir-
cumcision ? It cannot be the covenant concerning
Christ, for the following reasons :

1. That covenant promised to the person with whom
it was made, to make of him " a great nation." This is
not promised to every Christian.

2. It promised to the person with whom it was made,
" to make his name great" This is not true of every
Christian.

3. It promised to the person with whom it was made,
"' that his seed should be as numerous as the stars of
heaven, and the sand upon the sea shore. 55 This
promise is not made to every Christian, as we all
know.

4. It promised to the person with whom it was made,
that, " In the shall all families of the earth be blessed.''
Mr. Terrell cannot say, that this promise is made to
:nm, or any other man of his party.

God covenanted with Abraham to bless the nations
in him, but not with us to bless the nations in us. A T or
does the fact that we are benefitted by this covenant
prove that it was made with us, more than does the
:act that a child is benefitted by a contract, made by its

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 01

.ather betore it was born, proves that the child made
the contract. There are thousands of things done in
this world, by which we are benefitted, that we had
on hand in doing. We are benefitted by the death of
iJhrist, but we did not crucify him. We are benefitted
by the writings of Paul, but we did not write for him.
We are benefitted by having the scriptures translated
into our own language, but we did not translate Ihem.

This covenant is nothing more than a promise made

to Abraham, that of his posterity one should be born in

whom the nations of the earth should be blessed. This

covenant was made when Abraham was " seventy and

five years of age."

About eleven or twelve years after this, the Lord
appeared to him again, and Moses says, " The same
day the Lord made a covenant with Abraham, saying,
unto thy seed have I given this land from the river of
Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates."

1. This cannot be the Gospel covenant, because it
was made with Abraham and his seed, not according
to the Spirit, but according to the flesh,

2. Because the Gospel covenant does not promise to
us Christians the land lying between these two rivers.

3. Because we have offered to us in the new, and
everlasting covenant, not an earthly, but a heavenly
inheritance. " \Y r e look for a city which hath founda-
tion, whose builder and maker is God."

The covenant of circumcision which Mr. Terrell has
strangely enough asserted is the Christian covenant,
was made twelve years after the one concerning the
land of Canaan, and twenty-four years after the one
concerning Christ ; for Abraham was ninety and nine
years of age, when the Lord "gave him the covenant
of circumcision." It cannot be the Christian covenant
for the following reasons :

1. Males only were required to obey it — " Every
man-child among you shall circumcised." But, fe-
males, as well as males are required to obey the Christ-

*>~ DEBATE ON BAPTISM

ian covenant; for "In Christ Jesus there is neither
male nor female ; for ye are all one in Christ. And if
ye be Christ's then are ye Abraham's seed, and heir*
according to the promise."

2. The covenant of circumcision, was a covenant
in the flesh — " My covenant shall be in your flesh?' —
The Christian covenant is not in the flesh, but in the
Spirit. I defy Mr. Terrell or any other man of his
party to show, that the new covenant is now, or ever
was a covenant vi the flesh.

3. The covenant of circumcision required every man-
child to be circumcised, and he who was not circum-
cised, was to be " cut off from his people." But the
new forbids any man to be circumcised — " Jf any man
among you shall be circumcised, he will fall from
grace, and Christ shall profit him nothing."

4. That covenant required Abraham to circumcise
all that were born in his house, or bought with his mo-
ney. But the new is not founded upon flesh nor property ,
but upon faith. " They that be of faith, are blessed
with faithful Abraham."

Now, I assert that Mr. Terrell will not dare to af-
affirm, that the new covenant is a covenant in the
flesh. By what authority then does he say, that the
covenant of circumcision is the Christian covenant?

1 will now proceed to show you, and I hope to suc-
ceed in showing Mr. Terrell, that neither the one nor
the other of these can be the new and everlasting cov-
enant which the good Lord makes with Abraham 1 .*
children according the Spirit.

Something like a thousand or twelve hundred years
after all these covenants were made with Abraham,
the Spirit of the Lord, speaking by the Prophet Jere-
miah, said :

" Behold the day comes, saith the Lord, when I uM
make" (not have made) " a new covenant with the
house of Israel, and with the house of Juiah." But
Mr. Terrell says, That cannot be true ; for all the cov-

AKD THE HOLY SPIRIT. 93

-en ants that the Lord ever made with the house of Is-
rael, he made more than a thousand years before the
days of Jeremiah: for " the covenant of circumcision
is the Christian covenant."

The same Spirit, speaking by the prophet Isaiah,
said : " Incline your ear and come unto me : hear,
and your soul shall live ; and I will make (not have
made) " an everlasting covenant with you." But Mr.
Terrell says, that cannot be true ; for the new and
everlasting covenant was made more than a thousand
years before Isaiah lived — " The covenant of circum-
cision is the Christian covenant."

But with whom does the Lord promise to make this
everlasting covenant ? With such, and such only, as
incline their ears and come to him ; and hear, that their
souls may live. Mr. Terrell, however, says, that can-
not be true; for infants can enter into the new cov-
enant by baptism, with inclining their ears, coming to
God, or hearing that their souls may live. Which shall
we believe, Mr. Terrell, or the bible?

Paul says : " But now hath he (Christ) obtained a
more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the
mediator of a better covenant, which was established
upon batter promises." But Mr. Terrell, presuming, 1
suppose, to understand the matter better than Paul,
says : There is no better covenant, established upon bet-
ter promises ; for it is the same old covenant of circum-
cision, made with Abraham.

Paul says : " For if that first covenant had been
faultless, then should no place have been sought for
the second" Mr. Terrell has discovered, what Paul
did not know, that the first covenant was faultless,
and that there is no second. Poor Paul, how little you
knew about the covenants, when compared with the
wandering circuiteers of the Methodist fraternity ! ! Paul
ought to have attended one Methodist conference be-
fore he died, that he might have been possessed of all
wisdom, and of all knowledge !

94 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

111 speaking of the second or better covenant which
was established upon better promises, Pauls says, it
shall be "Not according to the covenant that I made
with their fathers." Mr. Terrell says, it is according
to tho covenant that he made with their fathers; for it
is the same old covenant of circumcision.

We have now seen that it is a second and better
covenant, established upon better promises, and that
it is not according to the old ; but we have not seen
what it is. Well, the apostle proceeds now to tell us

" This is the covenant that I will make with the house
of Israel after those days, saith the Lord." Well,
what is it? Is it, that u in thee shall all the nations
of the earth be blessed"? Is it, that "I will give you
this land from the river of Egypt to the great river, the
river of Euphrates"? Is it, that "every man-child
among you shall be circumcised"? It is, according to
Mr. Terrell, but we all know better. Well, what is it
then ? Why, " I will put my laws in their minds, and
write them in their hearts; and I will be to them a
God, and they shall be to me a people : and they shall
no more teach every man his neighbor, and every man
his brother, saying, know the Lord ; for all shall know
me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be mer-
ciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their
iniquities will I remember no more."

Here is the covenant that God makes with us, and
it is neither the covenant of circumcision, nor the cov-
enant concerning the land of Canaan. Here let us
pause and note some of the differences between the
new and the old, the better and the worse, the first and
the last covenants, of which the apostle speaks.

1. And the lirst is : The new covenant is bcttei , and
established upon better promises than the old.

2. The old had faults, but the new is fa'tit ess.

3. The new is said to be not according to the old, —
It is wholly unlike it.

4. The old was written upon two tables ©fsto&ej

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT, 95

but the new is written upon the minds and heart?
of God's believing children.

5. Into the old covenant children entered by natural
birth; and if they ever knew the Lord, they had to be
taught to know him after they entered into it. But we
enter into the new by spiritual birth, and consequently
\ve are " no more to teach" (in the new covenant as they
did in the old) w every man his neighbor, and every
man his brother, saying, know the Lord ; for all" (that
are in the covenant) " shall know me, from the least
to the greatest." " Incine your ear and come unto me:
hear, and your soul shall live," first, and then, " I will
make an everlasting covenant with you." So we see
they are taught to know the Lord before they enter
the covenant; and consequently have no need of be-
ing taught to know him after they are in. Mr. Terrell
knows that this language was designed to cut off his
infant membership, and his infant sprinkling , and this
is the reason why he wants to take us back to circum-
cision. It will not do ; for the very least one in the
Christian covenant is to know the Lord. Nov/, before
he asserts again that infants are in the Christian
covenant, let him show in what sense these least ows.
that he sprinkles into his Methodist covenant, can
know the Lord.

6. In the old covenant, " he who transgressed the
law died without mercy;" but in the new, the Lord says.
;: I will be merciful to their unrighteousness."

7. In the old there was a " remembrance made again
of sins every year;" and consequently the members of
the Jewish church had to make offerings again and

' n for the same sins, But when the conscience is
purged from gilt, by the blood of Christ, the great sin.
offering, and the body washed in pure water, in obe-
dience to the Lord Jesus, the mediator of the new and
better covenant, the Almighty says : " Their sins- and
iheir iniquities will I remember no more.]' 1
Now, I wish it to be remembered,

$G DEBATE ON BAPTISM

1. That all that are in the new covenant know the
Lord, from the least to the great.

2. That every one in the new covenant was an un-
righteous person, before he entered into it — " I will be
merciful to their unrighteousness." This language
cannot be applied to infants, for they are not un-
righteous.

3. That they were all sinners, and guilty of doing
iniquity before they entered into the covenant — "And
their sins''' (not sin) " and their i?iiquiiies" (not the in-
iquity of Adam) will I remember no more." This
shows too, that they were all pardoned persons. Now,
is there a man in this house who does not see, that
this language cannot be applied to infants who have
never been guilty of one sin of their own. Now, if it is
true that all who are in the new covenant know the
Lord, that they had all been sinners, that they had all
been unrighteous, and that they had all received a free
pardon of all their own sins; does it not fellow, that in-
fants were not among the number, and that Mr. Ter-
rell's notion of infant membership is wholly outside of
the Bible. Let him come to the New Testament and
prove in his next speech, if he can, that Christ com-
manded, and the apostles practised infant baptism.

(Time expired.)

[mr. Terrell's 2d address — 4 2d prop.]
My Christian friends:

I thank Mr. Pritchard for his allusion to my strength
It is very good to have strength, as he will learn before
we get through. I expect to make my cause appear
stronger than the physical strength of him who advo-
cates it. He also spoke of my notes not being m
my own hand write. I would inform the gen-
tleman that I can do my own writing. If I am not
mistaken he can testify at least, that I can maJce my
mark.. He smiles and winks as if he expected to brow-
beat me out of my arguments.

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. &Z

[Here the president moderator said that was not rel-
evant. Mr. Terrell proceeded.]

Mr. Pritchard accused not only me, but my brethren
also, of believing in infant damnation. He represen-
ted us as believing in the damnation of all unbaptized
infants. This J deny, as a most ungrounded misrepre-
sentation; and I call upon him for the proof. Let him
prove it if he can.

He tells us of three covenants spoken of in the 12th,
15 th and 17th chapters of Genesis. In this he has ta-
ken the same course Mr. Campbell did, and followed
out that course almost to the letter. In doing this he
has attempted to make three promises, all relating to
the land of Canaan. But this I deny. 1 admit there
were manj r temporal promises made in the covenant.
All these promises in the one covenant were tyipcal.
There was but one land promised in the covenant, and
that earthly land had reference to a heavenly land:
hence Canaan was typical of a better country. Do
the stars of heaven refer to the earthly Canaan, ft is
Mr. Pritchard that confounds law and Gospel, and not
me.

I know that in Hebrews 8: 6, 10, Paul speaks of two
covenants, but this is the last chapter from which he
should have quoted. The old covenant here referred
to, means the old covenant, where God took the Isra-
elites by the hand to lead them up out of Egypt, ft
has no reference to rescinding the law of Moses.
House of Israel, means the family of Israel; and I know
it does not mean the church, as my friend says. It
means house, or household. 1 will make a new cove-
nant with Abraham's household, or family.

The gentleman quotes the words of the prophet; "a; a
shall know me, from the least to the greatest." I un-
derstand this to be coming into covenant relation with
God—into the church. Mr. Pritchard contends that all
their sins are forgiven in baptism; but the passage s
''Their sins and their iniquities will I remember

G

95 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

more/' This passage teaches all, from the least to the
greafest shall know the Lord — that is they shall corner
into the church; yet the gentleman would keep them
out, I do not prostrate the plan of pardon as the gen-
tleman accused me.

He speaks of the sins of babies, and questions me m
Regard to them. But I would say in the words of an
apo.stle "as all have sinned, all are condemned;" but
we baptize infants because their sins have been par-
doned, and not that they may be. We baptize theirs
because they are in the covenant, and not to put them
into it. Baptism is a tuk-.m, or mark, which all are en-
titled to who are in the covenant; and as infants have
been redeemed by the blood of Christ, they are enti
tied to this seal. We thus give them the seal to induct
them into the church, in view of religious instruction,
and not to save them from eternal damnation, as the
gentleman has falsely represented our church. The
gentleman need not smile and wink then, as though hi
intended or expected to brow-beat me in this discus-
sion, and thus get me off from the question. If that
is his intention he has got the wrong man.

It the covenant was not confirmed by circumcision,

let the gentleman tell what it was confirmed by. This

is made clear by Romans 4th chapter and 14th verse „

in the following words: for if they which are of the

law by heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made

of none effect ; because the law worketh wrath ; for

where no law is, there is no transgression. Therefore

it is of faith, that it might be by grace, to the end the

rise might be sure to all the seed, not to that only

ch is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith

braham, who is the father of us all, (as is within, I

: made thee a father of many nations,) before him

ni he believed, even God, who quickeneth the

aead, and calleth those things which be not as though.

they were."

Again we read in the 3d chapter and 29 th verse or

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 99

Gallatians, where it is said, "And if ye be Christ's,
then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according
to the promise." Yes Ishmael and Eson were included
in the covenant, though they participated not in the
temporal promises; yet they were embraced, as I have
shown in the spiritual promises.

But the gentleman thinks I follow Mr. McCalla. —
Well, it is not very strange if I should! I suppose that
the course of any intelligent preacher of my views
would pursue; would bethe course mainlythey all would
pursue; but I would inform the gentleman that although
I havehadMr. Campbell's andMr. McCalla's debatelying
in my house for some months, that I have not read ten
pages in it. Therefore if I follow the course pursued
by Mr. McCalla, it is only because I agree with him,
and rely upon the same evidences he did, and come to
the same conclusions.

Upon anti-pedo-baptist principles, the time will never,
come when all shall know the Lord, for they exclade
infants from the church or from being recognized as
knowing the Lord, and consequently as long as there
are infants there will be of those who do not know the
Lord. Upon the gentleman's principles then, the time
will never come when all will know the Lord. But the
true state of the case is, all in the church are recognized
as knowing the Lord, and the prophet looked forward
to the time when the church should be universal, when
all should know the Lord from the least to the greatest.
This will include all, both infants and.'adults*in the place
of being an argument against me, furnishes a strong
argument in my favor. When that prophecy shall be
fulfilled all from the least to the gnatest, shall know the
Lord.

Mr. Pritchard remarks that all entered the old church
by a natural birth, and therefore all infants were in the
church. Well, we baptize them because they are a!*
ready in the kingdom, and not to take them into the
kingdom. The gentleman has become so accustomed

100 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

to talking about baptizing into the kingdom thai
keeps on in the same strain when he talks for me, but
I wish him to remember, that we do not baptize persons
into the kingdom of God, but merely into our branch of
the visible church. Let him remember this, and he will
have enough to do without browbeating me. He need
not think to get me off from the point by laughing,
winking and nodding. Such deportment may suit his
views and his cause

[Here the president moderator said, I shall have to
call you to order Mr. Terrell.]

Mr. Terrell said I think I am as near in order as Mr.
Pritchard was in his last speech .

[President moderator said, That is true. You were
both out of order. Our being wrong yesterday, is no
reason why we should continue wrong to-day. Mr.
Terrell proceeded.]

The gentleman confounds the making and the con-
firming of the covenants. He makes one covenant at
the making of the covenant, and another at the confir-
mation of the covenant. This 1 will now show by rea-
ding Genesis 17, beginning verse 2: "And I will make
my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply
thee exceedingly. And Abraham fell on his face and
God talked with him, saying, As for me behold my cov-
enant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many
nations. Neither shalt thy name any more be called
Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father
of many nations have I made thee. And I will make
thee exceeding fruitful, and I wilt make nations of thee
and kings shall come out of thee. And I will establish
my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after
thee in their generations, for an everlastin'g covenant,
to be a God unto thee, and thy seed after thee. And I
will give unto thee and thy seed after thee, the land
wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Caanan for
an everlasting possession; and I will be their God. And
God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant.

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 10 1

thou, and thy seed after thee, in their generations. This
is my covenant which ye shall keep, between me and
thee and thy seed after thee; every man-child shall be
circumcised. And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your
foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant between
me and you. And he that is eight days old shall be
circumcised among you, and every man-cnilcl in you*.
generations; he that is born in thy house, or bought
with thy money from any stranger, which i.s not of thy
seed. He that is born in thy house and he that is
bought with thy money must needs be circumcised; and
my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting
covenant. And the uncircumcised man-child, whose
flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall
be cut off from his people; he hath broken my cove-
nant."' This relates to the gospel covenant clearly, for
it is mentioned, Gen. 14, Gen. 16, and Gen. 17, the lat-
ter of which I have now read at full length. Is it not
clear that he speaks of the same covenant all the time:
and is it not equally plain that it is the gospel cove-
nant? I affirm that it is. and all the distinctions the
gentleman ever can make, by referring to different pla-
ces where the covenant is spoken of, can never make
it mean any thing eke. Again, Gaj, 3: 29, we are
informed that '-if we be Christ's then are we Abraham".-
seed, and heirs according to the promise." Thus you
will discover, we are constituted Abraham's seed, an i
as baptism comes in the room of circumcision, we
required to have our children baptized.

The gentleman says, I contradicted myself about the
new name: but he is only in a mistake about that mat-
ter. The fact that the church was to have a new name,
is very clear evidence of the continuation of the same
church.

I have now shown that when the gospel covenant
was first made with Abraham that it included infants.
God put them in the church by a positive law, and I ar-
gue that they cannot be put out only by a positive law;

?02 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

and the gentleman has shown no such law, and I pre-
sume he will not show any such law.

I have also shown that the same church organized in
Abraham's day was to continue while time itself should
continue, and that infants were in it, in that day and
that they cannot be excluded without positive law. —
Has he ever shown where they were excluded? Sure-
ly he has not, and equally sure it is that he cannot.

My christian friends, it was the intention of God,
that you should give your children up to the Lord, in
baptism, and that you should bring them up in the nur-
ture and admonitions of the Lord. Mr. Pritchard has
by no means convinced me that my children are exclu-
ded from this privilege; nor do I believe he has suc-
ceeded in convincing this audience, that their children
are to be suffered to grow up in infidelity.

I see that my time has almost expired, and I must
bring my remarks to a close, and hear what my friend
can say to these arguments. I hope he will come up
to the point and meet the question fairty, and make the
best effort he is able to.

MR. PRITCHARD'S SECOND REPLY.

Gentlemen Moderators —

Mr. Terrell commenced his last address by inform-
ing you, than he expected to make his cause stronger
than the physical strength of him who advocates it. —
Well, if he does, I shall be mistaken. It, to me, re-
sembles more the " lean kine" of Pharaoh, than the
hearty and healthy appearance of my friend Mr.
Terrell.

Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob looked for heaven, he
says, and therefore, the covenant of circumcision was
the Gospel covenant. If he wished to make his argu-
ment complete, and put it beyond the reach of a reply,
why did he not say, " Of the Jews five times Paul re-
ceived forty stripes save one ;" and therefore, the cove-
nant of circumcision was the Gospel covenant?

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT, 103

Feeling himself unable to reply to my argument
from the 8th chap, of Hebrews, and knowing that it
forever puts an end to the question, whether infants
are members of the new covenant, or of the Christian
church, he telis you that the covenant of which the
apostle speaks is not yet made, and will not be, till the
world shall be converted and brought into the church.
This ridiculous and un scriptural notion, so common
among the advocates of Millerism and infant sprink-
ling, has been answered and refuted a thousand and
one times by the advocates of truth. In the sixth
verse. Paul says : " But now" (not will, when all the
world shall be converted and brought into the church)
w but now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry,
by how much also he is (not will be, but is) the media-
tor of a better covenant, which was" (not will be, but
was) " established upon better promises."

In the last verse of the 8th chap, of Heb. the apostle
•says the old covenant had " decayed, waxed old, and was
ready to vanish away" If it had decayed, and was ? eady
to vanish away in the days of Paul, it is certainly gpn€
before this. Now, suppose we admit, for argument
sake, that Paul was right in saying the old covenant
had vanished away; and that Mr. Terrell is right in
saying that the new is not yet made ; and what fol-
lows? Why, if the old is gone, and the new not made,
it will follow, that we are without any covenant with
Ood ; and consequently without God, and without
hope in the world. Mr. Terrell and his party would
not only damn unbaptized infants, but all the rest of
us, for the sake of their infant membership.

By the way, Mr. Terrell told you, that I misrepre-
sented him and his brethren, by saying they are be-
lievers in infant damnation. Mr. Terrell himself de-
clared this morning, in the presence of you all, that
unbaptized infants are out of the church, without any
provision for their eternal well-bnng; so he believes it,
and I will now prove that his brethren believe the

101 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

same thing. I bold in my hand a book called " Doc-
trinal Tracts," published in 1836, for the M. E. Church-,
'•by order of the General Conference." This book is
intended to " explain several important points of scriptural
doctrine f so, of course, whatever it contains, we are to
regard as an explanation of some point of " scriptural
doctrine."* Well, what does it say about the "Scrip-
tural doctrine" of infant damnation ? I read on
page 251.

"If infants are guilty of original sin, then they are
proper subjects of baptism ; seeing, in the ordinary
way they cannot be saved, unless this 11 (original sin) u be
Washed away by baptism. It has been already proved,
that this original stain cleaves to every child of man ;
and that hereby they are " children of wrath, and liable
to eternal damnation"

On page 247, I find the following :

" It is certain, by God's word, that children who are
baptized, dying before they commit actual sin, are saved."

Now, from these two passages we learn the follow-
ing facts, in relation to this" Scripture doctrine" of the
General Conference : 1st. That all infants are guilty
of original sin, and " cannot b° saved unless thii be wash-
ed away by baptism." 2nd. That in consequence of
original sin, all infants are " children of wrath, and lia-
ble to eternal damnation" 3rd. That all baptized in-
fants, who u die before they commit actual sin, ate
saved. 1 ' Now, if it "is certain that baptized infants
are saved, and that unbaptized infants " cannot be
:<avcd;" what can be plainer than that they must be
damned ?

In the "Discipline of the M. E. Church," we have
this awfal notion of the party to which Mr. Terrell be-
longs, equally as plainly and clearly taught. The
minister, (as\ve learn from page 103 and 104) after
exhorting the members to "call upon God, through
our Lord Jesus Christ, to grant to this child" (in bap-
tism) i( that thing which by nature he cannot have,' 1

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 10 %

prays for " that thing" himself, in the following man-
ner : " We beseech thee, for thine infinite mercies,
that thou wilt look upon this child: wash him" (from
original sin) " and sanctify him with the Holy Ghost :
that he being dcliverc i from thy wrath" (a minister of
Methodism praying to the Lord, that a little infant may
be "delivered from his wrath." May the good Lord
have mercy upon such ignorance) " may be received
into the ark of Christ's Church." Again, he prays :

" O merciful God, grant that the <ld Adam in this
child may be so buried" (in baptism) "that the new
man may be raised up in him. Grant that all carnal
affections"' [carnal affections in a little infant) " may dde
in him," (what a powerful thing infant sprinkling is. to
kill all carnal affections in a new-lorn babe) "and that
all things belonging to the Spirit may live and grow
in him. Grant that he" (the little infant) " may have
power and strength to have victory" (so without bap-
tism an infant cannot have victory) " and to triumj h
against the devil, the vjorld, and the flesh."

Now, my Christian friends, if any one should ever
ask you again for the benefits and blessings of infant
sprinkling, just tell him that the "Discipline of our
church" says : " It washes an infant from original sin.
delivers it from God's ivrath, buries the old Adam in it,
kills all its carnal affections, gives it power and strength
to have victory, and power and strength to triumph
against the devil, the world, and the ficsh. If this is all
true, who would not have his children sprinkled, and
" dedicat d to the Lord by our office and our ministry, that
they may receive such 'r everlasting rewards?"

Mr. Terrell says, it is not true that there were three
covenants made with Abraham, and calls upon me. af-
ter I have done it, to prove that there were more than
one. Well, as Bro. Campbell said to Mr. Rice, "I must
tell him the story the second time. Paul to the Ro-
mans, 9th chap., says : " To the Israelites pertain tin?
adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giv-

106 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

ing of the law, and the service of God, and the promises. 77
There was, then, besides the law and the promises, a
plurality of covenants given to Israel. This only proves
a plurality of covenants. And to find out the amount
of this plurality, I go to the history of the Jews, begin-
ning, of course, with the founder of the religion, or the
father of the faithful. God made but one covenant
with ail Israel, at Hearah, therefore, that being also
named, and covenants besides, we are obliged to look
for a history of those transactions in the Abrahamic
family, designated by that name. I have, then, clearly
distinguished and documented with proof no less than
three covenants, made with Abraham ; — two based on
the first promise, and one on the second. The one on
the second, is that which concerns us, because Paul
calls it " the gospel, in its origin," and the first indica-
tion of Gentile justification. Galatians iii. 8 : This is
the gospel covenant, called by the same apostle and in
the same epistle, " the covenant concerning Christ." —
The covenant is made out, denominated, and even
dated by the same apostle. He says it was made four
hundred and thirty years before the law — chap. iii. 15.
He says — " Brethren, I speak after the manner of men ;
though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirm-
ed, no man disannuleth, or addeth thereto. Now to
Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He
saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one,
even to thy seed, which is the Christ. Now then, I say,
that the covenant that was confirmed before of God, in
Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty
years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the
promise of non-effect. Nothing can be more clearly
expressed. Here is a covenant named, described,
dated. We can have its date most accurately traced.
Abraham was seventy-five years old when the two
promises were given him ; one, concerning the Messi-
ah, as aforesaid — and one, concerning his family, with
a reference thereunto. He was one hundred years

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 107

old when Isaac was born. Isaac was sixty when Jacob
was born, and Jacob told Pharaoh, when he went down

nto Egypt with his family, that he was one hundred
and thirty years old. Now add the respective sums
of 25X 6QX 130=215. Now, Sir Isaac Newton's Chro-
nology, arch-bishop Vsher's the commonly received
chronology, make the whole sojourning in Egypt 215
years, which two sums exactly make 430 years, from
the covenant concerning the Messiah, to have trans-
pired before the giving of the law, as- Paul expressly
declares.

We have, then, one covenant indisputably made out
and dated. We shall now look for a second. This
we find amply delineated in the 15th chapter of Gene-
sis, about ten, or twelve years at most, after the for-
mer. This covenant, as I have already stated, had
respect to the promised inheritance. It was made to
define, and secure the patrimony of the sons of Abra-
ham in the line of the promised seed. While confirm-
ing it over sacrifice, the Lord informed the patriarch,
that his posterity should be sojourners, strangers and
oppressed, for four hundred years. In the fourth gen-
eration they shall come to this land again, for the cup
of the Amorites is not yet full. " In that same day"
says Moses, " the Lord made a covenant with Abraham,
saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the
river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphra-
tes." Can any language more definitely designate the
making of a covenant on a certain day than this? —
Examine Gen. xv. 7, 21 . I have fixed this covenant in
the 86th year of Abraham, because immediately after

t we are informed of the birth of Ishmael, who was
thirteen years old at the date of the covenant of cir-
cumcision, to which I next invite your attention.

It will require no proof, I presume, to any one ac-
quainted with ancient patriarchal history, that the
covenant styled by Stephen, " the covenant of circum-
cision," was made one year before the birth of Isaac,

108 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

and in the ninety-ninth year of Abraham, twenty-four or
twenty-Jive years after the " covenant concerning
Christ." We have all the dates given, the covenants
detailed in the 17th of Genesis, and even down to
Acts vii. 8, denominated as follows : " And he gave
him the covenant of circumcision, and then Abraham
begot Isaac, and circumcised him the eighth day." —
We have, then, delineated three distinct covenants
made with Abraham daring the period of five and
twenty years; and no man can connect these three in-
to one covenant. The parties were always the same.,
but the stipulations, pledges, seals, objects, and dates,
are just as different as any three transactions ever
made between one and the same two persons.

Mr. Terrell told you, that I agreed with him that bap-
tism is the act by which we pass into the church, and
into the gospel covenant. I replied, by showing that
he, in this •' agreement," refuted his notion of the iden-
tity of the two churches, and of the two covenants; for
it is manifestly plain, I think, to every one who has
read the bible, that the Jews were not baptized into the
Jewish church and covenant, Now, if it is true, that
they entered into the old covenant and Jewish church by
natural birth, and that we cannot enter into the new cov-
enat and Christian church, but by baptism, does it not
follow, that the two churches, and the two covenants,
are not identically the same ? But the gentleman dis-
covering, in his last speech, the difficulties into which
he had plunged himself by this ~ agreement" of ours,
told you that he does not baptize children to bring them
into the church, but because they are in the church. In
his first speech this morning, '• unbaptized infants were
out of the church, without any provision for their eter-
nal well-being;" and I agreed with him, he said, that
no one can enter into the church, but by baptism. —
But now, only one hour afterwards, he tells us, that he
does not believe one word of what he told us abou:
this " agreement" between us; for he does not baptize

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 109

infants into the church, but because they are in the
ehiirch by natural birth. I think his brethren will hardly
thank him for this defence of their Methodism ; for it
is know to Mr. Terrell, and to every Methodist in this
house, that he has, in his last statement of his faith, re-
nounced and given up all the principles of his party
upon the subject of baptism. Methodists believe, and
have always taught, that by baptism we " enter into
covenant with God," into the Christian church, and in*
-o heaven hereafter. Upon this point, they not only
" agree" with us, but go bey@nd us, and are able at
any time to out Campbell even Campbell himself. —
Hear what the " General Conference" has published
to the world, as the principles of the party, in " Doc-
trinal Tracts :"

" By baptism we are admitted int® the church, and
consequently made members of Christ, its head." The
Jews were admitted into the church by circumcision,
so are the Christians by baptism. "For as many as
are baptized into Christ," in his name " have" thereby
" put on Christ." Gal.iii. 27. Page 248.

" Baptism doth now save us, if we live answerable
thereto; if we repent, believe, and obey the Gospel :
Supposing this, as it admits us into the church here, so
intoglory hereafter" p. 249.

This, then, is Methedism ; but Mr. Terrell says he
does not believe one word of it ; for he does not bap-
tize people into the Church, but because they are in
the church;.

This thing, called the " Discipline of the M. E.
Church" says, " None can enter into the kingdom of
God, except he be regenerate and born anew of water
and of the Holy Ghost;" but Mr. Terrell docs not be-
lieve such Methodism as that.

This book, (Doctrinal Tracts) not only teaches that
we enter into the church here, and into glory hereafter
by baptism, but that it is by baptism that we enter into
the new covenant, as I will show you. [Here Mr. P.

110 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

paused for a moment, looked at the book, and said] I
cannot find the passage just now; but I have a good
memory, upon which I can depend, and from
that, I feel certain, I can give you the very lan-
guage. It reads : , " By baptism we enttr into cov-
enant with God ; into that everlasting covenant, which
he hath commanded forever/' Let Mr. Terrell dis-
pute, or call in question the correctness of this quota-
tation if he dares, and it shall be forthcoming.

Now I fearlessly affirm, that he has renounced Meth-
odism — given up the principles of his party; and tha£
he cannot find one respectable writer in the fraternity
who agrees with him, that infants are baptized be-
cause they are in the church.

While the gentleman was laboring on this point, irr
his embarrassment, he found that the most convenient
way to get off from it was, to turn aside and blackguard
me for "smiling and winking at my friends." That I
smiled is true, but that I winked at my friends, or any
one else, is not the fact. If we have, or wish to have a
pleasant discussion, 1 think it very important that I
should smile occasionally ; for Mr. Terrell has looked
more like a thunder- cloud since this discussion com
menced, than like a mild and pleasant gentleman. I
always smile when I am pleased. Poor fellow, I know
he cannot smile, till he gets out of this discussion.

The covenant concerning the land of Canaan, and-
the covenant of circumcision, he says, were not separ
ate and distinct covenants, but adjuncts to that con
cerning Christ. This is something the Redeemer diifc
not know; for he supposed that they were adjuncts U>
the law of Moses: " You circumcise on the Sabbath
day," said he to the Jews, " that the law of Moses may
not be I Token?' If cirenmcision- was not an " adjunct' 1
of the law, how could a man break the law by not bid-
ing circumcised ?

I must now notice some of the passages which he h&&.
brought forward to prove the tden ity of the Jewish and

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. Ill

Christian churches, Ephesiaus ii 14, 15, is one of his
proofs for identity : "For he is our peace, who hath
made both" (Jews and Gentiles) "one, and hath broken
down the middle wall of partition between us; having
abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of com -
mandments contained in ordinances ; to make in him-
self of twain one new man, so making peace." This
needs no comment. Christ broke down the law of
commandments, and with it abolished the Jewish
church, and the Jewish religion, that he might make of
the twain — Jews and Gentiles, " one new man" — a new
church, so making peace. Strange proof this for iden-
tity. I now take this passage to myself, and shall for-
ever maintain that it was intended to refute this very
notion of identity. It is not the old man or church of
the Jews, but " one new man" — a new body, a new
church for God.

I wish now to call your attention to a passage
which Mr. Terrell has read from Romans, xi. chapter
'■' And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou
being a wild olive tree, wert grafFed in among them,
and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the
olive tree ; boast not against the branches. But if thou
boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.—
Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off,
that I might be grafFed in. Well, because of unbelief
they were broken off; and thou standest by faith.'"-
(Not by pedobaptism.) " Be not high-minded, but
fear; for if God spared not the natural branches, take
heed lest he also spare not thee."

Who, in ail this world, I am constrained to ask, bfett
him who has a purpose to serve, would ever think that
this passage proved the identity of the Jewish and
Christian church? Of what was the Jewish church
composed? It was composed of the natural branches,
or the natural seed of Abraham — of Abraham's family
according to the jlcsh; men, women, and children; good,
bad, and indifferent. Now we hava it, according t<»-

112 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

Mr. Terrell, that the natural seed -of Abraham were
broken off the natural seed of Abraham, or themselves,
and the Gentiles were graffed into the natural seed of
Abraham. This is a splendid thought 1 The fact is,
Abraham himself is the "Root or Olive tree" and not
the Jewish church, as Mr. Terrell vainly supposes. —
The Jews were the natural branches, or the natural
of spring of the " root" or olive tree. The Gentiles
were not the n a tur al offspring of this root, and conse-
quent!}' are regarded as taken from another, or wild
olive tree, and graffed into Abraham, and made his
children by faith. " Thou standest by faith" not hy
flesh, as did the Jewish church. "If you be Christ's,
then," and only then, " are you Abraham's seed," is a
Wesson which Mr. Terrell ought to learn. The Jews,
the natural branches, were broken off because of unbe-
lief ; and the moment they rejected the Redeemer, that
moment they were rejected by the Lord from being the
children of Abraham, and were turned out into the
broad world among other infidels. "Neither because
they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children :
but in Jsaac shall thy seed be called. That is. they
which are the children of the fcsh, these are not the
children of God; but the children of the promise
counted for the seed.'' Romans xi. 7, 8. "If Chr
then Abraham's seed;" and "they that are Christ's
have crucified the flesh." If it is true, and Mr. Terrell
knows that it is true, that the Jewish church was made
up of the natural branches of Abraham, how can a
man assert that a church which is made up of convert-
ed me a out of every nation under heaven, is identic :d.h>
the same ? Is a converted Negro, one of the na
seed of Abraham ? There is just the difference between
the Jewish and Christian churches, that there is be-
tween flesh and spirit. But of this again.
[Time expired.]

AKD THE HOLV SPIRIT. 1 13

[mr. terrbll's 3d address — 2d prop.]
My Christian friends; If I were to consume time to
notice all the gentleman has said of an irrelevant na-
ture, and attempt to set it aside by argument, as I
think I could in time, I should not be able to proceed
with my affirmative arguments, as it is my intention
to do. He manifestly takes this course to decoy me
from the point in dispute; but he will find himself mis-
taken in this undertaking. I shall pursue the even te-
nor of my way, and neither be turned to the right nor
to the left by the stratagems of the gentleman.

He appears not to understand me yet: baptism to
infants proves that they are in the covenant; and my
argument is, that if they are in the covenant, they have
a right to the seal or the token of the covenant. Now
it is manifest that, if Christ died for infants, they should
have a right to the token or seal of mercy. But, my
friend, although he admits they are in the covenant,
inconsistently denies them the right of the seal of mer-
cy. Yet he ^can talk largely about Mr. Wesley's Doc-
trinal Tracts, and what he is pleased to represent
many of our brethren as believing! He has even taken
the responsibility of telling you that we believe in in-
fant damnation, &c. Let me refer the gentleman to
Mr. Thomas, who lives somewhere east, and is a mem-
ber of the same church with Mr. Pritchard. He con-
tends that infants are incapable of salvation, and even
that they will be totally annihilated; and this too, to
escape from the awkward situation the gentleman's
doctrine and faith placed him in. Here he can find
deplorable doctrine relative to the future condition of
infants, if he wishes a picture of this kind to discant
upon!

Mr. Pritchard speaks of my confusion; but here agai n
is laboring under a mistake. It is his own brain that
is confused, and not my mind. Being confused himself
and not knowing how else to secrete it from public

H

114 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

view, he tells you that I am confused! You under-
stand him!

The gentleman accuses me of confounding the law
and the gospel, and that too very unjustly; for I repu-
diate the idea that the law and the gospel are the same.
1 hold no such position. The law has nothing to dc
with my position.

That which Mr. Pritchard called a covenant, in the
5th chapter of Genesis, is merely an adjunct to the
covenant in the 12th chapter; and in the 17th chapter
the selfsame covenant is merely connYmed by circum-
cision; and the law was added to the covenant because
of transgression. The Jews were cut off from the
church because of unbelief, and the Gentiles were
grafted in by faith. The law was a kind of scaffolding
while the noble edifice of the gospel was going up,and
when the edifice was finished, the scaffolding was
thrown down.

Mr. Pritchard said that if the church of Christ was
established in the days of Abraham, that it must have
stood two thousand years without a foundation, for
Christ was the foundation. But here again he is mista-
ken; for Christ was as a Lamb slain from the foundation
of the world. He was the foundation of the church in
the wilderness in the days of Abraham and always. —
I know that Christ's death is the foundation of the
gospel kingdom, and of his church anciently, for, as I
said before he was as a Lamb duinfrom the foundation of
the world.''

The gentleman quotes Mr. Wesley to prove that we
believe in infant damnation. But here he has misrep-
resented us as well as Mr. Wesley. No one says that
infants who are not baptized shall be hurled down to
hell. Mr. Wesley here says [Here Mr. T. flourished
Mr. Wesley's Doctrinal Tracts beforethe audience.] that
"'God has tied us to this ordinance, but he has not tied
himself— he can and will show mercy. I have now, I

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 115

hope, cleared our church from the charge of believing
in infant damnation, and I hope the gentleman will not
make the charge any more.

My second argument is founded on the plain word
©f our Lord. Jusus commanded little children to come
unto him. He says Mark 10th chapter, 14th verse y
"Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid
them not for of such is the kingdom of God." The
kingdom of God here, means the church of God. This
passage distinctly recognizes little children as in the
kingdom of God. It distinctly recognizes them as
members of the church. It is evident that kingdom
here maans church, for he says, "of such is the kingdom
of God," not "of such will be the kingdom of God."
"Suffer little children to come unto me for of such is the
kingdom of God," or of such is the church, as is clear-
ly the meaning of our Savior.

We have an account of only two instances where our
Savior was said to be angry, and one of these was on
the the occasion where littlechildren were broughtunto
him and some who held the doctrine of my friend for-
fcidthem, at which we are informed, our Savior "was
much displeased. Would he not be displeased at my
friend now, if he were here, while he not only forbids
them, but does every thing in his power to debar them
from the holy ordinance? Surely he would.

We are asked, what good sprinkling a little water
upon the face of a child can do? We answer, that
when little children were brought to the Savior, "he put
his hands upon them and blessed them." Baptism is a
blessing, although an unbelieving mind may not per-
ceive it.

My third argument is founded in the fact, that in
fants are included in the Commission. "Go ye there
fore 3.nd teach all nations, baptizing them, in the name
of the Father, and of Son, and of the Holy Ghost,
teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have
commanded you." Now, as infants had always beeiv

n 6 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

entitled to church membership, and had always been
permitted to receive the seal of the covenant, it is
proof that they are still entitled to church membership,
and had always been permitted to receive the seal
of the covenant, it is proof that they are still
entitled to church membership, unless excluded by pos-
itive law. If the Lord thought of excluding them,
surely he would have said so, for they had previously
been entitled to that privilege. Let him show me, then,
where the Savior or the Apostles ever excluded them,
for if they are not excluded by positive law, or if the
scripture is silent on the subject, it follows that children
are yet entitled to church membership, and of course,
to baptism the seal of it.

The commission included "all nations" and children
had always been entitled to church membership, and
no commandment in the New Testament is found to
put them out or to prohibit them. And we have seen
that they were put into the covenant by a positive law
and I argue that they could not be put out or prohibi-
ted from church membership, without a positive law.
This is strong ground and here I stand and expect to
stand, unmoved by any effort the gentleman can make.

When we compare this language with the language
of the Savior before referred to, who can doubt that
they brought little children to the Savior? He did teach
•'suffer little children to come and forbid them not." —
How could they come to Christ in Gods appointment,
in baptism? If they were not to come unto the Savior
he would not have told you to "suffer them to come."
They came into the church and received baptism as a
seal, in view of being taught. This is a token that
they are to be brought up in the nurture and admo-
nitions of the Lord.

Mr. Campbell says, "the first string is to come." —
Not to have faith but to come. But the apostles who
are much greater, and our Lord, say come, but Mr.
Pritchard would say, stay away. Well, baptism is the

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 117

first institution, and I ask, in what way are they to
come if it be not in baptism? Then, after baptism,
teach all things which Christ commanded. This seems
to accord with the commission, but the gentleman's
doctrine does not. But I must hasten on to my next
proof.

My next argument will be built upon the household
baptisms mentioned in the New Testament. There
are four households mentioned in the New Testament,
that were baptized. Now it is not likely that there
were no children in all four of those families ; but on
the other hand, it is almost certain that there were
some children in some of them at least.

The sacred historian mentions the household of
Stephanos. He does not mention the names of the
members of the family as a Baptist would have done.
A Baptist would have mentioned the names, as John,
James, &c. This case furnishes a plain and unan-
swerable argument in favor of infant baptism, and one
too that the gentleman can never get over.

All that is necessary in the case of the baptism of
Lydia and household, the Jailor and his household,
and the household of Stephanos, is simply to look
carefully at the last named case. The apostle, speak-
ing of it says, " I baptized none of you but Crispus,
and Gains, lest any should say that I have baptized in
mine own name. And I baptized also the household
of Stephanos : besides, I know not whether I baptized
any others." 1 Cor. 1: 14, 15, 16. This is as much as
to say, Crispus and Gaius, who were adults, I baptized
— they were. all. But his mind appears here to be re-
freshed, and he adds, "also the household of Stephan-
os."' Now is it not clear that there were children here?
Surely it is. In the household of Stephanos were chil-
dren, and they were baptized, and members of the
church.

Now I have got my argument pretty fully before the
gentleman. We shall see what he will do with it. I

118 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

expect; in the place of replying to my arguments, he
will complain, as he did before, that I do not reply to
Ms arguments. If he does I cannot help it. 1 have
got my course marked out, and he cannot get me from
tt. I have my proposition to prove, and I did not ex-
pect to be able to please him.

He can take up his time in telling how many posi-
tions I have occupied, how many contradictions 1 haye
made, &c; but the matter is for him to reply to my
arguments if he can, and if he cannot to give it up.

I see my time is not quite out, but I give the gentle-
man the remaining two or three minutes.

MR. PRITCHARD'S THIRD REPLY.

Gentlemen Moderators — •

This is certainly jhe most singular discussion I have
ever been engaged in ; for never before did I meet a
man who was unwilling to pay any attention to what
I would say, or too cowardly to join issue with me up-
on any point. While discussing the question of the
action of baptism on yesterday, instead of meeting me
upon the true issue, whether immerse is the literal and
proper meaning of baptizo, he would first inform the
audience, that it was no use for him to reply to every
thing I said, and then, as a kind of chorus, would say:
" Mr. Pritchard has failed," " signally failed," "utterly
iailed," "and he ever must fail;" as if the audience
could not see, that his windy braggadocio style was do-
ing nothing, and even worse than nothing in favor of
his rantism. And now that he is the affirmant, and I
have replied to every thing, great and small, which he
has advanced — discussed, dissected, and scattered to
the four winds of heaven, each, and every point ; he
pursues his onward course, asserting and reasserting
the same thing over and over again, as if he felt it nei-
ther necessary nor important to reply to any thing I
say. If he did not intend to debate the proper issues
between us with me, why did he consent to enter into

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 1 19

this discussion with me ? If he dare not meet me, and
discuss the proper questions with me, now that he is
here, why did he not stay at home ? If he dare not
join issue with me, nor even attempt to reply to any
thing I say, (and it is my solemn and conscientious
conviction that he knows he dare not) I must, I sup-
pose, permit him to pursue his own course, and I must
try to follow him. This I feel certain I can do.

Before replying to the last speech of Mr. Terrell,
which, indeed, was but little more than a reiteration
of what we have heard, and replied to, I will call your
attentions to the question of identity, upon which I w 7 as
speaking at the close of my last speech. I have a few
arguments yet to offer, upon which I rely to disprove
the identity of the churches and covenants; and to
which, I hope, Mr. Terrell will have courage enough
to reply, that I may have an opportunity of illustrating,
defending, and showing their strength. Turn, if you
please, to the 4th chapter of Galatians, and hear the
apostle from the 21st to the last verse of that chapter.

" Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye
not hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham
had tuo sons, the one by a bond maid, the other by a
free-woman. But he who was of the bond-woman
was born after the flesh ; but he of the free- woman was
by promise. Which things are an allegory : for these
are the two covenants; the one from the Mount Sinai,
which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this
Agar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and answereth to Jeru-
salem which now is, and is in bondage with her chil-
dren. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is
the mother of us all. For it is written, rejoice, thou
barren that bearestnot; break forth and cry, thou
that travailest not : for the desolate hath many more
children than she which hath an husband. Now we,
brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. —
But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted
him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.

120 DEBATE ON BAPTISE

IVevertheless what saith the Scripture ? Cast out the-
bond- woman and her son : for the son of the bond-wo-
man shall not be heir with the son of the free-woman.
So then, brethren, we are not children of the bond-
woman, but of the free."

On this observe 1st that the law and the covenant
of Sinai are considered one and the same. Being un-
der the law, verse 21, and being under the covenant in
the allegory are considered by the apostle, as the same
circumstance."

2d. Abraham's two wives, Hagar and Sarah repre-
sent the two covenants, the old and the new, "for these
are the two covenants."

3d. There is just the difference between the old and
new covenants, that there was between Hagar the
bond- woman, and Sarah the wife of Abraham. When-
ever a pedobaptist will prove to me that the two cov-
enants are the same, I will prove that Abraham's slave,
and Abraham's wife, the free-woman, are one and the
same.

4th. Ishmael and Isaac resemble or represent the
people under the two covenants. Ishmael, the son ot
the bond-woman, was born a slave', for a slave gen-
dereth or bringeth forth slaves, not freemen. So did
the old Testament or covenant,, (see Gal. iv. 4: 7,)
compared to Hagar, which is one of the names of
Mount Sinai in Arabia; and she, to wit, Hagar, re-
sembles the then present Jerusalem or Jewish Church,
which was in bondage under the old covenant. Isaac,
the son of the free-woman, resembled or represented
the people under the new covenant, which is called
the Jerusalem from above, the Christian Church, be-
cause proclaimed from heaven, by him who is in hea-
ven ; not from Mount Sinai in Arabia, on the earth.

5th. As Ishmael was brought forth in the natural or
ordinary means, he fitly denotes the natural descend-
ants or fleshly seed of Abraham, who lived under the
old covenant, and constituted the Jewish, church, the

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT, 121

members of which were such by natural birth. Again,
as Isaac was brought forth, not by natural, but by su-
pernatural means, by faith in God's promise, when the
bodies of his parents were, as to his production, as good
as dead denotes the members of the Christian church
which are such not by natural generation, as the Jew-
ish or pedobaptist members are, but by being born as
Isaac was, by faith in God's promise, or by supernatur-
al means.

6th. There is just the difference between the Jewish
and Christian churches, that there is between Ishmael
the son of the bond- woman, born " after the. flesh" and
Isaac the son of the free-woman, born " after the Spirit."
Whenever Mr. Terrell will prove that the Jewish
church and Christian church are one and the same, I
will pledge myself to prove that Ishmael, born after
the flesh, and Isaac, born after the Spirit or by faith,
are one and the same child. Let that be remembered,

7th. As the children of the deserted woman Sarah,
whose husband deserted her and associated with Ha-
gar, are declared to be more numerous than the chil-
dren of Hagar, who possessed the husband of the de-
serted Sarah ; so the apostle argues that the spiritual
seed, or children of Abraham by faith, born like Isaac,
would be more numerous than his natural or literal
descendants.

8th. That as Ishmael the child of the flesh, persecu-
ted, by railing and reviling, Isaac the child of promise,
so the Jews, the natural descendants of Abraham, and
those who plead for church membership on the same
ground of natural birth, then, and since, and now perse-
cute, sometimes by railing and reviling, and in time
past, by sword and fagot, those who have been born of
the free- woman or the children of faith, the sons of the
new covenant.

9th. But what saith the scripture ? Aye, this is the
question. What did Sarah say? Mark it well my
friends. Mark it well ye pedobaptists. O, it is an

122 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

oracle you should never forget. What did Sarah say,
as the scripture records? "Cast out, 1 ' tremendous
words, " Cast out the bond-woman" the old covenant
compared to Hagar. Disannul it, vacate it, lay it
aside, reject it. Is that all ? No, no- Cast out the
son of Hagar also, the people of the old covenant, the Jew-
ish church. Yes remember the allegory, as the Spirit
of inspiration has called and represented it. Ishmael
denotes all that are merely the children of the flesh. —
u Cast out the bond-maid and her son Ishmael." For
what reason ? Because it is decreed of heaven, it is
declared by God, that the son of the bond- woman, the
people of the old covenant, shall not be members under
the new covenant, shall not beheirs of the inheritance
with the sons of the free- woman, the people who are
the sons of Jerusalem which is above, the mother of all
believers.

10th. The last item in this paragraph we shall no-
tice now in this glorious truth, last verse. " So then
brethren we are not children of the bond-maid" — the old
covenant, and consequently not the Jewish church, but
of 'the free-woman — the new covenant, consequently the
Christian church ; and like Isaac, children of Abraham
by faith. Heirs with Christ of an inheritance incorrup-
tible, and unfading in the heavens. "If you be Christ's,
then are you Abraham's seed," said an apostle, " and
heirs according to the promise." Believers are the only
children of Abraham under the Christian dispensation.

11th. Another fact of some importance, in under-
standing this question, I will mention — viz : Ishmael
the slave, and representative of the fleshly seed of A-
braham, or of the Jewish ehurch, was the elier of the
two. Isaac the son, and representative of the spiritual
seed of Abraham, came into being by faith, after the
child according to the flesh was born. The elder was
the servant, the younger the son. So the Jews, the
children of the bond-w r oman, the fleshly seed, were the
elder; but the Christians, the children of the free-wo-

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 123

man, the spiritual seed, are the younger; and like Isaac,
the children of promise.

Leaving the family of Abraham, and descending to
the family of Isaac, we find two children there also pre-
sented, as the representatives of the Jewish and
Christian people, or of the Jewish and Christian
churches. When Rebecca had conceived by Isaac, the
Lord said unto her, " Two nations are in thy womb,
and two manner of people shall be separated from thy
bowels ; and the one people shall be stronger than the
o'her people; and the elder shall serve the younger ." —
Genesis, xxv. 23.

Here we discover that the representatives of two na-
tions, or of two manner of people were to be separated
from Rebecca. Now hear Paul in the 9th chapter of
his epistle to the Romans: " They are not all Israel
which are of Israel : neither, because they are the seed
of Abraham, are they all children : but, in Isaac shall
thy seed be called. That is," (now mark) " they which
are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of
God : but the children of the promise are counted for
the seed. For this is the word of promise, At this time
I will come, and Sarah shall have a son. And not
'mly this" (we have still more proof, equally as strong,
plain, and clear,) " but when Rebecca also had con-
ceived by one, even by our father Isaac ; it was said
unto her, The elcbr shall serve the younger"

We have already seen that lshmael, the elder, the
fleshly, and child of the 6-mo- woman, represented the
Jewish nations, or Jewish church, the elder, the fleshly,
and children of the old covenant ; and that Isaac, the
younger, the spiritual, and child of the// ec- woman, rep-
resented the Christian nation, or Christian church ; the
wunger, the spiritwd, and children of the nvw covenant.
This passage from Romans shows, that Esau, the
elder, and the servant, represents the same nation that
lshmael did, and that Jacob, the ynunger, the child of
promise, represents the same nation that Isaac did. —

124 DEBATE ON BAPTI3M

Now, as the Jewish church was composed of the flesh-
ly seed, and the Christian church oi the spiritual seed,
they cannot be one and the same, unless it can be
proved, 1st. That flesh, and spirit are one and the
same, 2nd, That lshmael and Isaac are one and the
same child ; and 3rd, That Jacob and Esau are one
and the same. This never can be done. The Jewish
church, and Jewish nation, are but two names for the
same thing; so also the Christian church, and the
Christian nation are but two names for the same peo-
ple. Now the Almighty Father of our Spirits, in
speaking to Rebecca, with special reference to these
two nations or churches, declared, that they should be
"two nations," not one and the same, " and two man-
ner of people," people wholly unlike each other. Let
Mr. Terrell mark that. 1 maintain that the Lord has
declared in this, that the two churches are not one and
the same church, but that they are " two manner of
people," differing from each other as widely as any
two people ever did. Let Mr. Terrell drive me from
this, if he can. He may produce a great many proofs
which go to show that the Methodist church, and this
old fleshly establishment of the Jews, are one and the
same , but that the Christian and Jewish churches are
one, has not, nor never can be proved. I must return
and pay my respects to Mr. Terrell again.

He says, he did not say that the covenant of Canaan,
and the covenant of circumcision were both adjuncts
to that concerning Christ, but that the one concerning
Canaan was an adjunct, and that circumcision con-
firmed the covenant. He told us but a short time since ,
that the covenant of circumcision was the Gospel cov-
enant. But now he has discovered, it seems, that it is
not the Gospel covenant, but only a mark, by which
the Gospel covenant was confirmed. This is an im-
portant improvement in his theology. As he has taken
one step for the better, I must now try and cause him
to take another, and I think he will be pretty nearly

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 125

right. That the covenant concerning Christ was not
confirmed by circumcision, is evident, as will appear
from the following reasons : 1st. The covenant of cir-
cumcision was a separate and distinct covenant of it-
self — a " covenant in the flesh" as I have proved. —
2nd. The covenant concerning Christ was confirmed
"four hundred and thirty years before the law." Gal.
iii. 17. Now it is a fact, that Mr. Terrell ought to
have understood, that circumcision was given only
four hundred and six years before the law ; twenty-
four years after the covenant concerning Christ was
confirmed. It follows from this, that it was not con-
firmed by circumcision.

In his first speech he told us that he baptized infants
to bring them into the church, where alone there is
safely. In his second he told us that he baptized
them, not to induct them info the church, but because
they were in the church. He now tells us that this is
all wrong ; for, he said in his last speech, he baptizes
them to prove that they are in the church. If they are
in the church, and he knows that they are in, I do not
see what proof he wants to convince him of it. There
are three statements he has made, and only one of them
all can possibly be true. Which does he believe ?

Baptism, he says, is the seal which the Lord puts up-
on his children. Paul did not so understand it, for in
his epistle to the Ephesians, 1st chap., 13th verse, he
said, " After that you believed, you were sealed with
the Holy Spirit of promise." Mr. Terrell says it was
baptism ; but Paul says it was the Holy Spirit. Which
shall we believe ? I wish you, my friends, to remem-
ber this, for I shall have use for it, when we come to
debate the last proposition.

Methodists, he seems to think, are not alone in their
belief of infant damnation ; for Dr. Thomas, a member
of the Reformation, believed the same thing, he tells
us, Dr. Thomas is not a member of the Reformation.
Nor is it true that he believed in the damnation of in-

126 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

fants, as Methodists do. He neither believed in dam-
nation nor salvation. He was a destructionist of thr
bigoted stamp — a blind zealot, immersed in one idea, de-
voutly war-sprinkling the no-soul-god of his party; and
for his notorious course, the brethren have long since
" delivered him over to Satan for the destruction of the
flesh.' 5 If Mr. Terrell thinks it any honor to be in
company with Dr. Thomas, he is welcome to all such
honor.

Mr. Terrell has at length found his way into the
New Testament. He quotes Mark, 10th chap., " Suf-
fer the little children to come unto me," as if that pas-
sage had any thing to do with the baptism of infants or
adults. Does he not know that Christ did not baptize
infants, or any body else? Does he not know that
John says, " Jesus himself did not baptize''? (Here
Mr. Terrell spoke and said — I know sir, as well as you
do, that Jesus never baptized any body.) Mr.
Pritchard said — For what then did he quote this pas-
sage ? He quoted it to prove infant baptism, but now
tells us, that he knew when he quoted it that Christ
did not baptize any one; and consequently that the
passage had nothing to do with the subject on hand.-
Are we not then authorized to charge him with wilfully
and knowingly misapplying a passage of scripture?—
(Here Mr. Terrell arose and said — I wish to make a
point of order.) Mr. Pritchard — I know it hurts, but 1
can't help it. (Mr. Terrell — No sir, it don't hurt, but I
wish to know if the gentleman is not out of order, in
charging me with wilfully and knowingly misapplying
the scriptures?) Mr. Pritchard — Before the Modera-
tors decide that, I wish them to decide another point
I want the Moderators to decide whether I was more
out of order, in charging him with knowingly misap
plying a passage, than he was, in his closing speech
last evening, representing me as an idling gadabout ?
Such a stupid, contemptible insult, I regard as more
out of order, than saying a man did, what he confessed

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT, 127

he did. (Mr. Terrell — I did not say he was an " idling
gadabout ;" I only said, he might have plenty of time
to spend in debating.) Mr. Pritchard — you said more;
than that — you said ' '1 pro' a' ty had nothing else to do.")
(Mr. Burress said — It was by implication Mr. Terrell —
it was cleaiily implied in what you said.) (Mr. Ter-
rell—I did not intend it as an insult.) Mr. Pritchard
— I probably should not have noticed it, if it had not
have been for the fact, that you were guilty of the
same thing once before. (Mr. Burress — As two wrongs
cannot make one right, I suppose we will have to say>
they were both out of order. ) Mr. Pritchard then said —
Thank you gentlemen. The iVJoderators have decided
us both out of order. So we are just even.

1 must now return to the last speech of Mr. Terrell
He told you, that if the New Testament was silent up-
on the subject, it is the strongest evidence in the world
of infant baptism. Do I understand the gentleman to
mean, that if a thing is not commanded we know it
ought to be done, but if it is commanded we know it
ought not to be done. Is this his position ? My Bible
reads, " Keep my commandments," and " wo unto the
man who adds to them." He knows the New Testa
ment is sient, and for that reason he wishes to make it
an argument in his favor. If I were determined to
hold on to the cred of a party, without any regard for
the Bible, I would tell all the world that such was my
intention.

I must now, in the remaining part of my time, notice
his argument from household baptisms. The first is
that of Cornelius, in Acts, 10th chapter. In the 2nd
verse it is said, Cornelius " feared God with all ma
house." In the thirty-third verse, he said, " Now there-
fore are we all here present before God, to hear all
things that are commanded thee of God." In the for-
ty-fourth verse, it is said, " The Holy Spirit fell on
all them which heard the word. ' They all heard, and
the Spirit fell on all who heard the word. But how

128 DEBATE OK BAPTISM

did Peter and his companions know that the Spirit fell
on them ? Why, " they heard them speak with tongues^
and magnify God." They " all feared God, 1 ' they all
heard the word, the " all spoke with tongues, and mag-
nified God." Whenever your children are old enough
to fear God, hear his word, speak with tongues, and mag-
nify God, baptize them ; but don't do it before.

The next is the household of Lydia, Acts, 16th chap.
It is not said, they feared God, heard his word, or spoke
with tongues ; it is only said, they were baptized. But
In the last verse we find this language: " And they went
out of the prison, and entered into the house of Lydia:
and when they had seen the brethren," (not infants)
" they comforted them, and departed." From this we
learn, that they were Brethren, capable of being com-
forted by the words of the Apostles. W henever your
children are old enough to be comforted by the " ex-
ceeding great and precious promises" of the Gospel,
baptize them, but don't do it before.

In the same chapter it is said, the Jailer and all his
were baptized; and after his baptism, it is said, he
" rejoiced, believing in God with all his house" They
all believed, and all rejoiced, and were all baptized. —
More than that, " Paul preached unto him the word of
God, and to aal that were in his house" 32d verse. —
They all heard, they all believed, they were all baptized,
and they all rejoiced in the God of their salvation. —
When your children can do all these things, baptize
them, but not before.

" I baptized also the household of Stephanos," says
Paul. 1st Corinthians, 1st chap., 16th verse. In the
last chapter of this same epistle he speaks of the same
house. "Brethren," says he, "you know the house
of Stephanos, and they" (the household) " have addicted
themselves to the ministry of the saints." Here we see,
that these infants of Stephanos were preachers of the
Gospel, These were certainly the smartest infants of
whom I ever read. I really supposed that I had one

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 129

cf the smartest boys in all this country ; but, I must con-
fess, that these babes of New Testament memory are
■waiter than mine. Yes, they are called by Paul,
*■ "the first fruits of Achaia." and after their conver-
sion, " they addicted themselves to the ministry of the
saints." When your children can become the fruit of
the incorruptible seed, and afterwards addict them-
selves to the ministry of the saints, baptize them, but
net before. Mr. Terrell had better abandon the New
Testament, and return to the question of identity, for
upon that hangs his only hope.

[Time expired.]
Adjourned to meet at half past 1 o'clock

[mr-. Terrell's 4th address — 2d prop.]
rem tie men Moderators; Gentlemen and Ladies : [
b to say once for all, and I wish it distinctly under-
stood, that I am not the advocate of two covenants in
Meb. Sth. The gentleman has misrepresented me
shamefuily and wilfully on this point. I therefore wish
to set the matter right and let this audience know the
position I do occupy at the start.

The gentleman speaks of the covenant mentioned
Heb., 8th chapter ; but the covenant there spoken o£
was made with the house of Israel, and was not the
"ovenant made with Abraham at all. If my friend
will remember this it will save him of much diffic
which he must fall into, if he shall continue inattenti .f
to this important point.

Mr. Prkcbard could not get over the household
"asms mentioned in my last speech ; but still he :
say something abetit them. The household of Ste-
phanas is a very plain case, and a strong cafee, .

gentleman has made no offset to my argument on
the baptism of that household. Paul says to the Cor-
inthians. lk I baptized none ofyou but Crispusand
us," and ! remember no others. Yes, there was
household of Stephana, besides which 1 know nol
i baptized any other. I

130 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

Mr. Pritchard allows that the language of scripture,
if it proves infant baptism, also proves infant commu-
nion, and infant ministering to the saints ; for it says T
they addicted themselves to the ministering to the'
Saints. But in all this he is mistaken again. They
were baptized among the first fruits of Corinth, and then
ministering to the Saints, as mentioned in scripture,
long enough after their conversion to have grown
up from infancy to the age when they w T ould be capa-
' ! of ministering to the Saints.

In the providence of God, this household was ad-
dicted to ministering to the Saints, but that minister-
ing did not, as Mr. Pritchard seems to think, consist in
preaching the gospel to them. It evidently meant no-
thing more than that they were kind and hospitable to*
those Yvhom they entertained. The same as if the gen-
tleman should say that Brother Shawhan is kind, hos-
pitable, and ministers to the necessities of all in his
power ; or the household of brother Peck is addicted to-
ministering to the sick or needy. The passage has no
reference to preaching whatever.

I said cur Savior received little children and blessed

them. I did not intimate that he baptized them. I

sail no such thing. I know that our Savior did not

baptize, and we all know that baptism was not then

instituted. Jesus merely blessed them. Parents then

had a right and the privilege to bring their children

to Christ. Such is the duty of believing parents now.

Iren had the privilege of having the arms of the

irown areund them, and being blessed by the

Head ofihe church. This is all denied now. Mr. P.

1 have us believe that children are barred from

the holy influences of the church.

He has not told us what the kingdom of heaven
means. He certainly knows that it was the church ;
and if believing parents brought their children to the
church then, we may now. He seemed puzzled and
perplexed greatly on this point.
Mr. Pritchard made an important admission in hi&

Alii) THE HOLY SPIRIT. 131

last speech. It was this ; He says, " it is with the
identity of the church this question stands or falls "!
Yes, my fellow- citizens, it is with the identity of the
church this question stands or falls. I would refer you
again to the 1 6th verse of the 15th chapter of Acts : —
" After this I will return and build again the taberna-
cle of David, which is fallen down, and I will build
again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up." Now is
it not plain, from this scripture, that the tabernacle
and church is one and the same ? Fie says, " I build
again," that " which is fallen down." We all know
that tabernacle here means church; hence he is going
again to build thechurch, Does it say anew or e ?
No. But the one that had fallen down. St. James
a-pplies this to the point in hand. The same taber-
nacle that was fallen down is built up again.

The gentleman's gestures and boastful manner are
very ludicrous truly. He boasts and talks very loud
and knowing. He reminds me of a man who wen f
down the river and, in trading, become unfortunate ;
and, for fear his friends and creditors would find it out,
he borrowed a gold watch to wear home. Th;
did to keep up appearances. So it is with Mr. Pritch-
ard. He boasts and exhibits all the strange gestures
he can get up to keep up appearances, and make the
people believe he is doing great things when in reality
he is doing nothing.

I will now call your attention to another passage of
scripture to prove the identity of the church. "Hear
another para,bie: There was a certain householder
which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about,
and and digged a wine-press in it, and built a tower.,
and let it out to husbandmen and went into a far
country : and when the time of the fruit drew near,
he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they
might receive the fruits of it. And the husbandmen
took his servants, and beat one, and killed another,
and stoned another," Mat. 21 ; 33, 3&, Again, he

132 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

says, " Therefore, say I unto you, The kingdom of God
shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bring-
ing forth the fruits thereof." Verse 43. Now fix your
eye on this passage, and see if it is not the same king-
dom or church that was taken from the Jews that was
given to the Gentiles. Just as I showed you from Ro-
mans, 11th chapter and 20th verse : "Well; because
of unbelief they were broken off; and thou standest by
faith. Be not high-minded, but fear ; for if God spared
not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare
not thee. Behold therefore the goodness and severity
of the Lord; on them which fell, severity ; but towards
thee, goodness ; if thou continue in his goodness : other-
wise, thou also shah be cut off. And they also, if they
abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in : for God
is able to graff them in again."

The kingdom of heaven, or the church of God, is.
like a nursery, and the child is like a young fig-tree,
while it is a cion, planted from the nursery. So the
child is taken from the nursery and planted in the
church of God, where it is replanted, and in that fruit-
ful soil and salubrious atmosphere, by the attentive
hand of the husbandman, it is trained up in the way it
should go ; and, under his superintendence, it is brought
up in the nurture and admonitions of the Lord. We
do not plant the seed, but we dig the cion from the
nursery, and replant it in a better spot.

Now the gospel covenant, made with Abraham, in-
cluded children. They were made members of that
covenant by positive law, and I have shown you that
it would require positive law to exclude them. As
Mr. Pritchard has not brought a " thus saith the Lord" 1
for excluding them, it follows that they must still be
entitled to church membership. I showed that it was
an everlasting covenant ; but Mr. Pritchard is turning
Universalist, for he says that everlasting does not mean
always. So say the Universalists.

Mr. P. should remember that the apostle does not sax

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 133

that the covenant was made and confirmed four hun-
dred and thirty years before, but merely made. "He
must remember that it had to be confirmed." The pro-
per votes of the people of thiss tate entitle your legisla-
tors to theirseats at thecapitalof theState; but although
they receive the popular vote of the people, they have
to place their cirtificates at the proper place, be sworn
into office, and thus pass through a certain formula be-
fore they can legally act. So it was in the case before
us. The covenant was made, but had to be confirmed
four hundred and thirty years after.

So thank God, the death of our Savior brings salvation
to our children, and by his death they are pardoned, and
they must go through a formula or rule — they have
to receive the token of the covenant, which is baptism.

When Mr. P. speaks of the branches being broken
off he does not tell us what they were broken off from.
If they were not broken off from the old church, I should
like to know what they were broken off from. Is it
not clear that they were broken off from the church
and the Gentiles were grafted into the same church, and
not a new one as the gentleman would have it.

I want it understood that I do not mean the Jewish
covenant, but the covenant that God made with Abra-
ham, which is the same covenant he has made with us.
The gospel was preached to Abraham, saying, in thee.
and in thy seed shall all the nations be blessed. That
is the covenant I am talking about, and not the Jewish
covenant at all.

This covenant at the first included infants, and Icon-
tend that as we have the same covenant yet, and as it
contained infants at the beginning, and as they were
put in by a positive law; and have never been put out
by any law from God; that they are certainly in the
covenant yet. And, as 1 have said before, the si-
lence of the bible on the subject, from the enactment
of the law including infants to the piiesent time is a
first rate argument against my opponent, and in fa-

134 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

vor of infant baptism. We need no better argument
than this.

I did not say that infant baptism inducted infants
into the church of God. I simply said that it inducts
them into the visible church here. They are already
in covenant with God and in the church of God
universal, but they are not in the visible church. —
The gentleman may then talk about my taking differ-
ent positions, but it will only show that he does not un-
derstand me, in the place of showing that I have con-
tradicted myself. I understand myself, my christian
friends, and have by no means crossed my track, nor do
I believe the gentleman thinks so, but he simply talks
so, as I said before, to till up his time and keep up ap-
pearances.

Christian friends, we then, have a divine right and
privilege, yes, and it is our duty to give our children up
to the Lord in baptism. Yes, thank God, they are not
left out of the covenant but it is our privilege to have
them with us in the covenant of promise; and bring
them up in the nurture and admonitions of the Lord.

I would now proceed to recapitualate my arguments
but my time is out, and I will take my seat and hear the
gentleman again.

(Time expired.)

MR. PRTTCHARb's FOURTH REPLY.

Gentlemen Moderators:

Mr. Terrell seems somewhat refreshed by the rest he
had at noon; for he has come up to the work since din-
ner apparently with new zeal, and new determinations
to defend his position if possible His position is an
unenviable one. I envy not him in the happiness and
pleasure he has in defending it. Nor do I very greatly
desire the vexation. But my benevolence and sympa-
thy will not allow me to increase his mortification.

The house -hold of Stephanas, he says, were infants
when they we!*e baptized, hut greiv to be men before

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 135

F&wi wrote the Epistle. They were baptized iii the
year fifty-jive, and Paul wrote the Epistle in the year
fifty-nine. If they were infants when baptized, they
must have been very large men in four years. This is
too bad. But they were not ministers of the word, he
says, but benevolent persons, "given to hospitality ,*'
and entertaining strangers. In fifty-five they were in-
fants, but in fifty-nine just four years afterwards, they
were men of families given to hospitality, and enter-
taining the saints. If this is all true, they must have
been smarter than I supposed they were before. I am
compelled to give it up that they heat my boy.

I admitted, he says, that the question of infant bap-
tism stands or falls with the identify of the two church-
es; and he is determined to hold me to this point. I
have heard the wind blow before to-day. Now', if the
gentleman wishes to debate that point, I am willing to
lay aside ever}' thing else, and to risk the controversy
upon the question of 'ide* ii-ij nlaiie. Dare you meet me
upon thatpoint Sir? If he should agree to meet me upon
this, he will loose his labor of love, and accomplish a
solemn nothing; for if he should prove that the church-
es are identically the same, he will only run himself in-
to Quakerism, and be compelled to deny Christian bap-
tism altogether; for he knows, or ought to know, that
no infant or adult was ever baptized into the Father,
Son, and Spirit, in the Jewish church. Now, if the
churches are identically the same, does it not follow.
ilhat no one should be baptized into these names now:
I do not oppose his identity, because I suppose it favors
infant baptism, but because it is a sander upon the
Christian church — a falsehood, contradicted again and
again in the Bible.

As proof of his identity, he quotes the passage, '"The
kingdom shall be taken from this people, and given un-
to another people, bringing forth the first fruit thereof. '
-i The kingdom in the bible does not always mean the
same thing. Nine times out of ten a part is taken for,

130 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

the whole. The word kingdom is not identical with the
word church. Church always means the same thing —
viz: a congregation of peopk; but kingdom sometimes
means one thing and sometimes another. When the
Prophet said "The time come that the saints possessed
the kingdom" he does not mean that the time come
when the saints possessed thems Ives. Nor does he mean
that the time come that the saints possessed the Kin?,
Constitution or laws of the kingdom for they had them be-
fore that time. But he means the time come when
they possessed the Territory of the kingdom. Here a
part is taken for the whole. When Christ says, "The
kingdom of heaven shall be likened unto ten virgins,'*
part "wise" and part "foolish" he does not mean the
King, Constitution, Territory, or laws of the Kingdom;
but the subjects of the kingdom were part wise and part
foolish. Here the Kingdom is used in the sense of the
church — it means the people. A part here is also taken
for the whole. When Christ said, "The kingdom of
heaven is among yon" he did not mean subjects or ter-
ritory of the kingdom, but the Kino-, Constitution, and
laws were there among them. Here again, a part is
taken for the whole.

Now, when Christ says, "The kingdom shall be taken
from this people" he does not mean that "this people" who
were the Jewish church shall be taken from thrms^lv-s;
but he means that the King will forsake "this people;"
and the constitution and laws shall be taken from this
people — thisc.hurch, and shall be given to another people
— another church, bringing forth the fruit thereof. A
church is composed of p-oplc, and how, I ask, can Mr,
Terrell, make "this people" and the "other people," one
and the some people?

He quoted a passage or rather quoted at a passage.
in the 13th chapter of Luke; for he said he did not
know where it was, but he would find it if I disputed
that there was any such. "A certain man," says the
passage, "had a fig-tree planted in his vineyard, and

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 137

came and sought fruit thereon, and found none. Then
said he unto the the dresser of his vineyard, Behold
these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig-tree,
and find none: why cumbreth it the ground? After
repeating a part of this passage, Mr. Terrell exclaim-
ed.. "A clear proof this, of infant membership." Well,
well; in the name of common sense, what does the man
mean? Who in all the world, exceptMr. Terrell, would
ever have thought of an infant, while reading that
parable? He must have intended to make a kind oi
syllogism of it thus: — A certain man had a fig- tree plan-
ted in his vineyard. But three years he was seeking
fruit on it and found none. Therefore infants are pro-
per subjects of baptism. This is "dear proof " certainly.

He tells you that 1 have failed to tell what advan-
tage there, was in circumcision. The Jews once asked
Paul the same question and he answered them in the
3d of Romans in the following language. "Much ev-
ery way: chiefly because that unto them" (the circum-
cised) -'were committed the oracles of God." I hope
my Jewish friend will be satisfied with this answer of
Paul to his old fleshly Jewish brethren.

He says, if 1 deny that the covenant concerning
Christ was confirmed by circumcision, I cannot tell how
it was confirmed. I have already given two good rea-
sons, why it could not have been confirmed by circum-
cision. 1st, circumcision was a separate and distinct
covenant of itself — "acovenantin the flesh.'' 2nd, The
covenant concerning Christ "confirmed," Paul says.
'•-four hundied and thirty years before the law." Now
it is a fact, that circumcision was given only four hun-
dred and six years before the law. So it follows, that
it could not have been confirmed by circumcision, for
it was confirmed twenty-four i,ears before circumcision
was given.

But as a third reason, I will show what Mr. Terrell
says I cannot show, how it was oonfirmed. Paul to
the Hebrews, 6th chapter, speaks of this very covenant

138 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

concerning Christ, and says, that " God confirmed it by
an oath." I hope Mr. Terrell will now be satified that
it was not confirmed by circumcision.

He has changed his ground four times— has taken
four new positions upon the point, whether we are
admitted into the church by baptism, or not. His
first position was, that infants are baptized into the
church. His second was, that they are baptized be-
cause they are in the church. His third was, that
they are baptized to prove that they are in the church.
And in his last speech he told us, that they are bap-
tized, info church relations. Here are four different
positions. Which does he believe ? At 9 o'clock this
morning, he was a Methodist, bringing them into the
church by baptism. At 12 o'clock, he was a Jew, bring-
ing them into the church by natural birth. But at 2
o'clock, he is trying to be a Methodist again, for he now
brings them into the church relations by baptism.
Men sometimes change.

Mr. Terrell started out in a great glee, and said, " I
will now prove that infants were members of the
church, in the days of the Apostles. "But," said he,
• l before I do this, I must recapitulate my arguments."
I was looking with both eyes, and all my might for the
proof, but before 1 saw it, he took his seat to rest one
half hour. He reminds me of the Irishman who went
off' two hundred yards, and ran with all his might, to
get a good start to jump over a fence, but when he
came to the fence, he sat down and rested before he
jumped. I will attend to his proof when it comes.
Meanwhile, I want to call your attention to the ques-
tion of identity again.

Paul to the* Hebrews, 3rd chapter, calls the Jewish
church, " the house of Moses," and the Christian church,
" the house of Christ." Are these two houses, one and
the same house, Mr. Terrell ? As well might you say,
that my house, and my neighbor's barn, are one and
the same house, and used for the same purpose.

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 339

Mr. Terrell has hinted several times to day, in con-
nection with identity, that baptism has come in the
rilace of circumcision. I will now give a few reasons
which go to show that cannot be true.

1. Circumcision was administered to males only : its
substft^te then should be confined to males only.

%'. Circumcision required not faith in its subject.
Baptism therefore ought not to require faith in its
subject.

3. Circumcision was administered according to law
on the eighth day. Its substitute then should be ad-
ministered on the eighth day.

4. Circumcision was administered by parents, not by
priests. Baptism, its substitute, ought likewise to be
administered by parents, not by priests, or clergy.

5. Circumcision was a mar& made upon, not the face
of the subject. Baptism, its substitute, ought not to
be performed on the face of the subject.

6. Circumcision was not a duty binding upon the
r-hild, but upon the parents ; it was an act of the pa-
rent, the subject was passive. Baptism, therefore, is
not a duty of the subject, but of the parents; it is the
parent's act, the subject is passive.

7. Circumcision was administered to all a man's
slaves, all born in his house and bought with his mo-
ney. Baptism, therefore, ought to be administered to
all the slaves of a householder, as well as his own seed.

8. Circumcision required no piety in the parent to
entitle his child to this ordinance ; neither failh nor
piety w T as ever required of a parent to entitle his child
to circumcision. Piety nor faith ought not then to be
demanded as necessary in parents to the baptism of
their children.

9. Circumcision imported that its subject was enti-
tled to all the promises made to Abraham concerning
his natural seed. Baptism its substitute, therefore, im-
ports that its subject is entitled to a share in all the
temporal blessings promised to the seed of Abraham.

>

140 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

10. Circumcision was a token or sign in the flesh of
the covenant made in the seventeenth chapter of Gen-
esis ; baptism, therefore, is a token, or sign in the flesh,
of the covenant made with Abraham in the seven-
teenth chapter of Genesis.

11. Circumcision was not to be performed in the
name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Baptism,
its substitute, is, therefore, not to be performed in these
names.

12. Circumcision was identified with the law of
Moses, (John vii. 23,) and shared the same fate. Bap-
tism is, therefore, identified, with the law of Moses, and
must share the same fate.

13. Circumcision has come to such a crisis, that who-
soever is circumcised, Christ shall profit him nothing.
Baptism, its substitute, will also come, or has come, to
such a crisis, that whosoever is baptized, Christ shall
profit him nothing.

14. Circumcision did not exempt one of the Jews
from baptism, when he believed in Christ. Baptism,
its substitute, ought not, therefore, to exempt a believer
from being baptized again and again.

Here are some arguments against identity, and
against the notion of Mr. Terrell, that baptism is a
substitute for circumcision, which have not, and never
can be met by my worthy friend. If he thinks he can
move them, and wishes you to see his failure, let him
apply his moving powers to them in all their strength.
If he should fail to remove these difficulties out of his
way, his infant sprinkling must suffer the consequences
of his failure.

In the remaining part of my reply, I wish to ex-
amine the command ol Christ, and the practice of the
Apostles, to see how they bear upon the subject before
us — to see whether they require the baptism of be-
lievers only, or the baptism of believers, unbelievers,
infants, and all. The practice of the. Apostles is cer-
tainly good authority for us to go and do likewise.

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 14l

The commission which Christ gave to the Apostles,
reads, " He that beheveth, and is .baptized, shall be
saved ;" not he who was baptized in infancy, and af-
terwards believes, but " he that belicvcth first, and is
then baptized, shall be saved." This not only author-
izes the Apostles to baptize believers, but it forbids
them to baptize any but believers. Let Mr. Terrell
show that it does not if he can.

We go up to Jerusalem with the Apostles, and when
the Jews, the members of the Jewish church, had heard
irom the lips of Peter that Christ was "Lord of all/'
they " said unto Peter and the rest of the Apostles,
Men and brethren, what shall we do." They were not
infants, or they could not have heard and spoke in this
way. Peter said, " Repent, and be baptized every one
of you in the name of Jesus Christ ;" and it is added,
" They that gladly received his word were baptized."
Here the Apostles baptized such, and such only, as
g'adly received the words of Peter. They were all pen-
itent believers.

From Jerusalem we will go down to the city of Sa-
maria, and hear Philip preach Christ unto them. Here
we learn, that " the people with one accord gave heed
unto those things which Philip spoke ;" and " when
they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the
kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christy they
were baptized, both men and wimen/'' " When they be-
lieved" not before, they were baptized." "Eoikmen
and women" not infants, were baptized by Philip.
were no babes in that company, Mr. Terrell.
Samaria, Simon believed, and was baptized.
ip preached Christ to the Eunuch, and when he
d, he said, ' : W hat doth hinder me to be baptized? 1 '
Philip said, " If thou believest with all tfiine heart, thou
mayest. He replied, " I believe that Jesus Christ is the
Son of God." Philip baptized him when he believed,
•and refused to baptize him, unless he did believe first.
" If thou believest, thou mayest." Let that be remem-
bered.

1 PS DEBATE ON BAPTISM

Paul heard words from the lips of Jesus, believed jfc

words which he heard, repented of his sins, and war-
t hen baptized. Cornelius and all his house, "feared
God," heard the word, believed it, spoke with tongues,
and were then baptized. Lydia heard the wdrct, her
heart was opened, and she was then, baptized. The
Jailer and his family heard the word, believed it, and
were then baptized ; and afterwards rejoiced in the
God of their salvation. The whole history of the con-
version of the Corinthians is told in these words : —
" Many of the Corinthians hearing, believed, and were
baptized"

Thus we see, from the command of Christ, and
practice of the Apostles, that believers, and believers
only were, and are, the proper supjects of baptism.
There was not one disciple in the days of the Apostles,
but what obeyed for himself. Parents did not obey
for them. The Apostles could say, and did say, to
them 5 " You. have yielded yourselves servants to obey,
and have obeyed from the heart."
Time expired

mr. Terrell's closing speech— 2d prop
My Christian friends: I have arisen before you to
make my closing speech on the proposition before us,
and, although my friend, Mr. Pritchard, says that his
feelings are not hurt, I cannot say the same. If he
could not be hurt with reflections, such as he has
thrown out, all I can say is, that he must be of a dif-
ferent make from myself. It always hurts my feelings
to have a person whom I have consented to debate
wdth, make such insinuations to an audience as those
to which I refer. He says I am trying to deceive this
audience, and that I am trying to make this people be-
lieve our faith is one thing, when I know it is quite dif-
ferent. Now let me inform this audience that neither
me nor my brethren believe in the damnation of in-
fantSo There is much in Mr, Wesley's " Doctrinal

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT, 113

Tracts'' which we as a church do not believe nor adopt.
Mr. Pritchard might have discovered if he had
been as cautious about deceiving you as he appears
to be of my deceiving you. That our church does not
adopt Mr. Wesley's remarks in his Doctrinal Tracts, is
clearly seen, from a note placed at the foot of the page
by our Conference, which reads as follows :

■ " That Mr. Wesley, as a clergyman of the church of
England, was originally a high churchman, in'the fullest
sense, is well known. When he wrote his treatise, in
the year 1756. he seems still to have used some expres-
sions, in relation to the doctrine of baptismal regen-
eration, which we at this day should not prefer. Some
such, in the judgment of the reader, may perhaps be
found under this second head. This last sentence,
however, contains a guarded corrective. It explains"
also the sense in which we believe Mr. Wesley in-
tended much of what goes before to be understood."
Beet. Tracts, page 249.

Now with this plain note before his eyes, Mr. Pritch-
ard represents us as believing in infant damnation !
And then, accuses me of trying to deceive ! I thought
it necessary to set this matter right before I should pro-
ceed, and more especially as this is my closing speech
on this proposition, so that I can say nothing about
it hereafter.

Mr. Wesley's " Doctrinal Tracts," we, as a church,
jo not believe or adopt. We only publish them a.:,
we do other tracts or books, thinking the major part to
be good, and should be read. I wished to show by the
note which I have just read in your hearing, that the
gentleman has misrepresented us, and that he has
misrepresented Mr. Wesley's views. Mr. Wesley was
in England, and he was a high churchman, and had hi::
peculiarities, and his own notions, but in the mair
they were good. I hope this will suffice on this point.
I will observe further, however, that I have not come
here to defend Mr. Wesley, nor have I come here to

144 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

reply to the gentleman's affirmations, although he
thought me off from the controversy. I shall stick
close enough to the controversy for his comfort I as-
sure you.

I shall now prove that there were children in the
New Testament churches. This I shall do by a direct
reference to the word of God. Paul commanded chil-
dren to obey their parents. Hear his language : —
" Children obey your parents." Eph. 6:1. It is true,
we are not told here that they were baptized ; but they
were in the church, and they could not have been in
it without being baptized. This is then, a most clear
and unanswerable argument on my side of the ques-
tion. These children were not yet brought up, but
the parents are commanded to bring them up in the
nurture and admonitions of the Lord, or to bring them
up in the correction and instruction of the Lord. This
is to be done under the government of the Lord, which
cannot be only in the church. This is according to the
good book, which says, " Train up a child in the way
he should go, and when he is old he will not depart
from it." The order of the Lord is to train up a child
in the church, and it is commanded to obey its parents,
and its parents are commanded to bring it up in the
nurture and admonitions of the Lord. Mr. Pritc
would have you bring your children up in the world.
His language would be : train them up in the world :
but I say, train them up in the church.

The gentleman talks about adults having fait};. —
There is no dispute between us on this point; but for
fear he will represent rne as the running Irishman
was going to jump the fence and rested before jumping
I will proceed with my argument.

In the first place I will callyoiir attention to Col. 20:
21. ''Children obey your parents in all things; for this
is well pleasing unto the Lord. Fathers provoke not
your children to anger lest they be discouraged." Here
you see the children are spoken of too, and I wish you

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 145

to noxlce another thing, and that is, that they were to
obey in the Lord and not out of him. I call your atten-
tion to the fact that the obedience is in the Lord and not
out of him; and they are to be brought up in the nur-
ture and discipline, or government of the Lord. Yet
the gentleman would have our children, our precious
otfspringkept out of the Lord. As I quoted before, in
Proverbs we are informed that if we will bring up a
child in the way he should go, when he is old he will
not depart from it. Yes, my Christian friends, children
are to be brought up in the church, and not out of it
as the gentleman would say.

When children are old enough to hear the word and
come in themselves, of course they have aright to do
so, and when they are not old enough to come, if they
have believing parents, it is their duty to bring them to
Christ, and give them up to the Lord in baptism, and
then bring them up in the Lord.

I know the kingdom has some variety in it. This is
clear from the parable of the virgins, concerning wilier*
I will read you from the teaching of our Savior:

"Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto
ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to
meet the bridegroom. And five of them were wise
and five were foolish. They that were foolish took
no oil with them: but the wise took oil in their vessels
with their lamps." This represented a church of which
children were members, very clearly.

Titus and Timothy were written to within some
thirty years after the gospel was preahced, and in these
letters aid inert and young men are spoken of. Father
and mothers are also mentioned. Mr. P, would have
interesting distinctions truly! If there were no infants
in the church, why designate old men and young mc i,
fathers and mothers &c? Will Mr. Pritchard give us
an instance of an adult child being baptized? We
have found where the baptism of house -holds is spoken
of, and where children were members of the churc
J

148 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

Mr. Pritchard triumphantly asks, where it is recorded
in the bible, that infants were baptized. But I ask
him to show where an adult child was baptized. There
is not one such place in all the bible. No my christian
friends, there is not one place where it speaks of an
adult child being baptized in all the bible. He cannot
show us where a youth believed and was baptized. —
Why then ask where infant baptism is spoken of?

But no one can doubt but infants were embraced in
the covenat and were circumcised. Then, let the pas-
sage be produced that excludes them from the church.
Yet, although all admit that children were circumcised,
I cannot find one mentioned for several hundred years
before Jeremiah. Yet, I say, all admit that they were
circumcised during that period. Then, is it strange
that the reception of children or young men is not spo-
ken of in the New Testament? Surely not. It was
not necessary that it should be mentioned. I say if I.
should admit that it is not spoken of in all the New
Testament, it is not strange but I have showed that in-
fant membership is spoken of at least from plain infer-
ence.

But I see that my time is fast passing away, and I
must hasten to recapitulate my arguments. r J he cove-
nant spokon of Gen. 12, 15, and 17th chapters, I admit-
ted is mixed up with temporary promises; yet it is the
same covenant that is spoken of in each of these pla-
ces, and was confirmed before in Christ. The fourhun j
dred and thirty years were before the covenant, and
and not before its confirmation. Now confirmation
and established means the same thing. That which
was confirmed was established, and that which was
esthblished was confirmed. He cannot prove that this
is a new covenant It is said that the time shall come
when all shall know me from the least to the greatest.
We are the children of wrath, yet are embraced in the
redeeming scheme of man.

(Here Mr. Terrell enquired how much time he had.}

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 147

My second argument was on the express words of
the Savior, which read as follows: ''Of such i3 the king-
dom of heaven." This he said of "tittle children? of
infants. You remember my argument on this passage.
My time is so short that I cannot repeat it.

My third argument was founded upon the commission.
"Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them. v
Now remember that our Savior had said, "suffer little
children to come unto me and forbid them not, and
when he gave the apostles the commissionhe did not
exclude them. Here was argument that Mr.Pritchard
could not answer.

My fourth argument was founded upon the house-
hold baptisms mentioned in the New Testament. Here
it was shown that four house-holds are expressly
said to have been baptized in the New Testament. I
contended that it was unreasonable that four house-
holds should have been mentioned, and not an infant
in any of them. Against this Mr. Pritchard has done
nothing, and I conclude he can do nothing.

My fifth argument was founded upon the fact that
children did belong to the ancient church, and that dis-
tinctions were made, which would be unnecessary, such
as fatthers and mothers, old men and young men if there
were no children in the first churches

I have now triumphantly sustained my proposition,
and my opponent has not been able to answer my ar-
guments. No my christian, friends and they never can
be answered. The right of infants to membership in
the church of God has been called in question for hun-
dreds of of years, but it is a scriptural doctrine, and
must and will stand in defiance. of all the assaults that
can be made upon it. .

The gentleman may leave his children out in the
world and out of covenant relation with God, but I
want my children in the same church with myself, that
1 may bring them up in the nurture and admonitions of
the Lord. Christian friends, are you willing to leave

148 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

your children in the world, to grow up in sin? or will
you not give them up to the Lord in baptism?

My position is now established, and ever must stand.
Iknow you are many of you convinced, that the doc-
trine I have advocated is a scriptural doctrine. On the
other hand, Mr. Pritchard has failed, entirely failed.
(Time expired.)

MR. PRITCHARd's FIFTH REPLY.

Gentlemen Moderators:

I truly and sincerely sympathize with my friend Mr,
Terrell to-day. He has fearlessly, and I trust in good
faith, undertaken to do, what no man living or dead
ever has done — viz : to prove that infants who cannot
believe, are required, without faith, to obey the com-
mandments of the Lord. I have called upon him again
and again to produce a passage in which the Re-
deemer requires, or even has required, any one who
did or does not believe, to obey him without faith. He
has not, nor can he produce any such passage. The
reason is, because the thing is contrary to reason, to
common sense, and to all the teaching of the New
Covenant. How can they obey him in whom they
have not believed ?

There is one thing of which I think now, and of
which I may not think again, and that is, his charging
me in a very rough and unbecoming manner, with
• ; smiling, winking, and nodding at my friends," I re-
gret', gentleman, exceedingly regret to see a man so
far forget the dignity of his calling, as to stoop to utter
a thing so utterly untrue. I regret it, because I am
necessarily called upon, as an act of justice to myself,
to pronounce it untrue. True I smiled, but not at Mr.
Terrell, his weakness nor his strength, what he had
done nor what he was doing ; but at the ludicrous ac-
tions of another person whom I saw in the anidence.
But that I " nodded and winked to get him off from
the subject," is an imputation in good keeping with

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 149

some other things we have heard from him in the last
lew months. As this is not connected with the dis-
cussion, and as it was intended as an attack upon my
reputation, I do not think that I am called upon to
treat it with any more respect, than to spurn it as a
graceless and unfounded imputation, and pass it as
something beneath the contempt of every high-minded
man. If this had have been the first, second, or even
the third attack he had made, upon my reputation, I
should, probably, have passed it without notice ; but
enough of a thing is enough.

I come now to his last speech. He has finally fa-
vored us with his New Testament proof for infant
membership. Let us look at it :

'• Children obey your parents in the Lord : for this is
right. Honor thy father and mother, (which is the
first commandment with promise,) that it may be well
with thee, and that thou mayest live long on the earth.
And ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath :
but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of
the Lord." Ephesians, vi. 1, 4.

That this passage does not prove his position, is
evident, for the following reasons :

1. The controversy is not about children, but about
infants. Every man in the universe is the child of some
other man ; but this is very different from saying, eve-
ry man in the universe is the infant of some other man.

2. When we speak of children, in the sense of pa-
rents and children, the children may be men from
twenty V) fifty years of age. 1 am the child of my pa-
rents, but not their little infant, as is well known.

These children are commanded to " obey their pa-
rents." T\ow, if they were old enough to understand
this command of Paul, and old enough to understand
and " obey their parents ;" then, they were not infants.
as Mr. Terrell supposes, but persons capable of hear-
ing, understanding, and obeying all the command-
ments of the Lord.

150 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

4. These children are commanded to honor their fa-
thers and mothers, and fathers are " not to provoke them
to wrath.'''' If they were capable of honoring their pa-
rents, and of being " provoked to wrath" by the incon-
sistent arid unreasonable conduct of their parents, then,
they were not infants ; for infants are incapable of
these things.

5. This Epistle was directed, not to infants, but to
'•' the saints and faithful in Christ Jesus ," which lan-
guage, cannot be applied to infants, for they are not
faithful, in any sense of the word faithful.

6. Mr. Terrell has not yet proved that these children
were members of the church. He has taken it for
granted, because they are mentioned in this epistle
which was directed to the church. It is not positive,
nor even probable evidence, that a man or any other
being is a member of the church, simply because he is
mentioned in an epistle directed to the church. " Dogs,"
t: evil-workers," u the concision," " the enemies of the
cross of Christ." " the Jews," from whom Paul received
forty stripes, and even the " Devil" and " Satan" are
all mentioned in the epistles ; but this does not prove
that all or any of them were members of the Christian
church. So you see, his positive evidence of infant
members is, just no evidence at all. But if I were to
admit that they were all infants, and all members of
the church, (which two things he never can prove) it
would be no proof of his infant sprinklidg ; for he has
solemnly declared that he does not baptize infants to
bring them into the church, but because they are in it
by natural birth. Now if infants are in the ch urch
and in it, not by baptism, but by natural birth, the
fact of their being in the church no more proves that
they are to be baptized, than it proves that they are to
baptize others. It would have been better for Mr. Ter-
rell not to have renounced the principles of his party,
— better for him to have been a Methodist all day, and
baptized infants into the Church, as all Methodists do.

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 151

In reply to my exposition of the passage. The king-
dom shall be taken from this people, and given to an-
other people, bringing forth the fruit thereof," he said,
the kingdom means the feigfi of God in the heart. —
Well, then, God will cease to reign in the heart of the
Jewish church, and will reign in the heart of a better-
people — a better church. How does this prove the
identity of the Jewish and Christian churches?

But he wants to know, if ever there was an adult
child, baptized by the apostles, who was raised by
Christian parents? I answer, wo, nor an infant child
either. The reason is, there were no Christian parents
before the Apostles to " raise adult chddren'' for them
to baptize. There were thousands of adults, reared by
Jewish, and Gentile parents, who were baptized by the
Apostles. Mr. Terrell must regard this question as a
question of power; for it is certainly & powerful question
to ask for Christian parents before the days of the
Apostles.

In the 15th chapter of the Acts is a passage on which
Mr. Terrell relies for proof of identity : " After this I
will return, and build again the tabernacle of David
which is fallen down." The tabernacle, he says, is
the Jewish church which had fallen down; and the
Lord promised to return and build, not a new, but the
same old church. Mr. Terrell says, this passage proves
the identity of the two churches. But what does the
Apostle say it proves ? Hear him : " Simeon hath de-
clared how God at the first did visit the Gkjctiles; to
take out of them a people, for his name. And to thls aghee
the words of the prophets} as it is written. After this I
will return, and will build again the tabernacle of Da-
vid which is fallen down." How the Apostles, and
the great men of modern times do differ ! James said,
as the connection shows, that this passage proved the
salvation of the Gentiles, without obedience to the law
of Moses. But Mr. Terrell says, it proves that the.
Jewish and Christian churches are identically the

153 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

same. That is, Mr. Terrell says, it proves that the
Jewish and Christian people are identically the same
But the Apostle says, in opposition to Mr. Terrell, and
his Jewish brethern then at Jerusalem, it proves that
the Christians are not Jews, and are not, therefore, to
live as Jews. I am simple enough to believe ft&e
Apostle right and Mr. Terrell wrong.

The covenant in Hebrews, 8th chapter, was made,
not with another people, he says, but with " the house
of Israel ;" which proves the identity of the Jewish and
Christian ehurchs. The difficulty with Mr. Terrell here
is, he seems not to have observed that there is an Is-
rael according to the spirit, as well as an Israel ac-
cording to the fleth, spoken of in the New Testament,
Before the days of Jesus Christ, the natural seed of A-
braham were regarded as the true Israel of God ; but
when they rejected the Redeemer, the Lord rejected
them, and they ceased to be called Israel : " They are
not all Israel which are of Israel/' said Paul, " but in
Isaac shall thy seed be called."' None but " the chil-
dren of //*e promise are counted for the seed," or re-
garded as the Israel of God. Rom., 9th chap.. 7. 8.
The natural seed were formerly called the circumci-
sion ; but they are not now the circumcision : " For we
are the circumcision, who worship God in the spirit,
and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confide nee in tin-
flesh," as Mr. Terrell and his Jewish— fleshly brethren
have. Phil. 3: 3. The fleshly seed are not now Jews :
" For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly;" {he
was formerly a Jew, but things have changed) "nei-
ther is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh;"*
(that was circumcision among the fleshly seed, or ira
the Jewish church) "but he is a Jew which is one in-
wardly ; and circumcision is that of the heart, in thf
spirit, and not in the letter." Rom. 2d, chap. 28, $9.
Christians are then, the true Jews, the true circumcision,
and the true Israel of God ; and with this " house of"
Israel," is the new, and everlasting covenant made.-

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT, 15*>

Let that be remembered. So far then, from proving
the identity of the churches, this passage puts it be-
yond doubt that they are not the same. Now unless
it can be shown that Israel according to the flesh, and
Israel according to the spirit, are one and the same Is-
rael, it never can be shown that the two churches are
one and the same church. Bat Paul says, the two Is-
raels are not the same; and, therefore, the two churches
are not the same church.

His first argument for identity was, that the Jewish
and and Christian churches are one and the same, be-
cause they are both called by the same name. That is.
a Yankee clock and a singing master are one and the
same thing, because they are both called tim°-ke<jjerz
— they both keep time.

His second argument was, that the two are one and
the same, because the Christian church has a new name
— it is called by the Christian name. That is, the two
are one and the same, because they have the same
name; and then, again, they are one and the same be-
cause they have not the same na.me. This is very con-
vincing. If he had another day on this proposition, I
dare say, we would all be convinced of his identity by
such powerful arguments.

His third proof for identify was the language of Paul,
h\ Ephesians, 2nd chapter, where he says, " Christ has
broken down the middle wall of partition between
Jews and Gentiles; to make in himself of the twnn one
new man: that he might reconcile both unto God ///
o.w body by the cross.'-

This passage, instead of proving the identity of the
two churches, puts it beyond doubt, that it is a vain
conceit invented for party purposes. It is not the
same old man, but Christ makes of the twain one new
, — a new body — a new church for God. Who
could wash for any thing stronger than this in favor of
the truth?

His fourth proof was the breaking off the natural

154 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

branches, and the grafting into the Root or good Olive
Tree, those which were wild by nature. But I proved
that the Root or Olive Tree was not the Jewish church,
as he supposed, but tftat it was Abraham ; and that
the natural branches, were not the natural branches of
the church, but of Abraham, the root, out of whcih
sprang the natural branches, or fleshly seed. The
Jewish, church was composed of the natural branches;
but the Christian church is composed of those who
were grafted in ; so they stand, not by flesh, as did the
natural seed, but hy faith. It was not the branches of
the church, but the church itself that was broken off
from him who produced it. The natural branches
were the Jewish church, and the supernatural or graft-
ed branches were the Christian. The Jewish church
was broken off, rejected, " cad out;" but the Christian
was grafted in, received by faith as the offspring of the
root, and is '• made in Jesus Christ a new man — a new
body, a new church for God." I wish no stronger tes-
timony against identity than the eleventh of Romans.
I would willingly risk the whole controversy upon a
scriptural exposition of that chapter alone.

His moving position, at the outset, was, that unbap-
tized infants are out of the church without any provi-
sion for their eternal well-being: showing himself to
be a believer in that awful sentiment of infant damna-
tion — that there are infants in hell not a span long'.
He then told you that I agree with him, that it is by
baptism that we enter into the church. But when I
showed that this agreement of ours was killing all his
proof for identity, he turned Jew, and told you, that all
infants enter into the church by natural birth ; and
that he baptizes them, not to bring them into, but be-
cause they are in the church. A little after this, he
boasted that he had put infants into the church by
positive law, and called upon me to put them out in the
same way. He has put them into the church by na-
tural birth, and yet he tells you, that he has put them

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 155

in by a positive law. He has put them in by the posi-
tive law of matrimony, I suppose he means ; for this
is the only law by which he put them into the church.

When J proved that Methodists do not believe that
infants enter into the church by natural birth, he com-
menced changing back from a Jew to a Methodist, and
told us first, that he baptized infants to prove that they
are in the church ; and second, he said, he baptized
them into church relations. He was a Methodist this
morning, a Jew at noon, and almost a Methodist again
this evening. It is said, that '• wise men change, but
abols never do."

He has changed his position so often upon the cov-
enants, that it is difficult to tell what his position now
is, or what he really believes. His first position was,
that the covenant of circumcision is the Christian cov-
enant. His second was, that the covenant concerning-
Christ is the Christian covenant. His third was, that
the covenant concerning Christ, the covenant concern-
ing the land of Canaan, and the covenant of circum-
cision are all one and the same covenant. His fourth
was, that the covenant concerning Christ, is the Gos-
pel covenant, the covenant concerning the land of Ca-
naan was an adjunct to it, and that this covenant, and
this adjunct were both confirmed by circumcision. Such
profoundly learned and logical argumentation, and so
many consistent positions ought to convince us all of
one thing at least — viz: thai pedobaptism has not, nor
cannot be proved to any, except to those whose eyes
have been closed by the influence of party purposes.

There is one more contradiction, which, of right,
ought to be numbered among his many extremely con-
sistent positions — viz: That all infants enter into the
church by natural birth, just as they enter into the
world ; and yet, when speaking upon the covenant in
the 8th chap, of Hebrews, he said, that covenant is not
yet made, nor will not be till all the world shall be
.jjnverted and brought into the church. If all infants (and

156 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

of course all the world) are in the church by natural
birth, why does he speak of a time in the future when
all the world shall be brought into the church by con-
version ? Do mankind enter the church twice, in two
different ways, at two different times ? or does he mean
by the time when all shall be converted, nothing more
than the time when the last child of the world shall be
born of its parents ? As he is a great advocate of iden-
tity, will he tell us whether natural birth and conver-
sion are identically the same?

As my time is now out, I have not time to recapitu-
late- my arguments against his pedobaptism ; so I leave
them with you, standing unanswered, unreplied to by
Mr. Terrell.

[Here Mr. Terrell said — I have another speech upon
this proposition, haven't I?]

Mr. Pritchard — No sir; our agreement was, as the
Rules show, to debate no one proposition more than
five hours.

Mr. Terrell — Have we debated this five hours?

Mr. Pritchard — Yes, we debated three hours before
dinnner, and two since.

Mr. Terrell— Well, if I had known that I would not
be allowed to make another speech, I would have giv-
en my arguments a little different turn in my last.

Mr. Pritchard —The gentleman does not want to
make another speech, he only wants to make the im-
pression upon his friends, that, if he had an opportuni-
ty of speaking again, he would do a little better than
lie has done for their cause. It is all for effect. Now.
if he has any thing better to offer, he can make another
speech, or as many as he pleases ; I can reply to any
thing he can say. Or, if he dare not speak and have
me reply, if he think he can better hi* effort, he can
make a short speech without any reply.

Mr. Terrell; No Sir, if the time for the discussion of
this proposition is out, I don't wish to speak again.

Mr. Burress, then said; I suppose I am to blame for

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 157

Mr. Terrell's supposing that he had another speech; for
I told him at dinner that I thought you had three speech-
es apiece more upon this question.

Mr. Pritchard said; Mr. Terrell ought to have known
better than to have you "to blame'"* in the matter.

Mr. Franklin here arose and said; I have a proposi-
tion to make to the two gentleman who are engaged
in this discussion. There have been a number of per-
sons who have expressed a desire to me, that this dis-
cussion should be published. I therefore propose to
Mr. Terrell and Mr. Pritchard, that if they will write
out their speeches I will publish the debate at my own
expense; and when it is published, I will give each of
you fifty copies, well bound, for your trouble.

Mr. Pritchard said I am perfectly willing to write out
my speeches, if Mr. Terrell will agree to write his.

Mr. Terrell said I have not time to do it; my numer-
ous pressing engagements as a circuit preacher prevent
my doing it.

Mr. Pritchard said; If Mr. Terrell will agree to write
his speeches, I will pledge myself to furnish him with
one of our best preachers to travel the circuit in his
place.

Mr. Terrell said; We don't thank the gentleman for
his preachers; when we w r ant them we will send for
them.

Mr. Pritchard said; I did not make the offer for his
thanks, but for his accommodation.
Time expired.

MR. PRITCHARD's FIRST ADDRESS u ED PROP.

Gentlemen Moderators —

This is the third day of our discussion, and I am, for
the second time, the affirmant. Mr. Terrell is done
with one of his affirmative propositions; he. is now,
for the second time, on the negative. If he will follow
me to-day, as I did him on yesterday, I have nothing
to fear. My only fear is, that he will manifest a dis-

1 58 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

position to debate every thing of which he can think,
except the design of baptism. The issue is not wheth-
er faith, repentance, or conversion is essential to par-
don or justification ; but the design of baptism. Is
baptism designed for remission of sins ; or for something:
else? is the issue, and the only issue to-day. I affirm
it for remission of sins. Mr. Terrell denies this, and of
course affirms, that it is designed for something else.
Mark this: He will not dare to tell you, to-day, what
the design of baptism is. The proposition which Mr.
Terrell has made for me to affirm, reads thus: ''Wher-
ever the Gospel is preached, water baptism is essential
to the pardon of past sins."

I never could have been persuaded to make such a
proposition as this for myself or any one else to af-
firm : for it is pitiful in its language, and contempta-
ble in its design. The design of it, was not to fairly
present the issue, nor to elicit the teaching of the
New Testament ; but to enable him who conceived
the thing, by ad captandum rhetoric, to get rid of what
the New Testament teaches. The issue is not whether
baptism every where, in all countries, and under all
circumstances is essential to pardon, but whether the
New Testament teaches baptism " for the remission of
sins," or for something else. But I may be asked by
some one, why I accepted of this proposition ? I an-
swer, because it has been a standing proposition of
Mr. Terrell for several years, on which he could re-
treat from a discussion with the brethren. He would
say to them, you must debate this or nothing, and
when they would refuse, he would proclaim a " back-
but" on their part. 2nd. Because I knew from his
course with others of my brethren, that he would de-
bate nothing else ; and if he did retreat, I intended to
leave him without excuse. 3rd. Because I knew that
there was no danger in debating this or any thing else
with Mr. Terrell ; I heard him preach several times be-
fore I accepted of this proposition. 4th. I knew that I

AND THE HOLT SPIRIT. 159

would have the right, in the discussion, of defining
the terms of my own proposition, and telling what I
mean by each and all of them ; which I will now pro-
ceed to do.

By the word " wherever" I mean every where, — in
every nation, language, tongue, and people where the
Gospel is preached. "The Gospel" consists of three
facts, three commondments, and three promises The
facts, as set forth by the Apostles, are, The Death,
The Bu r ial, and The Resurrection of Jesus Christ.
The Commandments are, faith, repentance, and bap-
tism into the name of Jesus Christ. The promises are,
the remission of sins, the gift of the Holy Spirit, and
the hope of eternal life. No man can be scripturally
constituted a Christian, without believing the facts of
the Gospel with all his heart, obeying from the heart
the commandments, and receiving into his heart the
promises. A good man he may be, honest, upright,
and moral ; and also useful in his day and generation ;
but a Christian, in a Scriptural sense, he cannot be,
mithout believing and obeying the whole Gospel of Je-
sus Christ. Nor do I believe that the Gospel is preach-
ed, in any nation, language, or country, unless the
whole Gospel is preached. He who preaches the facts
without the commandments, or the commandments
without the facts, does not preach the Gospel — the
Gospel is not preached unless all the facts, command-
ments, and promises are fairly, clearly, and fully set
forth. 1 do not affirm any thing in reference to any
sbct or party, in any country or nation where the Gos-
pel, as i have now defined it, is not preached ; but I do
affirm, and fearlessly affirm, that he who hears the
facts, commandments, and promises of the Gospel fair-
ly and fully preached, and then, Wilfully and knowing-
ly refuses to obey the commandments, or any of them,
or will say, as Methodists sometimes say, " If I can"t
go to heaven without being baptized, I won't go at
all," is unjustified, unsanctified, unsaved, and must and

J £0 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

will, if not changed in heart, ultimately be damned.
" If I can't go to heaven without being baptized, 1
won't go at all." Whence came language like that,
but from the heart of a rebel against the Government
of God ?

I saw at once devices of Mr. Terrell, when I saw
the word "essential" in both of the propositions made
for me to affirm. He, it seems, does not like to
shoulder the " essentials" in religion, in a discussion
like this ; for there are no " essentials" in the proposi-
tions which he made for himself; they are all in the
ones made for me. Well, with me, every thing in re-
ligion is essential to something, and as baptism is de-
signed for remission of sins, I fear not to affirm it es-
sential to the pardon of the sins of a. proper subject of
baptism. Mr. Terrell's design was, to make me af-
iirm first, that " immersion is essential to baptism,"
and then, that " baptism is essential to pardon ;" so
that he who is not immersed is not baptized, and he
who is not baptized is not pardoned ; and therefore, all
the pious parties who preach the Gospel, and practice
sprinking are unpardoned and must be lost. Infidels,
Universalists, and all others who love themselves more
than they love God, and their own notions more than
the commandments of God, are gifted in this kind of
argumentation. Let him try to pervert the Gospel,
and subvert the teaching of Christ and the Apostles by
such an argument as this, if he dares. Let him offer
that kind of an argument, and. he will find it as diffi-
cult to prove that Methodists preach the Gospel, as it
would be for him to explain away the language of the
Spirit, " be baptized far the remission of sins.''' Let him
try it, if he wishes to prove that the contemptible and
silly anecdotes, so common among Methodists, and
which are told for the purpose of working up the feel-
ing of the people at the expense of their judgment, are
the facts of the Gospel, by which the Apostles con-
verted men, and led them to the obedience of faith.

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. IG1

Let him try his favorite sophism, if he wishes to prove
'that the mourner's bench, the class-meeting, the band-
society, and other items of the Methodist creed, are the
commandments of the Gospel which the people obeyed
under the preaching of the Apostles.

I repeat it again, that I affirm nothing in reference
to any body except those among whom the gospel is
fully preached; and the Gospel is not and cannot be
fully preached, where either the facts, corrrmandments
or promises .are concealed from the people, Those
understand the gospel, or have an opportunity of un-
derstanding, but will not, are the only people about
whom I affirm any thing; and are the only ones to
whom the word essential applies. All of the untaught
among the various pedo-baptist parties, we leave with
the rest of mankind to the mercy of God: believing as
I do, that he will do all things right, I am persuaded
that there are thousands and tens of thousands now
among the numerous and various parties in Christen-
dom, who would rejoice to do the will of the Rede
er, if they only knew what his will is. I am also per-
suaded that there are thousands who know what the
will of the Lord is but are determined that they lie
will do it. There are many, very many who read
Bible with no other desire but to find the Will
Lord, but they do not succeed, and the reason is, tl
know not where to begin, where to end, nor to wh
the language of the Scriptures applies. They know
not that there are two great lessons to be learned in
Christianity: the one for the world, and the other for
the church ; — the one to teach men out of Christ how
to become Christians — the other to teach men in Ch
how to live Christians ; — the one to teach us how to
obtain pardon and enter the church here, — the othe
teach us how to" live in a justified state and enter
church hereafter. Indeed there are thousands who
never heard of the two lessons of Christianity; they
know not that such things are in the good Book, and
K

I $% DEBATE ON BAPTISM

consequently, are as apt to go to the law of Moses- to
find the plan of salvation through- Jesus Christ, as to
the Gospel of Christ. How many thousands are there
now, in our country, who know not but that the plan
of salvation in the name of the Lord Jesus is as fully
taught in the book of Genesis, as in the Acts of the
Apostles? Now, for this, many of them are not to
blame, for they have been so long under the teaching
of their catechism, and the early and false impressions
made upon their minds by their parents and teachers,,
that it is almost impossible for them to learn the truth.
Nor have their religious teachers been faithful to them,
for they have generally been more concerned about
defending their parties than teaching the truth as it is
in Christ,

To prevent any difficulty that may arise upon this-
subject in the discussion of this proposition, and to en-
able us to understand. this question, I will give you the
division of the Scriptures as I have learned it of the
Apostles whose business it was to " rightly divide the
word of truth," and give both to the world arid the
church the lesson designed for them. We have then,
in the New Testament, four books, Matthew, Mark,
Luke, and John, which properly contain the Life of
Jesus Christ; and they were written that we "might
believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God." But
in these four Books we find the greater part of all our
duties to God and man ; for Jesus was with his Disci-
ples some three years or more, teaching them the
Christian religion, and preparing them to go and teach
the things they had learned of him to the world. Not
withstanding the Apostles were Inspired Men, and
spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit, they
were not allowed by the Redeemer to teach more than
he had taught them, as is evident from the language of
the commission : " Go teach all nations, baptizing
them, &c. 5 teaching them to observe all things whatso-
ever I have commanded you " They were then, limited 5

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT 163

in their teaching to what he had commanded them.
The Holy Spirit was given them, not to teach them
new truths, or things differing from what Christ had
commanded them, but to " bring to their remembrance
all things that Christ had said to them," or in the
language of another passage, to " guide them into all
truth."

That the Apostles did not teach more than Christ
commanded them, is evident, from the language of
Paul to the Thessalanians, 2: 13 : When you received
the imrd of God which ye heard of us, ye received it
not as the word of men, but, as it is in truth, the word
of God." To the Corinthians^ he' says: "If any man
think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him ac-
knowledge that the things that I write unto you are
the commandments of the Lord." " You heard and re-
ceived from us," he says, '•' the word of God ; and the
things which 1 write are the commandments of the
Lord."

We have in the New Testament, in addition to the
four Books already mentioned, a Book called the
" Acts of the Apostles," which contains a faithful his-
tory of the labors of the Apostles, and also the Ser-
mons which the Apostles preached to the world, to show
the unconverted how to become Christians, and obtain the
pardon of their sins. Now does not reason, common
sense, every thing dictate to us, that we should come
to the Acts, where alone the Sermons which the Apos-
tles preached to the unconverted are to be found, to
find row we are to obtain pardon or the remission
of sins ?

The Epistles contain the second lesson of Christian-
ity, and were written, not to the world, but to the
church, not to show the members how to become
Christians, but to show them how to live Christians.
True the Apostles in writing these Epistles, allude in
so many ways, to the way in which the brethren were
pardoned, that we can learn almost every thing that

164 debate on baptism

is essential to pardon from them; but I repeat it, that
the main object of the Epistles is to teach the brethren
the way to heaven.

Now, I assert, that Mr. Terrell will not dare to come
up to the Acts, and show that the Apostles did not
preach baptism for the remission of sins. He will go
to the Epistles, and to any other part of the Bible, to
get rid of what the Apostles taught ; but he will not
come to the Acts and show, that they did not preach
baptism for remission. He dare not preach their
sermons. If he were to preach the death, burial,
and resurrection of Christ, as the facts to be believed,
and faith, repentance, and baptism, as the commands
to be obeyed in order to the remission of sins, as Peter
did upon the day of Pentecost, he would cease to be a
Methodist, and would soon be turned out of the sacred
desk of that party. But I must offer a few arguments
for Mr. Terrell to dispose of.

My first argument shall be drawn from the fact, that
Christ commanded the Apostles to preach faith and
baptism in order to salvation from sin. " Go you,"
said he, u into all the world, and preach the gospel to
every creature. He that believeth, and is baptized,
shall be saved ; but he that beliveth not, shall be
damned." Here we see that salvation from sin is
promised to such, and such only, as both believe, and
are baptized. To preach faith without baptism, or
baptism without faith, is not what the Lord command-
ed; but " he that believeth, and is baptized, shall be
saved."' In view of language like this from tne lips of
the Lord Jesus, how dare any man say, that baptism.
when preceded by faith, is not essential to the remis-
sian of sins? Not he that believeth, shall be saved by
faith alone ; but " he that believeth, and is baptized,
shall be saved." Luke, in his account of the commis-
sions, adds repentance to Mark's account: " That re-
pentance and remission of sins should be preached in
his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem."

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 165>

So the commission reads, " He that believes, repents,
and is baptized, shall receive remission of sins, or shall
be saved, which is the same thing. If the Lord Jesus
understood the subject, and if he was right in com-
manding the Apostles to preach faith, repentance, and
baptism for the remission of sins, then is my proposi-
tion true, and baptism is essential to pardon.

2. My second argument shall be drawn from the
fact, already mentioned, that remission of sins was to
be preached among all nations, in the name of Jesus
Christ. It is in tin name of Jesus Christ, and in that
name alone, that remission of sins is to be had ; for it
is the only name given under heaven, or known among
men by which we can be saved. Now, baptism is the
act. and the only act in the New Testament, by which
we enter into the name of Christ. " Baptizing them
into the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit." Math.
28: K9. {l Fer as many of you as have been baptized w~
to Christ, have put on Christ." Gal. 3: 27. Know yot,
not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus
Christ were baptized into his death." Rom. 6: 3. —
" They were baptized ixto the name of the Lord Jesus."
Acts 8: 16. These passages put it beyond doubt, that
w r hen we enter into the name of Christ, we are baptized
into that name. Now, remission of sins, is not out of,
but in the name of Jesus Christ: so it follows, that we
are baptized into the name of Christ, for remission of
sins which is only in ids name. Mr. Terrell never can
meet this argument without showing one of two things
to be true ; 1st. That we can receive remission of sins
as well out of Christ as in Christ; or. 2nd. That we
can Scripturally enter into Christ, without being bap-
tized into him. He cannot show either of these to be
true. No man ever Scriptural iy entered into Christ,
without being baptized into h m; and no man can
Scripturally receive remission of sins out of him. These
are my sentiments, and these sentiments I am pre-
pared to defend. Our sentiments are sometimes

166 DEBATE ON EAPT1SM

slanderously reported, for there are some who affirm
that we say remission of sins is in baptism. We never
thought so, — we never believed it, and consequently,
never said it. We have always believed, and always
taught the people every where, and in all places, to
repent, and be baptized into the name of Jesus Christ,
for the remission of sins in that nnme. Remission of
sins had been preached again and again before the
days of Jesus Christ; but never until the Apostles be-
gan, as the Prophets had foretold, and as Jesus had
commanded, saying, "beginning at Jerusalem," was
remission preached in the n<tme of the Lord Jesus.

3. My third argument shall be drawn from the
preaching of the Apostles. Fifty days after the Lord
was crucified, and seven days after he gave them the
commission for all the world and ascended to heaven,
we find the Apostles all at Jerusalem, the beginning
place; and when the Spirit had come upon them, Pe-
ter stood up with the Eleven, and declared to the Jews,
who were assembled there out of every nation under
heaven, that Jesus, whom they had crucified, was God's
Son, and was both Lord and Christ. " When they
heard this, they were pricked in their hearts, and said
unto Peter and to the rest of the Apostles, men and
brethren, what shall we do?' (Now Mark.) "Then
Peter said unto them; Repent, and be baptized every one
of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remis-
sion of sixs ; and you shall receive the gift of the
Holy Spirit." Acts 2: 37, 38. This passage from Pe-
ter's discourse needs no comment, for it declares in
language to plain to be misunderstood, that baptism
is for remission of sins. There is no more reason to
say, that this passage teaches a falsehood, than there
is that any other passage in the New Testament does.
The man who can say, in the presence of his God, that
this part of the Bible is false, would, if party purposes
required it, say that every other part is false. Nothing
but infidelity causes a man to deny any part of the

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 1 67

Bible. Paul was pardoned as the people were upon
the day of Pentecost; for when he had heard, be-
icved, repented, and had prayed for three days ;
Ananias said to him, " Why tarriest thou? arise, and
be baptized, and wash aunt/ thy sins, calling on the
name of the Lord." Acts. 22: 16. Ananias did not say,
as a Methodist, " Pray on brother Saul, that is the way
to get religion ; for there have been thousands pardon-
ed at the mourner's bench." No, no, he was more
faithful to God than that. He well knew the Lord
never authorized any such teaching as that, and that
he could not faithfully discharge his duty, but by say-
ing, " arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sifos"
Baptism was essential to the pardon of Paul.

4. My fourth argument is, that baptism is designed
for remission of sins, but is not spoken of in the New
Testament as being designed to secure any other
blessing. If baptism is not for remission of sins, what
j-s it for? Mr. Terrell cannot show any other dc
of baptism ; and yet, if he denies that it is for remis-
sion of sins, he is solemnly bound to show what it is
for. Let him come, up to the work with his " itihde-
Mme doctrine of faith only" and show the design of
baptism.

(Time expired.)

[mr. Terrell's 1st reply — 3d prop.]
Gentlemen Moderators —

I present myself before you with feelings of solemni-
ty, when I consider the great importance of the propo-
sition we are to discuss to-day. The question of de-
bate is an important question, inasmuch as it relates to
the forgiveness of sins. How do we obtain the pardon
of past sins?

Mr. Pritchard complains of the proposition. He
would wish it quite different from what it is. But he
fias no reason to complain, for he has already agreed
to debate this proposition, and he cannot now get clear

16S DEBATE ON BAPTISM

of it. The time to have complained of the proposition
if he did not like it, was before he agreed to debate it.
He says baptism is essential to pardon; therefore the
proposition is fair.

The question for debate to-day is, whether water
baptism is essential to the pardon of past sins, or
whether we may obtain the pardon of sins without
baptism. Mr. Pritchard argues that water baptism is-
essential to the pardon of past sins, and Consequently
that no one can be pardoned without it. 1 deny. I
contend that a man may be pardoned without baptism.
Mr. P. says that a man who willfully refuses to be bap-
tized will be lost. 1 agree with him in this, for a man
who wilfully disobeys the gospel will be lost.

He affirms that baptism preceded by faith and repen-
tance is essential to the pardon of sin. This doctrine
I have not been able to find in all the bible. I admit
the Lord will take veangence on them that know not
God and obey not the gospel. All that is right enough;
but that is not the question. Can we obtain pardon
without baptism? That is the question.

I am persuaded that if any one had come in while
be was speaking he would have concluded that he was
following me. He displayed some shrewdness, or pow-
er of prophecy, in his procedure. He would first speak
on my side of the question, and after arguing my side
of the question, he commenced explaining his own. If
he will attendto his own side of the question, I think
he will have his hands full.

I think there is some discrepancy betwen his speech
last evening and the oneyou heard this morning. The
epistles, he has discovered, were written to the saints
On yesterday he did not discover this. In this he has
crossed his own track. He tells you that I must not ap-
peal to the epistles. I appeal not to them, but to the
teaching of Jesus and the apostles. Now Christ in-
tended his word for all. The gospel was intended for
the whole family of man.

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 169

He affirmed that baptism is essential to pardon. —
Pardon means justification or the remission of sins. —
St. Paul makes them convertable terms. Salvation is
of the same import. Paul says that he wills that all
men should be saved. The angels of God at the birth
of the Savior declare that Grod wills the Salvation of
all men, and that the gospel was intended for every
creature. Yes, Christian friends, thank God, the gospel
was intended for every creature, under all circumstan-
ces. Hence the Apostle says, "it is of faith to the end
the promise might be sure to all the seed.

Pie was pleased to tell you what course I would pur-
sue, but I am not going to the epistles to pove my po-
sition. J am not afraid to go to the Acts of the Apos-
tles where the sermons of the apostles are recorded.

Salvation is not by baptism as I will show, but it is
by faith. It is not by ordinances or works of any kind*
but by faith — faith being the condition. This I will
prove by a quotation from the 4th chapter of Romans.
'■Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him
for righteousness." In this passage faith is presented
as the condition of our pardon. What plainer proof
could any one want? The gentleman's proposition is
against the bible, for baptism is no where said to be
the condition of pardon, but faith is here made the
condition of pardon.

The gentleman quotes the commission: u Go ye into
all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature.
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, and
he that believeth not shall be damned." But this pas-
sage does not say, he that is not baptized shall be damned,
but "he that believeth not shall be damned." This pas-
sage proves my position, that, faith is the condition. —
The gentleman may try, but he can never get over this
position.

Should he undertaketo prove that faith is notthe con-
dition of pardon he will come in direct contact with
the gospel, for the gospel is divinely consistent in ail

170 DEBATE ON BAPTFM

its parts; and we are taught by the passage just quo-
ted that faith is the condition, and the only essential.
To this the Savior's own words testify; "he that belie-
veth not shall be damned." Faith is the great and the
important — the mighty requisite. Let me read from
John 3: 14: "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the
wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up,
that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but
have everlasting life." Now here was the great re-
quisite, — looking to Christ by faith, and as the children
of Israel looked to the brazen serpent, and were healed
even so, the Lord promises that we shall be healed by
looking to Christ by faith.

This does not exclude the unbaptized, for &very be-
liever was pardoned. A man condemned is considered
guilty, and has the vengeance of a broken law, hanging
over his head till pardoned; but when his reprival is
signed by the governor, he is no longer guilty.

Mr. Campbell says that baptism is the pardoning
act — that we go down into the water wicked and unho-
ly, and that we come out of the water pure and holy.
He thus makes baptism the line of demarcation between
the righteous and the wicked. Before it all are wicked
but after it all are righteous. But our Savior says,
"he that believeth is justified," "is passed from
death unto life," in the present tense— not will be after
baptism. Mark the difference between Mr. Campbell
and our Savior. Mr. Campbell says, baptism is the
converting act but, the Savior says, "he that believeth
is passed from! death unto life." Show me a man
that believes and I will show you a man that is saved.
Even John the haptist, that great Baptist that ail Bap-
tists talk so much about, says, "he that believeth on the
Son hath everlasting life," in the presenttense. To have
preached the doctrine ©f my friend, he should have said
he that believeth on the Son shall have everlvsting life,
if in addition to his faith he will be immersed in some
pond.

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 171

I now come to Acts 10: 43: ; To him give all the
prophets witness, that, through his name, whosoever oe-
keoeth in him shall receive the remission of sins. This
winds up the chapter with my friends doctrine. All the
prophets are against him. They all bear witness that
1 am right, that whosoever believeth in him shall re-
_eive the the remission of sins.'' Let him show that
one of the prophets have said that a man must be bap-
tized before he can receive the remission of sins. But
this he never can do. Here then I have a triumphant
argument, sustained by all the holy prophets, and
sanctioned by the apostle, the lirst time he ever ad-
dressed a Gentile congregation, that through his name
whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of
sins. It does not say, that if they are baptized they
shall be pardoned, but whosoever believeth shall re-
ceive remission of sins.

I now call the gentlemans attention to another strong
proof text, found Acts 13: 39. It reads as a; follows:
And by him all that believe are justified from all
things, from which ye could not be justified by the law
of Moses.' 1 This is a strong passage. It includes all
that believe, and the word all don't mean part. It is
like Lorenzo Dow's chain with five links; all of them,
and he says, a—ll don't mean part. This language is
clear and explicit. All that belive are justified from all
things, from which ye could not be justified by the law
of Moses. Faith is the condition here, and the only
condition, and all that believe are justified— not shall
be justified, if they are baptized, but ar>> justified, from
all things from which they could not be justified by the
law of Moses. Mow could language be more clear
and explicit? Who could wish for stronger evidence?

I must quote one more passage, which reads as fol-
lows: Whosover believeth that Jesus is the Christ is
born of God; and every one that leveth him that be-
&at, leveth him also that is begotten of Him." 1 John
h: 1. Observe, my christian friends, he does net say

172 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

"He that believeth that Jesus is the Christ shall be born
of God, if he is immersed" as my friend, Mr. Pritchard
would say, but "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the
Christ is," in the present tense, "born of God." Here
faith is the condition of justification, and the only con-
dition: which I think I have now shown by incontesti-
ble evidence from the holy scripture. This is an argu-
ment against Mr. Pritchard's doctrine that he can never
answer.

I have said the gospel is intended for man — the whole
family of man, in all the world and under all circum-
stances. God's plan of saving sinners is adapted to
man in every condition in which he can be placed in
this life. That is the plan of justification by faith. A
man can exercise faith a hundred miles from water, a
hundred miles from the administrator of baptism, or
even on a sick bed when he has no strength to be bap-
tized. Yes I say the gospel applies to such as these,
and tells them, in language that may be truly and pro-
perly styled "good news" "whosoever believeth thai
Jesus is the Christ is born of God." But Mr. Pritchard's
gospel has no good news for any such persons. He
would tell them that baptism is essential to pardon, and
consequently that they could not be pardoned without
baptism.

The gospel of Christ is to every creature, but there
are thousands upon thousands, who may hear Mr.
Pritchard's gospel to whom it would be no good news.
Call himto thebed of the sicK man, and askhim to preach
the gospel to him. He tells him that baptism is essen-
tial to the pardon of sins. The man responds, I am
unable to be baptized. According to Mr. Pritchard's
doctrine he must be lost. My christian, friends, do you
believe this doctrine? No; you cannot believe it. It
is too absurd. It would be no good news to any por-
tion of the human race where they could not be im-
mersed.

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 173

But the gospel of Christ which, I find in my bible,
thank God can comfort the drooping heart of man, in
any condition where the providence of God may place
him. Man can believe in anyplace and in any condi-
tion, and the scripture says, that "he that believeth the
Son hath everlasting life." This is good news of great
joy to all people" and makes man depend on the grace
of God for salvation, and not on some one to baptize
him.

The doctrine of justification by faith has long, stood
the test against all opposition, and must stand. It is
the blessed doctrine of the bible. Let the gentleman,
then,. come up to the work, and meet these arguments
if he can, and he will have enough to do without anti-
cipating my arguments as he did in his last speech.
[Time expired.]

MR. PRITCHARD's SECOND ADDRESS 3RD PROP.

Gentlemen Moderators:

So it seems, Mr. Terrell is determined not to follow
me. 1 can say nothing worthy of his attention. He is
determined to make his own speeches, and preach his
old sermons, with which this community have been
bored for the last year. He will not join issue with
me. What can be the reason ? Since this discussion
commenced, we have had no debate, for he will not
debate with me. He has paid no more attention to
my arguments, since the discussion commenced, than
merely to allude to them, and sometimes not even
that. How is a man to illustrate, elucidate, and show
the strength of his positions, unless his opponent will
assail them ? What has his speech this morning to do
with the proposition ? What has a lecture on faith to
do with the design of Christian baptism, more than a
lecture on the office of Bishop, or Deacon ? The issue
is not whether faith, repentance, or conversion is es-
sential to pardon, but is baptism, when preceded by
faith, repentance and a change of heart, designed for

174 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

remission of sins? I truly regret such a stupid reply.
I believe as firmly as any man now living, that no man
ever was, or ever can be saved in this world, or in the
world to come, without faith. I do not believe that a
man can be saved from sin by baptism, without faith
and repentance. JN T or do I believe that baptism will
do a man any good, if it is not preceded by faith. This
I showed on yesterday. Baptism without faith, such
as the Methodists have, is solemn mockery. But the
issue is not about faith, nor repentance, but upon the
design of baptism :— is baptism designed for remission ,
or for something else ? I have offered four arguments
upon the issue agreed upon, but to none of them has
Mr. Terrell replied. Nor can he, if his salvation de-
pended upon it, and he well knows it. If he will take
these arguments from me, I will give up the question ;
for I depend upon them to prove my position.

If he will not follow me, I must try and follow him.
I would as soon debate the question of faith alone, as
any thing else. Before exposing the " wholesome and
comfortable doctrine of faith only" I must expose the
sophistry and infidelity of his pretended reply to my
arguments. What then, is his reply ? Why it is this :
John says, " He that believes is not condemned," and
therefore, Jesus did not tell the truth when he said,
" He that believes, and is baptized, shall be saved."
John says, " He that believeth hath eternal life," and
therefore, Peter did not preach the truth when he said,.
" Repent, and be baptized for remission of sins." John
says, " Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is
born of God," and therefore, the Lord Jesus told a
falsehood when he said, "Except a man be born of
water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom
of God." How does the fact of faith being essential to ,
pardon, justification, or remission, prove that baptism,
repentance, or any other command is not essential?
It is the language of his creed, and not of the Bible,,
that we are justified by faith only. The Bible put the

AND TRE. HOLY SPIRIT, 175

word faith, and the word only together but once, and
then it asserts in so many words, that, • i We are justi-
fied by works, and not by faith only." James, 2: 24.

As the passage from John's first epistle, 5th chap.,
is a favorite among the advocates of faith only, I will
pay my respects to it in a special manner. John men-
tions the new birth several times in this same epistle.
In the 5th chap., 1st verse, he says, '■ Whosoever be-
lieyeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God." In
the 4th chap., 7th verse, he says, " Beloved, let us
love one another : for love is of God ; and every one
that ptvethj is born of God." In the 2nd chap., last
verse, he says, " Every one that dozth righteousness is
born of fyim." Nov/, I ask any man who believes the
word of God. if John taught, in this epistle, three sepa-
rate and distinct new births; one by faith alone, one
by love alone, and one by doing righteousness, without
eLther faith, or love ? We all know he did not. Weli,
then, you are all compelled to agree with me, that it
was not by faith, or love alone> but by faith, love, and
doing righteousness* &11 together, that the people were
born of God. To do righteousness, is to obey the com-
mandments of God. Peter says, "Born again, not of
corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of
Ged" And Jesus says, " Except a man be born of wa-
ter, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of
God." Being born of water and the Spirit, makes it
none the less true, that we are also born of faith, of
love, of doing righteousness, and of the word of God ;
and being born of either of these, makes it none the
less true, that we are born ofitw&r, and of the Spirit
There is but one new birth in the bible, and the pas-
sages now quoted, puts it beyond doubt, that the faith,
the love, the doing righteousness, the word of God, the
water, and the Spirit are ail essential to the one new
birth. Note that sir, and in— your next speech tell us
how it is, that one of these five passages teaches what
is true, and ail the other four teach what is false

176 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

With me, they are all true. Not one of them says it
is by faith, love, or any thing else alone.

He told you that he was not going- to the espistles,
as I said he would, yet the very first passage he, quo-
ted, was from the 4th of Romans : " Abraham be-
lieved God, and it was counted unto him for righte-
ousness." He quoted this passage to prove justifica-
tion by faith alone. Now, the Apostle was not trying
in this chapter, to prove justification by faith alone,
but to prove that men are justified without circumci-
sion, and without obedience to the law of Moses.
Hence he says, " Faith was reckoned to Abraham for
righteousness." How was it then reckoned ? when he
was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision ? Not in cir-
cumcision, but in uncircumcision. And he received
the sign of circumcision : a seal of the righteousness
of the faith which he had, yet being uncircumcised :
that he might be the father of all them that believe,
though they be not circumcised. Rom. 4: 10, 11. The
controversy was here between Paul^ and the Jews who
were at Rome. It was not about obedience to the
Gospel of Christ ; but about the works of the law of
Moses. Paul maintained that the Gospel was design-
ed to save men without the works of the law. The
Jews maintained that, " Except you be circumcised af-
ter the manner of Moses, you cannot be saver!.'' 1 Acts, 15:
1. So " the works 1 ' which Paul mentions in this chap-
ter, are not the commands of Jesus Christ, but circum-
cision, and other things, after the manner of Moses.
That Paul did not think of teaching pardon, just
cation or remission by faith alone, without any actio ■
upon our part, I will now prove by this same epistle to
the Romans. In the third, fourth, fifth, and tenth,
chapters, he speaks of our being justified by faith ; but
never says it is by faith alone. In the third chapter,
24th verse, he says, " Being justified freely by his grace,
through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. Whom
God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. \ \

rn his blood, to declare his righteousness for the famis?
nan of sins that are past." How can we be justified
freely by his grac% if we are justified by faith alone?
How can the righteousness of God be for remission of
sins, if remission is by our faith alone? We are justifi-
ed, not by faith, righteousness, or grace, alone, but by
all o^ them together.

In the 5th chap., 9th verse, he says, " being now just-
ified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through
him." But if it is by faith aloac, how can it be by the
blood of Christ that we are justified? But I must call
ais attention to one of his proofs texts, in Rom., 10th
chap.: "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the
Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God
hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved/*
Verse 9. " Whosoever shall call upon the name of
the Lord shall be saved." Verse 13. Are confessing,
believing, and calling on the Lord, all faith alone, Mr.
Terrell ? Here are three things, and not one alone, by
which we are saved. W T e have now seen, that we
are said to be justified by six different things: By
laith, by grace, by the blood of Christ, by righteous-
ness, by confessing with the mouth, and by calling on
the name of the Lord ; and it is just as true that we
are justified by blood, grace, or confession, as it is that
we are justified by faith. But how can it be as true,
if we are justified by faith alone.

Mr. Terrell denies that the blood of Christ, the grace
of God, baptism, repentance, prayer, the death, burial,
or resurrection of Christ have anything to do with our
justification ; for it is by faith, and by faith only, that
we are justified, he says. Only means ,72 £ thing by it-
self, or one thing, to the exclusion of every other thing:
so justification by faith only, means justification by
faith, separate from the blood of Christ, the g:ace of
God, and every thing ehe. The word on-y is thus de-
fined by Crahb, in his "English Synonymes -:" " Only,
-contracted from onely t signifying in the form of unity.
L

I F8 DBK»TE ON BAPTISM

and is employed for that of which there is to more. A per-
son has one child, is a positive expression that be-
speaks its own meaning; a person has a single child,
conveys the idea that there ought to be or might he
more : a person has an only child, implies that he never
had any more.' 1 p. 251.

So faith only, not only means that faith is by itself.
but that it has always been alone? and never had any
Thing else with it. Well might James have said to an
advocate of faith only, " Writ than know, vain man }
that faith without works, is dead."

But before I leave this epistle to the Romans, I will
:-how you ivhen, and how they were made free from sin.
Turn, if you please, to the 6th chapter, verses 17$ 18 ?
and hear the Apostle : " But God be thanked, that
whewax, [Wesley's Translation] ye were the servants
of sin : but ye have oleyed from the heart that farm of
doctrine which was delivered you." (Now mark.)
" Being then mads free*:^m sitf, ye become the serv-
ants of righteousness." When was it that they were
made free from sin? Why then, at the time they
" obey :d from ike heart that form of doctrine which was
delivered them." What can. be plainer than this?
Does it not show, beyond all doubt, that the people
were not made free from sin by faith only, but by faith
in God's promises, and obedience to his command-
ments. It was not the doctrine, but the form of the
doctrine that they obeyed when they were made free
from sin. The u doctrine delivered" w r as, that Christ
died) was buried, and raised again ; and ike form of
this doctrine, as set forth in the first part of this chap-
ter, was, tha: th R ; mans died to sin r were buried with
Christ in baptism, and w^ere raised again to walk in
newness of life. Thus we see, that at the very time
they were hur&d in baptism, in obedience to the form
of doctrine, they were made free from sin. This I:
call my fifth argument, in support of the position that
baptism is for remission of sins.

A.VD THE HOLY SPIRIT. !T>

Bi9t Pawi is not alone in teaching that we are puri-
fied or made free from sin in obedience to the Lord\<

word, for Peter also says to the brethren : ''Seeing ,
have purified your souls in obeying the truth through
Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that
wen love one another with a pure heart fervently . ::
ilere we see, that the brethren to whom Peter wrote
were made free from sin, and purified in ob'dkyice —
w in obeying the truth through the Spirit.'' How can
this be tr:;.e. if we are made free from sin by faith o?ihj,
■without any obedience ? Let Mr. Terrell answ.-: .
he professes to respect the word of God. Methodist
teach that the moment we believe we are brough:
ijiow God, and to experience pardon and ax^insi
■ r.ojiis change by faith only. This is Methodism a>
trr.ught by the entire party. It is by faith only without
any obedience- that we obtain these blessings. Johz-
rays, " He that says he kmsws God, and keeps not his
commandments, is a liar, and the truth is ml
1st Epistle, 2. 4

, Mr. Terrell toid you that Methodists donofcheL:.
in justification by faith aie-ie, but hy faith only, and tha:
does not mean in the Discipline, one thing aiont .
or one thing hy itself. As to what they bditve, or v
their real sentiments are, I cannot speak for them "... .
hut I know that the greater part of them really ag ; ■
with us in sentiment, if they only knew it. In
discussion I have nothing to do with what they ? . ■ ■ .

:vc 9 but what they really Uach. When the
justification by faith only, they teach what I knov.
they do no; believe, and what no tffwe man ever aid
or ever can believe ; but that they teach it I will nov,

prove. What is the language of this creed o, tl s'

"Wherefore, that, we are justified bp fmth only, is u
most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort.^ Hei e
it is as plain as language can make it. But the v.
* only" in the discipline does not mean one thing alotit-.
iays, but one thing, and several other things vvith it

180 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

Let us see how this is. In the form of marriage laid
clown in the Discipline, on page 115, I find where a
man is required to " forsake all others, and to cleave to
his wife, and her onh>.' : I now ask Mr. Terrell if only
here means one alone, or does it mean that he shall
'cleave to his wife and five or six others ? He knows
it means one to the exclusion of all others ; and yet he
tells us, that only in the Discipline does not mean one
alone, but several together.

In Watson's Life of Wesley, (which, by the by, is
not the : : rfe of Wesley, but a book published for the
M. E. Church, to teach Methodism,) I find the follow-
ing: : " Alas ! Flow little is the difference between as-
serting, either, I. That we are justified by works,
which is popery bare-faced ; or, 2. That we are justi-
fied by faith a.nd works, which is popery refined or
vailed ; or, 3. That we are justified by faith alone.
but by such a faith as includes all good works. What
a poor shift is this, — I will not say that we are justifi-
ed by works, nor yet by faith and works, because I have
subscribed articles and homilies which maintain just
the contrary. No ; I say, ice a?-e justified by faith alone:'
p. 100.

This speaks for itself. Mr. Terrell is the man who
is guilty of the " poor shift" of which this writer speaks;
for he says, it is by faith alone that we are justified,
"but 'by such a faith as includes all good works." —
Here is a note at the bottom o( the same page, which
says : " The faith which justifies does not include good
works," but it will after " it has justified us, be followed.
by good works." This is Methodism. But I must
read a little more :

" Surely the difficulty of assenting to the propostion,
that faith is the only condition of justification, must
arise from not understanding it. We mean thereby
thus much, that it is the only thing, without which no
one is justified ; the only thing l;hat is immediately,
indispensably, absolutely requisite in order to pardon.

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 181

As on the one hand, though a man should have eve-
ry thing else, without faith, yet he cannot be justified ;
so on the other, though he be supposed to want ev-ry
thing else, yet if he hath faith, he cannot bz bat justified"
p. 148.

la not this faith alone ? if a man has faith, without
the blood of Christ, the grace of God, or any thing
else, '• he cann'ot as but justified." I repeat it, the doc-
trine of u f:;iih only" denies the blood of Christ, the grace
of God, repentance, baptism, prayer, and every thing-
else being essential to our pardon. Faith is the only
thing, in justification, and the only thing essential to it.

Here is :: Carr:p-oellism Exposed, 1 ' in which I find
Methodism thus •' exposed.'' Mr. Phillips, the Author
of this expositions represents the *• Campbellite" as say-
ing : '-That if the condition'' (of pardon) " should
prove to be faiUi alone, the addition of baptism must be
harmless, inasmuch as faith is retained as a part of
the condition.'' (Now mark.) -i But the most ordina-
ry reader will see the danger of making that a part
only, which God had made the wholk.' 1 p. 44.

The blood of Christ, then, and the grace of God are
not parts of the condition of pardon, for faith is the

"only e. '< and the •' wholk'' of the condition.

He need not try to teach me Methodism, for I under-
stand the ■• whoUd? of it. In my next speech I will prove
that faith is not the condition of pardon, nor any part
of the condition. Neither faith, repentance or bap-
tism is the condition! Will Mr. Terrell tell us what
the word condition means ?

(Time expired.)

[mb. Terrell's 2d replay — 3d rROi\]
G'-ntlemen Moderators —

1 have now but three speeches to make on the proposi-
tion before us, and consequently shall not be able to no-
tice all the irrelevant matters brought forward by the
gentleman. He has learned that the epistles were ad-
dressed to to the saints. We all knew this before. It

VS2 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

is no new doctirne; but that is no reason why I should
not refer to them. I suppose saint is a holy person.
and I can see no other reason why I should not be .-
lowed to quote language in this debate addressed to
holy persons.

I wish now to show you the gentleman's candor in
quoting from Mr. Wesley. The gentleman now tells
you that me and my party believe that faith is all that
is necessary to justification and quotes Mr. Wesley :o
prove it: but I will read you the whole of the passage
of whrch he took care only to read you apart. It r..
as follows:

"Surely the difficult}- of assenting to the proposi:
thatfaith Is the only condition, of justification mir
rise from not understanding it. We mean thereby
much, that it is the only thing that is immediately, in-
dispensably, absolutely requisite in order to pardon. —
As on the one hand, though a man should have e
thing else, without faith yet he cannot be justified: so
on the other, though he be supposed to want every t
else, yet if he hath faith, he cannot be but y
tied. For suppose a sinner of any kind or degree in ft
full sense of his total ungodliness, of his utter ina 1 .
to think, speak or do good, and his absolute meet
for hell fire; suppose I say. this sinner, helpless
hopeless, casts himself wholly on the mercy of Goo
Ghrist, (which indeed he cannot do but by the grace ci'
God.) who can doubt but he is forgiven in that mom
Who will affirm that 'any thing more is in dispense
required, before that sinner can be justified?" TT e
Sermon on Jus/ifica'ion.

Now this proves thatfaith is the great requbite--
great principle through which the sinner comes
casts himself down at the foot of the cross, acko
edging himself a poor undone rebel, and that fai
the onlii condition of pardon.

Mr. Pritchard calls upon me to tell what i mean by
condition. By the condition through or by whic
are justified, 1 mean the principle, the only prin

Mf* THE HOLY SPIRIT. if 3

h any man can be justified. But while I ho d
that faith is the condtion and the only condition of jus:' -
ion, I believe repentance and baptism are meav.s
of justification. But I do not believe that baptis: .
mare of a means than prayer.

H-e complains ot rn} r going to the epistles, and if it
suit him any better, I will quote from Walter Sec
■pel Restored. 15 Mr. Scott says. "There are m
I are not pardoned in baptism." This Z\u\ See.
a distinguished member in the gentleman's own ■:
and yet he de-dares that there are many that are
pardoned in baptism.

Baptism is profitable for us. It strengthens .- ix
■aith and is auxilerey, to it, but not essential to par
The Jailor enquired, "Sirs. What must I do to be saved? ■'
Paul did not say, be baptised: but he told him \ i
"believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou sha
*aved and thy house.' Here my Christian frh: .
aoctrine of justification by ikich.
But the gentleman says triumphantly thatlhaw :
aced one case of Justification by faith (%\o\\t — h
Look at the case I have just produced. The Jailo;

ired to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. , • a
i:\a\i is the condition and the only condition. 1
10th chapter, we timl the same doctrine.
•Teththe righteousness which is of the L:
: ;.he man which doeth these things shall live by the- ' .

i -igbteousness which of faith speaketh
V/isje, Say not in thine heart who shall ascend into
? (that is. to bring Christ down from

dJ defend into the- (that is, to b:?, )

- 1 again from the dead.) But what saith it
word is nigh I ri in thy mouth, and hi t ; .

that is the word of faith v preach; tha:

with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and !
believe in thine heart that God hath raised h
'h :.:. thou shalt be saved. For wit v the
I Udicveth unto righteousness, and with tU<
fflflsiorais made unto salvation. "'

I'M DEBATE ON BAPTISM

Here we are said to believe unto righteousn ess, or as
you would say [Heve Mr. T. Pointed to Mr. Pritchard.]
into righteousness- The gentleman seems to have
a smiling countenance. He must feel very much
pleased abcut something!

This passage shows that faith is the only condition of
pardon. Again, the apostle says, "the promise is sure
to all the seed." Xow it is not sure if it cannot be re-
ceived without baptism, for there are many circumstan-
ces in which it is difficult and even impossible to be bap-
tized. Morever, the gentleman's doctrine always de-
fers God's time. God says, "Now is the day of salva-
tion," but the gentleman would say put it off till you
can find water. God says my word is nigh thee, even
in thy mouth and in thy heart, but the gentleman would
say, it is as far ofi'as the water. Yes, it is nigh thee,
not at the creek nor the river. Go with me to the cham-
ber of sickness when the cold blast of winter is chilling
the stoutest frame. Man is made to tremble at the im-
mense darkness and bitterness of the cold. We behold
the sick woman there upon a dying bed, having been
worn out by long suffering and she is in an extreme state
of debility, and she asks Mr. P., What shall I do to be
saeed? He answers, Jesus came into the world to save
sinners His word is nigh the; his yoke is easy and hi-
burden is light, "Now is the accepted time and the
day of salvation." Believe and thou shalt be saved.
She says I believe thai Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
May such a sinner as I am come and be accepted o^
him He says, she may. She says what shall I do? —
Mr. Pritchard says, be immersed for the remission of
sins. The woman trembles. Nothing is seen without
but fearful darkness; the storm rides aloft and howls a-
round the little cabin. Ah, says the dying woman I
thought you said "his yoke was easy and his burden
light? 1 I am too sick to turn in my bed. I find that to-
day is not the day of salvation. Go says Mr. Pritchard
and get me a meat trough or a trough dug that I may
immerse this woman. I mav launch into eternitv be-

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 185

fore that can be done, says the woman. This is no fan-
cy sketch. The like has happened in this conntry.

A man may get his back broke and cannot be im-
mersed. Yet Mr. Pritchard would let the man g<>
down to hell in despair, because he cannot be immers-
ed. This subject is enough to warm any one's heart
- — I feel a holy zeal. My heart burns within me. —
God's religion ia a universal religion, — a gospel that
all can now receive. Yes, it is a universal religion —
'• Go into all the world, and preach the gospel to eve-
ry creature." Here baptism is not made the sine qua-
non in order to pardon. John says, he that believeth
is born of God. The gentleman cannot find where it
is said, he that is baptized is born of God. Baptism is
not the condition, nor prayer — faith is the condition.

Mr. Campbell believes that all the absolving power
of the blood of Christ is in the water. His words, as I
find them in the Christian System, are : " The ab-
solving or pardoning power of the blood of Christ is
transferred to water." Here is water salvation for
you ! The pardoning power transferred to water ! In-
deed ! Are you prepared for such doctrine as this ?

The gentleman's baptismal regeneration is Roman
Catholicism, as I will now prove, by reading D'x\u-
bigne's History of the Reformation.

[Here Mr. Terrell read some passage from D'Aubig-
ne, to show that Romanists believe in baptizmal re-
generation, but as he did not refer to the page, J am
unable to find it.]

Now you see where the gentleman stands. Here is
where the gentleman gets his baptismal regeneration,
lie has to go back to the holy mother ! His doctrine
and Romanism are the same. This I have now proved,
and he cannot escape. You see now who it is that is
related to the holy mother. Mr. Pritchard is the man.
He believes, with Mr. Campbell, that the pardoning
power of the blood of Christ, is transferred to water,
and I have now shown that Roman Catholics believe
the same.

186 BEBATE ON BAPTISM

He now can talk about "coming out of Babylon,"
for he holds the same doctrine with old Mystery Bab-
ylon herself. You now see where these self-called.
Reformers are driven to. They hold the same doc-
trine relative to the pardon of sin, held by the Roman
Catholic Church.

I believe in a system of salvation that can reach man
in every condition in which it can possibly find him,
and bring pardoning mercy to his soul. 1 believe in
bible religion, which says. i; now is the accepted time
and now is the day of salvation ;" but ] do not believe
in the doctrine of my friend, which says, noi re
the accepted time, but some future time when the per-
son can be immersed. I believe in a reiigion feu
says, - ; Whosoever will, let him come, and partafc
the water of life freely :" and not in the religion of
_Mr. Pritchard; which says to the man on the c
bed, you cannot come unless you can be imme:
No; Christian friends: bless the Lord, faith is the
flition and the only condition. This blessed doct
thank God, of justification by faith, can save the ;
sinner with his back broken, which would rend*
impossible for him to be immersed. This blessed
trine, thanks to God. brings comfort to the soul oi
dying man, without telling him that he must be
dipped in some pond, or that a trough must be m
during which time he might launch into eternity.

Christian friends, you need not be surprised
speaking warm on this subject. I feel that I am
diceting the great vital principle of heart- felt reli:
Many of you who hear me to-day. have felt its ha;,
ed influences, and can remember well when it firs':
tered your hearts. Who would exchange this bh
religion, this blessed assurance of acceptance
God. for that which depends on the administrator oi
baptism, or that which depends on health and the op-
portunity of being immersed ?

The Lord can speak peace to the soul of the sinner,
on the sick bed or a hundred miles from an adm

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 1ST

/r of baptism, and he has promised that he will do

is I have already shown. He can believe in Jesus

my place, and in any circumstances; and he that

.eveth in him is passed from death into life. The

prophet said, he that belie veth in him shall not be

confounded. Here, on this position, I stand, and from

it I cannot be moved. This doctrine has stood the test

opposition for ages, and ever must stand. Fi
here the gentleman cannot move me.

see then, that he has made a most signal failure,
that I have established a proposition, which over-
is his doctrine at one sweep. Out of this difficulty
;■ can escape. Here I shall hold him. There
is no alternative. Fail he must.
Time expired.

. if S THI.'ID ADDRESS 3RD PR .

tie men Moderators:
There were some things in the last speech of Mr.. Ter-

that I was glad to hear from him, and things fcoo,

:h, if I am not mistaken, he will wish he had saved
tbi another occasion ; but before noticing these things,
I will briefly notice a few passages introduced by him
in his first speech, and offer one or two more arguments
in support of my position. To prove justification by
faith only, he quoted the passage. •• as Moses lifted
up the serpant in the wilderness, even so mest the
Son of man be lifted up; that whosoever believeth in

-hould not parish, but have eternal life 1 ." Now,
upon this I remark. 1. That it is not pardo.'f, but '• e-
tc.rnal life'' in the world to come that is here promised
to the believer; which life, Mr. Terrell dare not say.

)tained by faith only, without any obedience. "2.
When it is said. •• whosoever believeth, shall"' have so

so, it is always said upon the supposition that

" believer does and will obey the Lord. 3. The

Israelites, when " Moses lifted up the serpent in the

were not saved from death by faith on //,

L s 8 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

but by and act of faith, — in obedience to the command,
*'- Look upon the serpent of brass, and live." They did
look, as the Lord commanded, and " If a serpent had
bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he
lived." Num. 21:8. They were saved by an act of
faith, — by physical action, — in obedience,— when they
hol;ed as the Lord commanded. " Even so." Mark
that " Even so!" "Even so must the Son of man bo
lifted up," that whosoever will do, as the Israelites did,
brieve and do all things spoken and commanded,
" shall not perish, but have eternal life." Mr. Terrell
dare not say that eternal life is in this world ; nor that
it is obtained by faith alone. Nor will he make such'
a blockhead of himself, as to say that pardon of sins,
and eternal life are one and the same thing. I know
he is great for identity, but he will not make these
identical. If not, why does he quote this passage
which speaks only of eternal life, to prove that pardon
is by faith only ?

This is one of the ways that Methodists have of dis-
posing of the words of Peter, " be baptized for the re-
mission of sins ; and the other is, to make fun of what
Peter preached, by singing :

"Ho evpry mother, son and daughter,
Here's the gospel in the water."

It was well for the Israelites in the wilderness, that
they had not learned to ridicule, and make fun of
what the Lord commanded. If they had been favored
with a daring Infidel, in the form of a Methodist Cir-
cuit Rider, they might have had a great deal of fun,
when Moses put forth the command, " Look upon the
serpent of brass, and live," by singing :

"Ho, every mother, son and tjCkkt,
Here's the gospel in the snake. 9 *

If the Israelites had acted thus, would they have been
saved from the dreadful bite of the serpants ? We
know they would not. How then can a man who. in

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 189

view of the language of the Spirit, "be baptized for
remission of sins," make a song for the vulgar and
low-minded to turn into ridicule this command, ex-
pect to be saved ? O, that Methodists had the faith
of the Sons of Israel, how many of them might be
healed of the dreadful bite of the old serpent, — the
Devil. They knew that the serpent of brass could not
heal them, but that the Lord could; confiding in his
promise, they obeyed his command, and m obedience
were restored to life and health. So we know that,
neither baptism, nor any other command can save us,
but we know that God can, confiding in his word, we
obey, and in obedience the Lord saves us from sin.
The word of God leads us to faith, faith to feeling;
feeling to action, and action to the blood of Christ, by
which our sins are readied away.

He quoted a verse in the 13th of Acts : '• All that
believe are justified from all things, from which they
could not be justified by the law of Moses;" which
means no moje than all the believers, or all the fol-
lowers of Christ are justified in a way in which they
could not be justified by the law of Moses. We read
in another passage, that, "Many of the Rulers of the
Jews believed on him, but for fear of the people they did
not confess him." Were they saved? Were they
justified Mr. Terrell ? You know they were not. —
But, why were they not? Because faith a-one would
not justify them. Because they did not openly confess
him by submitting to his authority.

By the way, I remember the gentleman told you,
that I had " crossed my own track," in saying the
epistles were written to Saints. Did I not affirm on
yesterday, that the epistles were written to the " Saints
and faithful in Christ Jesus," and not to infants, as he
vainly supposed? Strange that a Methodist preacher
could make such an assertion. That the epistles
were written to the Saints, is something that Method-
ists never knew till they learned it of us; and it is

199 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

something that they do not understand yet very we'll,
from the use Mr. Terrell has made of the epistles.

6. My sixth argument shall be drawn from the fact,
that the Apostles baptized all believers as soon as they
confessed faith in Christ, On the day of Pentacost,
Peter preached Christ to the people, and commanded
them to be baptized for the remission of their sins,
and three thousand gladly received the word, and
were baptized the same day for remission of sins.
Acts 2: 41.

Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preach -
ed Christ unto them ; and " when they believed, they
were baptized, both men and women." At Samaria,
Simon believed, and was baptized immediately by
Philip. Acts 8: 22, IS.

Philip heard the Eunoch reading the Scriptures ;
and Philip began at the same Scripture, and preached
dnt© him Jesus. When he heard the arguments of
Philip, he said : " I believe that Jesus Christ is the
son of God ;" so Philip baptized him on the spot and
he went on his way rejoicing. Acts 8: 38.

Cornelius sent for Peter to tell him " what to do, and
words by which he should be saved.''' Peter preached
Christ unto him and his friends ; and while speaking of
Christ, said : " To him give all the prophets witness,
that through his name whosoever believeth shall re-
ceive remission of sins." But, no sooner did he be-
lieve, than Peter " commanded him to be baptized in
tlm name of the Lord." Here we see, that in "telling
him v>ords by which he should' be saved" he told him
to believe and be baptized. Acts 10, 48.

Lydia heard Paul preach at Philippi, " by the river
side, - ' and before she left the river, she believed, and
was baptized. Acts 16: 13, 15. If Mr. Terrell had
been there. I really believe he would have thought,
and reported Paul to- be a " Campbellite," for being in
&uch f taste.

Mr. Terrell alluded to the conversion of the Philip -

AND THE HOLY SPEBtT 191

pian Jailer, about like he and his party generally quote
the commission. They generally quote it : " He that
beiieveth, &c, shall be saved, and he that believeth
not. shall be damned." What they mean by the tf &0/
I never could tell, unless they mean by it the mourner s
He told you that Paul told the jailer to be-
lieve, but he forgot to tell you that Paul also baptized
him "the same hour of the night;" and that after his
baptism, he rejoiced, as did the Eunoch. Acts 16: 33.

14 Many of the Corinthians hearing, believed, and
were baptized." Acts 18: 8.

These passages show that the Apostles always
preached Christ, and as soon as the people believed
that he was the Son of God, they baptized them, as
-r did, ;; for the remission of sins." Add to this,
that there is not one man in all the New Testament,
the time Christ said, " Go preach the gospel to
every creature," to the final Amen in Revelation, who
is said to be pardoned befcre he was baptized. J chal-
lenge Mr. Terrell to show one. Let him show where
one is said to be pardoned, and I will show where he-
was baptized. This fact meets every thing he has
said about justification by faith ; for every one of those
who were said to be justified by faith, by grace, or by
the blood of Christ, were baptized before they were
said to be justified by any thing.

7 . My seventh argument is founded upon four pas-
sages in the epistles : " Christ loved the Church, and
gave himself for it; that he might sanctify and cleanse
it with w asking of water by the word." Ephesians 5: 26.

Speaking of the unclean, Paul says : " And such
were some of you, but you are washed, but you are
sanctified, but you are justified in the name of the Lord
Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." 1st Corinthians,
6: 11.

u Not by works of righteousness which we have done ,
but according to his mercy he saved iw," (by faith

192 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

alone ? No, no ; but) " by the washing of regeneration*
and renewing of the Holy Spirit." Titus 3: 5.
"The like figure where unto, even baptism, doth aho
now save us, bv the resurrection of Jesus Christ. " 1 Pet,
3: 21.

Now, in these four passages we have the design of
baptism so plainly, and clearly taught, that it is impos-
sible to mistake it. We learn, first. That it was the
purpose of Christ, whe he give himself for the church,
"to sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the"
word." Second. When the Corinthians were made
free from their uncleanness, they were "washed, and
justified in the name of the Lord/' 3d. That we are
now saved by the washing of regeneration." 4th. That
"baptism now saves us, by the resurrection of Jesus
Christ." If we are now saved by baptism, justified
when we are washed in the name of the Lord, and sanc-
tified and cleansed by the icashing of icater by the word,
does it not follow that baptism is essential to pardon?
I will not ask Mr. Terrell to reply to this, for I know he
will never try. Lie will not, he has not, he cannot re-
ply to my arguments. I have now offered seven argu-
ments, and not one of them has he replied to. I want
him to do his best. I want him to show that " repent.
and be baptized for remission of sins," means nothing
more tnan remission of sins by faith only. Let him
show how the words, " arise, and be baptized, and
wash away they sins," mean that baptism is not essen-
tial to pardon.

Instead of replying to me, he had to turn aside to
tell you that I am "very good natured" this morning.
Well, I am always good natured when I am not i!i-
natured, and always in a pleasant mood when I am not
unpleasantly situated.

I must now notice, not his Scripture arguments, but
his " sick woman," " blind man," and " crippled boy"
objections to my proposition. His first was ; that the

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 193

Lord says, " Now is the day of salvation ;" and there-
fore baptism cannot be for remission of sins. The
objection is this : The Lord says the time for pardon is
right now, but we put it oif tell we can go to the wa-
ter, which will take ten or fifteen minutes, and in some
cases the whole of one hour, and therefore it must be
wrong. This objection comes upon us heavily, when
we consider that it is from a man who is in the habit
of keeping the people days, weeks, months, and even
years, frying on the coals of conviction, and crawling
around the mourner's bench trying to " get religion/'
To correspond with his faith and practice, the commis-
sion should have read : he that repents, and comes to
the bench, and prays for faith, shall get religion. In-
stead of telling the people to u repent, and be baptized
for remission of sins," Peter should have said, repent,
and come to the mourner's bench, and pray for faith.
'But why come to the mourner's bench ? Because it
is warmer here, and because the Lord has owned it, and
blessed it in the conversion of thousands." The Lord
own such an institution ! What daring wickedness !
The history of the conversion of the Eunoch should
read : And he commenced at the same Scripture, and
told him how one was converted at the mourner's
bench, another at his work, and another when he saw
Buck put his head under the yoke, and finished his re-
marks by saying, the Lord will bless men as soon in
one place as another, and as soon at one thing as an-
other, for now is the time. And the Euaoch said, See
here is a slab, what hinders me to come to the bench.
and pray for faith. The circuit preacher said, If you
have a desire to flee from the wrath to come, you may.
He answered, This is my desire. So they went down
on to the bench, both the preacher and the Eunoch,
and he prayed for him. And when the came up
" font' the bench, the Eunoch "had Holy Ghost re-
ligion."

This is no misrepresentation ©f Methodism ; it is
M

194 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

Methodism as it is, and Mr. Terrell will not say that I
slander them ; for, from him, from what I have heard
him say, and seen him do, I could have learned it all,
if I had not known it before. Now is it not strange,
that a man who advocates such things and practices
such things, can stand up here and say, that the Apos-
tles taught positive falsehoods, because one passage
says, '" Now is the time?" The Apostle was talking
about the obedience of the brethren, and says, "Now
is the time," which means no more than that you
should obey to-day, and not put off till to-morrow what
you should do to-day.

His second objection was, that if a woman is sick,
and too sick to be baptized before she dies, she must be
damned, if baptism is essential to pardon. Upon this
I remark, first, That if she understood her duty, and
wilfully refused to do the will of God till it was too
late, it is her own fault, and not the fault of the Bible,
if she is darned.

2. If she never understood her duty, and never had
an opportunity of obeying the Lord, he will not re-
quire it of her; for he requires nothing that is impossi-
ble. For example : Paul preached " to make all men
.see ;" but a man who is born blind is not required to
see, for it is impossible for him to see. God says, — ■
" This is my Son ; hear you him ;"' but a man who is
deaf from his birth is not required to keat\ for he can-
not do it. The Lord requires all men to confess with
their mouth that Jesus is the Christ, but a man who
is a mute is not required to confess with his mouth. —
John Wesley, the father of Methodism, in answer
to a similar objection upon this same subject, said, (and
so say I) "Indeed, where it (baptism) cannot be had,
tfce case is different ; but extraordinary cases do not
make void a standing rule." Doc. Trac. p. 251.

3. It is Mr. Terrell, and not me, who teaches that
baptism is essential to eternal salvation. I make it es-
sential to the present salvation from sin only ; but Mr.

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 195

Terrell and his party make it essential to eternal sal-
vation in the world to come. Did I not prove that Mr.
Terrell and his party believed, " that unbaptized in-
fants are out of the church, without any provision for
their eternal well-being ?" Did I not prove that they
believed them to be " children of wrath, and liable to
eternal damnation?" Now hear what they teach in
reference to adults. "Baptism doeth now save us, if
we live answerable thereto ; if we repent, believe, and
obey the Gospel : supposing this, as it admits us into the
church here," (Now mark) " So into glory hereafter."
Doc. Trac, p. 249. That is the doctrine his " sick wo-
man" opposes. We. have to meet such objections to
the truth from Infidels and Universalists, as well as
from Methodists. Such objections are the offspring of
infiidelity, and the brats of unbelief; and are resorted
to only in the absence of something better to say. —
Mr. Terrell had forgotten that he is the advocate of
sprinkling when he made this objection ; for he cer-
tainly did not intend to say that this woman was too
sick to have a few drops of water sprinkled upon her.
Truth will out.

But, his crowning objection was, that my doctrine
is Catholicism. 1 was pleased to hear this objection,
because it gives me an opportunity of showing you.
whose doctrine is Catholicism, which I will now do.
I hold in my right hand Catholicism, and in my left
Methodism. Hear their " ceremonies used in the bap-
tismal services/' and you can see whether Methodism
and Catholicism are not clearly related on this subject.
The questions to the person to be baptized are the fol-
lowing :

Catholic. — " Dost thou renounce the devil and all
his works, all his angels, and all his service, and his
pomps?" Answer: " I do renounce."

Methodist. — " Dost thou renounce the devil and all
his works, the vain pomp and glory of the world, with
all covetous desires of the same?"

196 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

Aoswe : " I renounce them all."

Catholic. — " Dost thou believe in God the Father
Almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth ? Dost
thou believe in Jesus Christ his only Son and Lord ?"

Answer : " I do believe."

Methodist. — "Dost thou believe in God the Father
Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth? and in Jesus
Christ his only begotten Son and Lord?"

Answer : "All this I steadfastly believe."

Catholic.-—" Dost thou believe in the Holy Ghost,
the holy Catholic chiirch, the communion of saints, the
remission of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life
eternal?"

Answer : " I do believe,"

Methodist.—" Dost thou believe in the Holy Ghost,
the holy Catholic church, the communion of saints, the
remission of sins, the resurrection of the body, and
everlasting life after death ?"

Answer. — " All this I steadfastly believe."

Catholic. — " Do you desire to be baptized ?"

Answer: ' I do desire it." Hinton's His. Bap., p.
187 and 319.

Methodist. — Wilt thou be baptized into this faith ./"

Answer. — "This is my desire." Discipline, p. 110.

Here is Catholicism as large as life ; and here we
see, that the Methodist creed is not all new, but that
they have copied into theirs the very articles, questions
and answers, language, ideas and all of the Catholic
creed ; and then, forced them upon the world under
the imposing name of Methodism. Truly was it said
by a Methodist : " Ours is a fluctuating world. Its
fashions pass away, and the opinions of communities
and of men so frequently change, that eld things some-
times become uew" But Methodism is Catholicism in
many other respects. It is known to all now present,
I suppose, that the Catholic creed requires all the sub-
jects of that party to observe, as a day of fasting, eve-
ry Friday in the year. Now, hear the creed of " our

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 197

church" upon the duty of members. " To observe, as
days of fasting, or abstinence, all Fridays in the
year." p.* 89.

Why do they select Friday, as the day on which to
last? Because lk.e mother of " our church" did so. It
is known also, that a Catholic Priest is required to see
the men and -omen of his church separately, and hear
their confessions. A Methodist Circuit Rider is re-
quired " to meet the men and women apart, once a
quarter." Discip. p. 43. In obedience to this we fre-
quently see Methodist preachers visiting around, while
the men are from home on business, " to see the men
and women apart." It is well known that the keystone
of the great Arch of Catholicism is, that the Pope and
his tribe are the successors of the Apostles. Ivi ethodist
preachers also claim to be their successors. See Doc.
Tracts, p. 251. Yes, every circuit rider, if he has only
three ideas above ^brick-bat, and hardly sense enough
to peddle black berries, claims to be a successor of the
Apostles ; and, with all the spiritual pride of a Roman
Priest, arrogantly, and unblushingly tells the world,
that baptism is not valid, unless it is administered by
one of their " holy order." How can a man have the
audacity to stand up here, and audaciously tell you
that my doctrine, is Catholicism ? when it is known
that the furniture of his sanctuary, and the articles of
his creed are right from Rome. When this daughter
of Rome married and setup for Herself, her mother
furnished her with her ideas, her language, her doc-
trine, and her religion ; and although she does not
equal her mother in arrogance and unblushing impu-
dence, she equals in audacity any other daughter her
mother ever had. I deny that Catholics believe, as I
do, \\mt faith., repentance , and a change of heart $re pre-
requisites to baptism. I deny that they ever taught
baptism for the remission of the sins of a penitent be-
liever on'y. It is a slander upon the truth, only equal-
ed by his slander upon the sentiments of Bro. Camp-

108 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

bell, to which I next invite your attentions. He rep-
resents Bro. Campbell as believing, that the blood 01
Christ has no power but what is in the water; and by
quoting one or two sentences only, makes him say
precisely the opposite of what he does say. In the
paragraph to which Mr. Terrell alluded, Bro. Camp-
bell is commenting upon two verses: " Be baptized,
and wash away thy sins;" and " They washed their
robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb."
He says, " Here are two things equally incomprehen-
sible — to wash garments white in blood, and to wash a-
way sins in waterV 1 (Now mark.) k( An efficacy is as-
cribed to water which it does not possess, and, as certain-
ly, an efficacy is ascribed to blood which it doe? not
possess. If blood can whiten or cleanse garments, cer-
tainly water can wash away sins. There, is, then, a
transferring (in the sacred style) of the efficacy of blood
to water; and a transferring of the efficacy of water
to blood. This is a plain solution of the whole matter.
God has transferred in some way, the whitening efficacy,
or cleansing power of water to blood; and the ab-
solving or pardoning power of blood to water." C. Sys-
tem, p. 215.

Now, does it require more than an ounce of com-
mon discernment, and common honesty to see, that, so
far from Bro. Campbell teaching that water now pos-
sesses all the pardoning power of the blood of Christ,
he teaches that, when water is said to "ivash away
sins," " an efficacy is ascribed to water which it does not
possess ?" When he says, k ' the pardoning power of
the blood of Christ is transferred to water," his mean-
ing is, that in the st>ie of the New Testament writers
blood is said to do what water alone can do — viz —
wash a thing white; and water is said to do what blood
alone can do — viz — wash away sins. I really supposed
that, from the merited lashing Mr. Terrell received
from me a few months ago at this place, for this con-
temptable and stupid slander, he would not have the

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 199

boldness to reiterate the same thing again in my pres-
ence. This is the first perversion I ever heard from
Mr. Terrell, (but not the last) and this slander upon
the sentiments of Bro. Campbell is one of the princi-
pal things that brought about this discussion. But of
this again.

Time expired.

[mr. Terrell's 3d reply — 3d prop.]
Gentlemen Moderators —

I will commence at the last end of Mr. Pritchard's
speech. He said that according to our book of Disci-
pline, Article 9, weare saved by faith only- I have alrea-
dy answered that I should think, so that any one mi. h
understand me. My answer was that ;; o//y there meant
the necessary requisite, or the great principle. Accord-
ing to the Discipline faith is the only condition. It is
the only terms of pardon or justification.

He wishes to know whether infants are justified by
faith, and, in a very knowing manner, asks what the
Discipline means, where it says, "Wilt thou take this
woman for thy wife, and cleave unto her and her only.''\
He asks if "only" here means five or six other women.
I answer that I suppose it means to take the one woman
for a wife, and no other. This he knew well before,
out he was not content without throwing out some evil
insinuation. I am in hopes the gentleman is now satis:
iied on this head, and that we shall hear no more about
cleaving to this woman and heYoidy.

He tries very hard to make this audience believe
we teach justification by faith only — faith without ac-
tion, and in a self-important air of triumph, says, we
have left the bosom of Roman Catholicism. Well, I
am glad of that. If I am out of Romanism, it is that
much good — that much right. But there is a grea~
terence between myself and the gentleman here- 1
h ave come out of Romanism but he is just going into
it. I am glad that I am out of it, and would b

20d DEBATE ON BAPTISM

the gentleman would not go into Roman Catholicism,
i would like to warn him and keep him from running
into Catholicism if I could bat he appears unconscious
of his advances in that direction.

Mr. Pritchard reads from our book of Dicipline, and
then from the Romish creed, to show that we hold some
doctrines in common with Roman Catholics. This we
do not deny Catholics believe man}- tilings that are
true, and it is not a sufficient reason for me to let go
the truth, to find that it is held and believed by Roman
Catholics; and as Mr. Pritchard sees proper to leave
Protestantism and go back to Roman Catholicism he
.surely cannot think it wrong in our church to hold some.
articles in common with Catholics, especially where
they are right. If he sees proper to go to Catholics
from Protestants, he cannot blame us for going from
Catholics to Protestants!

The gentleman reads much from Mr. Wesley's Doc-
trinal Tracts on infant baptism. I have nothing to do
with Mr. Wesley's views on that subject, only to show
that he has been misrepresented. We subscribe to no
one man's views in every thing, only so far as he goes
with the word of truth; but in the main, we think Mr.
Wesley was in the right.

Mr. Pritchard has fallen upon the error that caused
the great apostacy. The doctrine of baptism for re-
mission of sins, is that to which I allude. He need not
refer to Mr. Wesley. He did not believe baptism was
for pardon, and he never preached such a doctrine. —
He misrepresents him when he says he did. 1 have his
Doctrinal Tracts, and I know what he taught as well
at least as Mr Pritchard. He is not to make this audi-
ence believe Mr. Wesley taught any such doctrine; and
if he did we do not believe ail he taught. In the main
his writings are good and received by us. The error of
the gentleman, I repeat it, that baptism is for remission
of sins, was the great inlet to the apostacy, and the gen-
tleman himself in preaching that doctrine, is getting
back to Romanism. I hope this will satisfy him.

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT, 201

He quotes from St. Paul as follows: "For they being
ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to es-
tablish their own righteousnes have not submitted
themselves to the righteousness of God." Evidently
righteousness here means pardon of sins, for they alone
are righteous who have their sins pardoned. It requires
an act of the mind to bring a man to pardon, and not
of the body. The scripture says, "to him that worketli
not, but be.ieveth; his faith is counted to him for righ-
teousness." This righteousness 1 say means pardon of
sins, for they alone are righteous who have their sins
pardoned. Man is pardoned then, by an act of the mind
ofGod, and not by his own acts. A learned writer says,
"It requires the will of God to pardon." But according
to Mr. Pritchard's doctrine, it not only requires a man s
faith, an act of the mind but of the body; yes, and not
only this but an act of the third person. The sinner must
get some person to baptize him, and if no one can be ob-
tained to administer the ordinance of baptism, the in-
dividual sinks down in dispair. According to his doc-
trine, before anyone can obtain pardon, he must get a
third person willing to it, and ready to baptize him. — •
God intended no such thing. He never intended that
the salvation of one soul, should depend upon the op-
tion of a third person. In obtaining the pardon of a
man's sins, the sinner and his God are all that have
and thing to do in the case. The sinner thank God, is
not depeneant upon anyone. But according to the
doctrine of my friend, if he cannot get an administra-
tor, or if the administrator refuses to baptize him, he
must be lost. This doctrine 1 do not believe. I cannot
believe that God would make the salvation of one man's
soul depend upon the will of another man. It is unrea-
sonable.

Mr. Pritchardhas a great deal to say about the mour-
ner's bench; but we do not believe the mourner's bench
is a condition of pardon. We might retort that he
makes water a condition, for Mr. Campbell says the ab-
solving quality of the blood of Christ is transferred to

202 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

water and that immersion alone is the act of turning to
God.

Abraham was justified by faith, and so are are all the
spiritual seed of Abraham. This I will show from Ro.
4: 1 . "What shall we say then, that Abraham our fath-
er as pertaining to the flesh, hath found. For if Abra-
ham were justified by works he hath whereof to glory;
but not before God; for what saith the scriptures: Abra-
ham believed God and it was accounted to him for righ-
teousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not
reconed of grace; but of debt; but to him that worketh
not, but believeth in him that justifieth the ungodly,
his faith is counted to him for righteousness. Even as
David also discribeth the blessedness of the man unto
whom God imputeth righteousness without works; say-
ing, Blessed is the man whose iniquites are forgiven and
whose sins are covered."

Mr. Pritchard says, devils believe. Well, in James,
2d chapter, the apostle speaks of a justification some
26 years after Abraham's justification, and Abra-
ham is presented as a pattern of our own justification.
He is the pattern of the faithful. What other condition
are we here taught but faith ? Surely none other. —
Faith is the great condition. This doctrine will stand
in spite of my respectable opponet — it must, and will
stand forever. It is the great fundamental doctrine of
the Reformation of the 16th century.

I will now quote Martin Luther, as his words
are found in D'Aubinie's History of the Refor-
mation, page 202 : V On man's part, there is nothing
that goes before grace, — nothing but impotency and
rebellion. There is no moral virtue without sadness,
— that is to say, without sin." This blessed doctrine
will stand forever. The rough eloquence of Martin
Luther was engaged in the cause of justification by
faith alone, it was felt that it was the cause of the
gospel, of justice, and of liberty, which was then to be
pleaded. Faith without works justifies, and this doc-
trine will stand forever. He that believeth with all

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 203

the heart, believeth unto righteousness. This is the
doctrine of the gospel.

Mr. Pritchard would have to point the sick woman,
to whom I called his attention, to some brook, pond or
meat trough. But I would say, in the language of Pe-
ter, " all that believe are justified from all things from
which they could not be justified by the law of Moses.''

The ninth article of our Discipline is the doctrine of
the whole Episcopal church — also the Presbyterian and
Baptist churches. Not that part of the Baptist church
that deny the divinity of Christ.

[Mr. Pritchard said, Who do you refer to ?]

Mr. Terrell said, I do not know that I am bound to
tell. I think that the New Lights deny the divinity of
Christ, and they are very near akin to you [pointing to
Mr. Pritchard.]

I have referred the gentleman to our book of Disci-
plin, 54th page, sections 2 and 3, to show that Mr.
Pritchard has misrepresented me, when he says, that
our creed makes justification just according to every
man's own theory, and that if a man is baptized, he is
justified without faith. We hold no such doctrine, and
the gentleman knows it. Our doctrine is, that the
man that believeth has the assurance that he is par-
doned, and of everlasting life. " All the prophets bear
witness of him, that through his name, whosoever be-
lieveth in him shall receive remission of sins." Mr.
Pritchard stands in opposition to all the prophets.

Luther meant just what Wesley meant by justifica-
tion by faith alone. They both meant just the doctrine
of the bible, and that is just what I mean; and if I
could pin this doctrine to the wings of the wind, or
make use of the bellowing thunder-tones. 1 would tell
it to the benigted nations of the farthest people on the
globe, and in the language of Paul, that "the word is
nigh thee, even in thy mouth and in thy heart,'"' and
that if " thou shait believe in thy heart, in the Lord
Jesus, and confess with thy mouth, thou shalt be saved!"
c, 7ch is the doctrine of the scripture. Such ig the

^04 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

doctrine suitable to poor fallen man. It makes not
his salvation depend upon any one but him self. It de-
pends upon no act, but an act of the mind that can be
performed any place and in any condition.

The man with his back broken can believe, and con-
sequently can comply with the only condition ; but if
baptism is for remission of sins, as Mr. Pritchard con-
tends, he is lost. The gospel has no good news for
him. It simply tells him of a way of salvation that is
out of his reach. Away with such doctrine. Let the
old doctrine that has comforted so many thousands on
a dying bed, stand forever.

Time expired.

ms. pritcijard's fourth address — 3rd prop.
Gentlemen Moderators:

As Mr. Terrell has agreed for the accommodation
of the_ Moderators to occupy but four hours in the dis-
cussion of his proposition to-morrow, I have agreed for
his accommodation to occupy but four hours to-day.- —
This, then, is my last speech.

I have offered seven separate and distinct arguments
in support of my position ; to but one of them all has
the gentleman, who is falsely called my opponent, al-
luded, and to none of them has he made any reply ;
and, of course, cannot now, for they were all introduc-
ed before my last speech. They must go to the world
unanswered and unreplied to. I will now add anoth-
er to these seven, which shall be drawn, not from the
Bible, but from Mr. Terrell and his party. I will now
prove by Mr. Terrell himself, that he does not believe
faith is the only condition of pardon, and that my pro-
position is true. I called upon Mr. Terrell some time
ago, as you all remember, to tell what the word con-
dition means, and what he means by faith being the
only condition of pardon. He told you that condition
means principle, and that by faith being the only con-
dition, he meant that it was the only principle of par-
don. Well, 1 suppose, if my learned friend should

AND THE HOLT? SPIRIT". 20£

speak of a man's religions principles, he would mean
by that language his religious conditions; and if he
should speak of a man being in a bad condition, he
would mean that he is in a bad principle. What a
learned man Mr. Terrell mast be ! Well may he be
called the champion of Indiana ! 1 did not ask what
condition always means, but what does it mean in a
contract or covenant? What does it mean in the
Gospel covenant? It never did, nor never can mean
principle. It sometimes denotes the state of men and
things, but never their principles. In a contract or
covenant, it means to pay or return an equivalent. —
Crabb says, " Condition respects any point that is ad-
mitted as a ground of obligation or engagement : it is
used for the general transactions of men, in which they
reciprocally bind themselves to return certain equiva-
lents." Synonymes, p. 335.

I now assert that Mr. Terrell does not believe that
faith is the only condition of pardon, to say nothing of
its being the " only condition." Do you believe, sir,
that our faith returns to God an equivalent for pardon?
Do you, sir, believe that our faith benefits God as
much as pardon benefits us ? If not, then you do not
believe your own assertion. That you do not believe
it, I will now prove by you. You remember the dis-
course you delivered at this place against the " small-
er fry of Campbellism," I suppose. 1 heard it, and so
did more than fifty others who are now present. Now
sir, did you not then say, that we are bought with a
price, with the blood of Jesus Christ? Did you not
say, that Mr. Campbell agreed with you, that an
equivalent for pardon was returned to God by the
blood of Christ? Did you not say, that, " these are
my sentiments, and these are the sentiments of Mr.
Campbell"? Did you not then turn to me, and, with-
out knowing my sentiments, say, '• You better set Mr.
Campbell right before you attempt to set us right" ? —
Now, sir, permit me to tell you that I Wlieve with all

2'09 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

my heart that the blood of Christ is the condition, and
the only condition of pardon ; for it is that, and that
only which purchases our pardon. It is the price of
our redemption. I believe what youthen preached,
and although your discourse was designed to slander
me, you dare not now say, that you believe it yourself,
if you believe that we are redeemed from our sins by
the blood of Christ paying an equivalent for our par-
don, you do not believe that faith is the condition —
that faith returns an equivalent for pardon. My bi-
ble teaches me that the blood of Christ is the condition
of pardon, Grace the principle upon which we are par-
doned, and faith, repentance, and baptism the means
thro' which we receive and enjoy pardon. Neither faith,
repentance, nor baptism is the condition. They are
the means, not the condition of pardon. Now, 1 ask,
if Mr. Terrell has not said again and again to-day,
that repentance and baptism are " means of grace,"
and " means of pardon"? Thej r are not the condition,
but the means, he says, and so say I, and so says eve-
ry man who understands his Bible. He tells us, that
they are the means of pardon, and yet, that they are
not essential to pardon. Are not the means ordained
of God essential to the end ? If God has ordained,
that through faith, repentance, and baptism as the
means we shall receive pardon, I ask, ii we can re-
ceive pardon without using the means? Mr. Terrell
seems to think we can. Well may your Discipline
say, u We Methodists are enthusiasts; looking after
the end without using the means." p. 69.

If baptism is a means of pardon, it is essential to
pardon. This is my eighth argument ; and it is a
good one too, for Mr. Terrell says it is true.

I must now review the ground over which we have
traveled, and show you some of the beauties of Mr.
Terrell. He commenced this morning by telling you
that he appeared before you with feelings of solemni-
ty ; and in a little while after this, he was talking

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT.

207

about <c ponds," " horse-ponds," " brick-ponds," <c mud-
holes," and " meat troughs." He is a solemn child
truly ! ! May the good Lord save me from such sol-
emnity. His vulgar and contemptible remarks upon
the meat trough, and horse-pond, deserve not to be
noticed.

I stated in my first speech, that he who wilfully re-
fuses to be baptized, will be damned. Mr. Terrell no-
ticed this by saying, " I agree with Mr. Pritchard, that
he who wilfully. disobeys the Gospel, will be damned."
Now, in this, he admits, that baptism is a part of the
Gospel of Christ; for how can a man who wilfully re-
fuses to be baptized, wilfully disobey the Gospel, if
baptism is not a part of the Gospel? A little after
this, he boasted that his gospel was a universal gos-
pel, that it brought good news to men without bap-
tism, for it had no baptism in it. Now look at this :
he who wilfully refuses to be baptized, wilfully diso-
beys the Gospel cf Christ ; but the Gospel which Mr.
Terrell preaches, comes to men without baptism, for
it has no baptism in it. If it is true, as he says, that
baptism is a part of the gospel of Christ, and also true,
as he says, that his gospel has no baptism in it, does it
not follow, that his gospel is not the gospel of Christ,
but another gospel? " If any man," said Paul, " preach
any other gospel unto you, let him be accursed.-'

While speaking upon the words of Peter, "To him
give all the prophets witness, that through his name
whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of
sins," he said : " Let Mr. Pritchard show where one of
the prophets ever said that the people should be bap-
tized." When he said this, he had certainly forgotten
that he said, while discussing the action of baptism,
that the Jews learned of the prophets that the Christ
was to baptize ; and, therefore, they said to John the
Baptist, " Why do you baptize, if you be not the
Christ?"' While debating that proposition, he saw as
clearly as he ever saw any thing, that the prophets did

£08 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

teach that men were to be baptized; but now he hm
discovered, and it is equally as clear, that the prophets
did not teach that any one should be baptized \ and
calls upon me to show that they did. 1 suppose he
thinks, that he is a very poor man who cannot blow
hot and cold out of the same mouth.

Baptism cannot be for remission of sins, he says, for
a man might get his back broke, and could not be bap-
tized. Shall I make a simpleton of myself to notice
this ? As well he might say, hearing cannot be essen-
tial to faith, for there are some who cannot hear. —
Reading cannot be essential to knowledge, for some
have lost their eyes, and cannot read. " To visit the
fatherless and widows in their afflictions," cannot be
"pure and undeiiled religion," for a man might get his
back broke," and could not visit them.

Newlites, he says, deny the divinity of Christ, and
they are clearly related to us. They do not, nor never
did deny the divinity of Christ; — it is a slander upon
that people. But why does he say they are clearly re-
lated to us? Is it because we deny the divinity of
Christ? Mr. Terrell dare not say we do. Is it be-
cause they ball and rave like mad-men in their meet-
ings, just as Methodists do ? Is it because they have a
mourner's bench, and more confidence in their feelings
and dreams, than they have in the word of God ; just
as Methodists have ? Is it because they are believers
in ail kinds of abstract spiritual operations; just as
Methodists are ? Are these the reasons ? If not, why
do you say they are clearly related to us? Many of
them are with us now ; but they were not with us till
they abandoned the unscriptural absurdities of Meth-
odism.

Mr. Terrell complained that I did not quote the
whole of the ninth article in their Discipline. Well,
the reason is, the worthless thing contradicts itself. —
The first part of it says, " We are accounted righteous
before God, only for the merit of Jesus Christ/' and the

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT, "209

second part says : " Wherefore, that we are justified
by faith only, is a most wholesome doctrine, and very
full of comfort." Now, if it is by faith only, the merit
of Christ has nothing to do with it; and if it is by the
the merit of Christ only, faith has nothing to do with
it. Better take part than the whole, for both parts
cannot be true. Which does Mr. Terrell believe ? —
He cannot believe them both.

As Mr. Terrell has repeatedly asserted that all the
churches are with him, I will now show you that his
own is against him, and that Mr. Terrell is against
himself. In answer to the question, " What are the
benefits we receive by baptism?" I find the following
in " Doctrinal Tracts ;"

1. " The first of these is, the washing away the guilt
of original sin, by the application of the merits of
Christ's death." p. 246.

Here we see, that it is in baptism, that the merits of
Christ's death are applied to us. Can a man be par-
doned without the merits of Christ's death being appli-
ed to him ?

2. " By baptism we enter into covenant with God ;
into that everlasting covenant which he hath com-
manded forever." p. 247.

Here we are taught, that it is by baptism that we
enter into the everlasting covenant ; so without bap-
tism, we are out of the covenant of promise. Can a
man who is an alien from the commonwealth of Israel,
and a stranger from the covenants of promise, having
no hope, and without God in the world, be a pardoned
man ? If it is by baptism that we enter into the cove-
nant, is it not essential to pardon to be in the covenant?
Mr. Terrell would seem to think, that a man can be
pardoned as well out of the covenant, as in it.

3. " By baptism we are admitted into the church,
and* consequently made members of Christ, its head."
p. 248.

By baptism we are admitted into the church, and by
N

2 1 DEBATE OK BAPTISM 1

}t we are made members of Christ; so, of course,
without baptism we are not in the church, and with-
out it we are not members of Christ. Can a man be
pardoned who is out of Christ, and not a member of
Christ? Yes, we are told by Methodists — by the gen-
eral conference of the party r that by baptism we are
made members of Christ; and yet, Mr. Terrell says
baptism is not essential to pardon ! There must be as
much difference between his gospel, and the gospel of
the general conference, as there is between his gospel
and the gospel of Christ. But, notwithstanding that
Mr. Terrell denied on yesterday this item of his party's
creed, and is doubtless prepared to do the same thing-
to-day, I am prepared to prove by his own writing that
he believes what he then denied.

[Here Mr. Terrell said — Will you please to read,
it sir?]

Mr. Pritchard — I will sir, that this audience may see
that you have not advocated in this discussion what
you told me, before the discussion, you solemnly be-
lieved. In your third letter to me, you say : " My 3rd
proposition presents the true issue and nothing else,
There is no issue between us whether repentance and
faith be necessary to pardon. Nor is there any as t&
baptism being appointed for a visible induction into the
church of God. But there is an issue whether it alone
be the converting act. In other words, whether it be
essential to our formal forgiveness. — to our pardon,,
and this is the issue presented in my proposition."

Now, did not Mr. Terrell on yesterday solemnly de-
clare before heaven and eartb, that he did not baptize
persons into, but because they were in the church ? —
Did he not deny, that he believed that we are inducted
into the church of God by baptism ? You all know he
did. Now, here he says, that there is no issue as to
baptism being appointed for induction into the church
of God. He believed in our correspondence, as I do,
that by baptism we are inducted into the churchy but

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 211

now he says he does not believe it. I told you that
Mr. Terrell was against himself. But he says, also,
" there is no issue between us, whether faith and re-
pentance be necessary to pardon,' : yet this is the very-
issue he has been making all day. He has not dared
to debate the issue that he made himself, — viz: " that
baotism is essential to our formal forgiveness;" but
has been trying to prove all day that faith is necessary
to pardon ; the very thing that he said was not the is-
sue. Well, it is the best he can do. I know that he
cannot and dare not debate the issue agreed upon.
But we must hear the other benefits as credited to
baptism by the general conference :

4. "By baptism, we who were by nature children of
wrath, are made the children of God." p. 248. "By
water then, as a means, the water of baptism, we are
regenerated or born again; when it is also called by
the Apostle, 'The washing of regeneration.' Oar
church therefore ascribes no greater virtue to baptism
than Christ himself has done." p. 249.

If we are " made the children of God" by baptism, is
it not essential to pardon ? If it is true, that " we are
regenerated or born again" by " the water of baptism,"
does it not follow, that it is essential to pardon ? But
again :

5. "In consequence of our being made children of
God," (by baptism) " we are heirs of the kingdom of
heaven." " Herein" (in baptism) "we receive a title
to, and an earnest of, a kingdom which cannot be
moved. Baptism doth vow save its." p. 249.

If we are made the children of God, and the heirs of
the kingdom of heaven by baptism, is it not essential to
our pardon ? If in baptism we receive a title to, and
earnest of, the kingdom, is it not essential ? How can
baptism now save us, if it does not save us from sin,
and if it is not essential to pardon ? I hove only time
to make one more quotation, among the hundreds that
I might make from the writings of Methodists:

£12 Debate on baptism

"Be baptized, and wash away thy sins. Baptism
administered to real penitents, is both a means and a
seal of pardon. Nor did God ordinarily in the primi-
tive church bestow this on any, unless through this
means. 5 ' Wesley's Note on Acts 22: 16.

I agree with Mr. Wesley, that baptism is a means
of pardon, but not that it is a seal, for the Apostle says,
" After that you believed, you were sealed by the Holy
Spirit of promise." You may tell me, that what I have
now read from the writings of Methodists, upon the
design of baptism, does not agree with what I read,
showing that we are justified by faith alone, without
any thing else. Well, I know it does not ; but I am
not responsible for their inconsistencies, nor for their
contradictions. They are singular teachers. When
they speak on faith, it is all faith, and nothing else ;
but when they get on to baptism, it is every thing ; —
it brings " us into the church here," and takes us to
" glory hereafter."

I must now notice again, what Mr. Terrell said
about Bro. Campbell believing that all the pardoning
power of the blood of Christ is in the water. " To the
sacrifice of Christ," says Bro. Campbell, we always
look for the basis of our pardon ; to his blood that
cleanses from all sin, for justification and personal ac-
ceptance ; and to his word we look for counsel and in^
struction in Christian piety and righteousness. Wo
are as dependent upon his word for light, as we are,
\:pon his blood for pardon." C. System, p. 50.

Again :

" But a new age having come, and Christ having, by
a more perfect sacrifice, opened the way into the true
holy place, has laid the foundation for perfecting the
conscience by a real and full remission of sins, which,
by the virtue of his blood, terminates not upon the flesh,
tmtupon the conscience of the sinner." p. 334.
Once more :
11 You can see your sins washed away in the blood

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT, 213

that was shed on Mount Calvary. * * * * You
can feel, and say Mdth all assurance, that the blood of
Jesus Christ now cleanses you from all sin." p. b35.

These quotations from the Christian System, the
very book from which Mr. Terrell pretended to quote,
show, that what he said of the sentiments of Bro
Campbell, is a slander upon that great and good man,
]f Mr. Terrell is either a gentleman or a Christian, he
certainly will, when convinced of his wrong, take back
what he has said. If he does not, this community will
know what estimate to put upon his statements here-
after.

I will now call your attentions to the phrase, " f'/r
faith* as it is used by the Holy Spirit. " The faith"
does not always mean the simple belief of mankind,
but we find included in the phrase, Christianity in all
its parts For example, we are said to " oljcy the
faith. 5 ' Rom. 1: 5, and 16: 28. We are said to "hear
the faith." Gal. 3; 2, 5. Now, to obey the faith, is to
obey the gospel, and to hear the faith, is to hear the
gospel. We are commanded to <; contend earnestly
for the faith which was once delivered to the Saints."
Jude, 8. Now, who does not see, that, to contend for
the faith, is to contend for Christianity in all its parts,
the facts, commandments, and promises ? Paul is said
to " pleach the faith which he once destroyed." Gal. |;
23. Paul, in preaching the faith, preached Christ, and
him crucified. 1 Cor. 2, 3. He preached that the peo-
ple should * repent, and turn to God, and do works
meet for repentance." Acts, 26: 20. So "the faith"
which Paul preached was Christ, and obedience to.
Christ. From these passages we learn, that, when we
are said to be saved or justified through the faith, it is
not by simple belief, as Mr. Terrell thinks, but by the
Gospel, without the law of Moses. I next call your at-,
tentions to the phrase " by faith.'' Mr. Terrell has
reasoned all day, as if he thought the phrase by faith>
excluded all action, all obedience from our justifies

214 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

tion. Let us see if it means faith alone, or faith by it-
self. "By faith Abel offered unto God a more excel-
lent sacrifice than Cain." Heb. 11:4. Did he offer the
sacrifice by faith alone, without any action ? or was it
bv faith carried out into practice, as the Lord com-
manded?

" By faith Noah, being warned by God,- moved with
fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house."
Iieb. 11: 7. Did faith alone prepare an ark to the
saving of his house? Did faith do all, and Noah no-
thing to the ark ? It was not by faith alone, but by
faith in what God said, and obedience to what he
commanded, that the ark was prepared. Moses says :
" Thus did Noah, as the Lord commanded him." The
ark was prepared, not by faith alone, but by the acts
of faith ; so we are not justified by faith alone, but by
confidence in the Lord, and submission to his authori-
ty — by the acts of faith. Read ail of the 11th chapter
of Hebrews, and first try by faith alone, and then try
by faith carried out into practice, and you can soon see
which agrees with common sense. 1 have yet one
chapter on faith alone that I have reserved for a treat
to Mr. Terrell. I mean the second chapter of James.
James disposes of ail the advocates of faith alone, and
shows them to be vain men. and perverters of the
word of God. He says: " What doth it profit, my
brethren, though a man say he has faith, and have not
works? Can faith save him ?p Yes, indeed, says Mr.
Terrell, it can save him ; for we are justified by faith
alone. The Apostle asks again : " U a brother or a
sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, and one of
you say unto them, Depart in peace, be warmed and
filled, but refuse to give them the things that are need-
ful to the body, what doth it profit?' What profit is it
to a poor man who comes to you for food and clothes,
to say to him, go in peace, J will not give you the
things that are needful to the body ? We all know
that it would profit him nothing at all. " Even so

A XB THE HOLY SPIRIT. 215

faith? -says James. But even with, what ? Why even
with saying to a poor brother, depart in peace, I will
Mot give you any thing. " Even so faith, if it hath not
works' is dead, being alone." Here is the faith of Mr.
Terrell — the faith about which he has been talking all
-. aed it is just p.mn with saying to a poor man, de-
part in peace, I will not give you any thing that is

• needful to the body."
In debating with just such an opponent as I have
'to-day, James said to him : '" Thou believest that there
is one God ; thou doest well : the devils also believe,
and tremble." Here we see, that the devils in hell
have every thing that Mr. Terrell says is essential to
being a Methodist. If faith alme makes a man a Meth-
odist, why may not it make the devils Methodists also?
If his faith alone is the truth of God, the devils are
good sound orthxiaz Methodists now ; for they have
done all that is essential to Methodism, to make men
Methodists. V^ ell might James have said to his faith
alone friend, " Wilt thou know, O vaix max, that faith
without works is dead." He calls the advocate of
fa|th alone, a vain m<ni; and a vain man he must be, to
make the creatures of God do nothing more to become
Christians, than the devils in hell have done. I have
only time to mention one point more. The Discipline
-of >: our church" says : " Wherefore, that we are justi-
fied by faith only, is a most ick'jlesome doctrine, and very-
full of comfort.'' James says: ; ' You see then how
that by works a man is justified, and not by faith onlv."
The Discipline says, we are justified by faith oidy; and
James says, we are not justiiied by faith, only. Which
shall we believe, the Spirit of God, or the Methodist
creed? I will conclude in the language of James : —

4 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith
without works is dead also." Faith without works is
Like a body without a spirit ; and of no more use. I
thank you all for your attention.

Time expired.

21© B@FATB Oft 2APTTS9F

mr. Terrell's closin®. speech — 3d prof.
Christian Friends:

The gentleman's beautiful manner and boisterous
ness reminded me of what an old Latin author once
said to a. young man whom he wished to rehire for his
rudeness. The old man exclaimed: "My young ma&..
if you, being a muley, bellow and take on so, wha£
would you do if you had horns?" [A laugh.]

President moderator called the congregation to order
and Mr. Terrell proceeded.

The Liturgy of the Roman Catholic Chursh is in ev-
ery essential the same as that in the 17th century. The
liturgy of baptism or the ordinance of baptism is the
same. What can the gentleman make of the fact that
we hold some points in common with Roman Catholics?
His own church does the same, andso does every other
church in Christendom. He has done nothing here
then, only to show how he could read from two books,,
first one and then the other.

He says that I have misrepresented, Mr. Campbell's
views and he read from Mr. Camp-bell's works the same-
thing that 1 spoke of. I would not have alluded to the-
quotation, had it not been called out of me, by the gen-
tleman's doing great injustice to the writings of Mr.
Wesley, by garbling his works and misrepresenting his-
views.

[Here the president moderator called Mr. Terrell to-
order, alledging that he was. not speaking to the point.
Mr. Terrell proceeded.]

To wash away sins is a figurative expression. This-
is cleaT from the language of the apostle which reads-
as follows: "But ye are washed but ye are sanctified,
but ye are justified," &e-. This does not mean that;
baptism can or does wash away sins; but it is a figur-
ative allusion to their cleansing with the blood of Christ
All know this who have ever made theology their stu-
dy.

The gentleman quotes the words, "If I had all faith

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 21 7

so that I could remove mountains, and had not charity,
it would profit me nothing," and the words of James,
"What doth it profit a man if he have faith and have
not works;*' but the apostles are showing in both these
passages that good works are the fruits of faith, and en-
joining the necessity of them as such.

But he says, as the devils have faith they are good
orthodox Methodists. Well, so far as they go, they are
orthodox. I once heard of a Methodist that became
somewhat excited, and his heart began to burn within
him for the salvation of the world, and he tried to get
the devil, with all the world into the Methodist church.
With devils faith is the mere assent of the mind. With
Methodists, iaith is the relying upon the word of the
Lord with all the soul! This brings salvation to the
sinner.

With regard to my letter to Mr. Pritchard; he says,
that I stated in it, that "baptism is the induction into
the church." I stated then, as I state now, that it is
the induction into the visible church. I have had a cor-
respondence with several men in Mr. Pritchard's church
in my life, and they all have endeavored, and tried hard,
to get me to say and affirm, that "iaith alone is a whole-
some doctrine and full of comfort." I always offer to
contend for faith and baptism as taught in the Disci-
pline.

I have given a passing notice of his scripture prools,
but many of the passages that he has quoted are irrel-
ivant, and therefore I give them no notice. I shall nov>
pass on to recapitulate my arguments.
1st. I objected to the gentleman's proposition because
it contradicts Jesus Christ, as shown by referring to the
serpent in the wilderness in connexion with the language
of the Savior. The Saviors language reads as follows:
"As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so
shall the son of man be lifted up, that whosoever be-
lieveth on him should not perish qut have eternal life."'
Here it was shown, that faith is the condition and the-

218 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

only condition. It does not say, that whosoever belie-
veth on him and is baptized shall have eternal life, but
whosoever believeth on him shall have eternal life." —
Again, it is said, "He that believeth on the Son hath
everlasting life." He that believeth not the Son, shall
not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him, but
he that believeth is not condemned, bat is passed from
death unto life.

2d. My second argument is built upon the belief of
all Protestant Christendom — all evangelical churches,
who believe that pardon is obtained by faith in the
meritorious blood of our Savior. This position I have
sustained by the bible, by many clear and unanswera-
ble scriptures, against which Mr. Pritchard has not
been able to defend his cause.

3d. My third objection is, that his doctrine is in di-
rect contradiction to the doctrine of the Reformation
in the 10th century. That Reformation was based on
faith as the great ordinance requisite to pardon. It
was this that Luther contended for; and this was the
germ, the life of that Reformation. To this blessed doc-
trine we are indebted for the great Protestant princi-
ples of the present day. The doctrine of the ninth ar-
ticle of our book of Discipline is the same. Mr.
Pritchard has found it greatly in his w ay in this debate
but it cannot be moved. It will stand forever.

4th. My fourth argument is founded upon the fact,
that my opponent's doctrine defers God's time, and
makes the salvation of souls depend on an ordinance
that cannot be administered in thousands of instances
till some future time, and in some instances not at alb
According to Mr. Pritchard's theory, there is no pardon
where there is not water enough to immerse. This I
have shown to be unreasonable and unscriptural. —
While the scripture says now is the accepted time, Mrl
Pritchard*s doctrine says, you must wait till you can
find an administrator of baptism and water to immerse.
While the scrioture says, whosoever will may come,

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT, '210

his doctrine says, the sick and afflicted cannot come at
all. This difficuly he has never got over and never
can.

5th. My 5th argument is based upon the fact, that it*
Mr. Pritchard's doctrine be true, it makes man's salva-
tion depend not upon an individual and his God, but
entirely upon a disinterested third person; for a third
person must be found to administer baptism, and if no
one can be found willing or competent, the person must
be lost. God never intended this. He never intended
the salvation of one man to depend upon another.

6th. My sixth argument is founded on the fact, that
according to Mr. P.'s own doctrine, there will be many
that never can be saved; for we all know that thousands
are situated so that they never can be immersed. I have
specified many cases of this kind to which he has paid
no attention, and to which he never can reply. Think
of it, my christian friends, how would you feel to see
some of your friends desirous to be saved, and no person
could be found who could and would immerse. But
according to my doctrine, the man upon the sick bed,
with his back broken, or lying in the dungeon, can "be-
lieve on the Lord Jesus Christ"' and be saved. If the
sinner is in the vast wilderness a thousand miles from
water or the administrator of baptism, he can believe
on the Son of God and be saved. It matters not what
the condition of the man is, for he can believe in any
condition and he that believeth on the Son of God is
passed from death unto life.

The gentleman appeared quite uneasy. lie, no doubt
felt goaded at what I had said; but I speak unto wise
men; judge ye what I say.

I have now gone through with the argument, and
set it before you in as clear a manner as 1 could and
you must judge of its merits. 1 have sustained every
position 1 have taken from incontrovertible evidence
from the bible. Mr. Pritchard has signally failed on
every point, and he ever must fail so long as he attempts

2*20 SEE ATE ON BAPTISM

to prove baptism for remission of sins. He has trie4
every method any one could think of to make a show
of argument, but he has failed in every attempt. He
has appealed to our standard works, and, by misrepre-
sentation has attempted to make this audience believe
that Mr. Wesley believed in baptism for remission of
sins; but Mr. Wesley when fairly understood, believed
&o such doctrine, and if he did we do not believe every
thing he wrote. In the main his works are good, and
on this account our conference orders them published,
and not because she sactions every sentiiTienthe wrote.

He has gone to our hook of Discipline and attempted
to show that it teaches his doctrine but here he has
failed.

He has gone to the scriptures and endeavored to prove
his doctrine from the bible, but here we found faith to
be the condition of j ustifi cation. "Ad the prophets
bear him witness that whosoever helieveth in him shall
receive remission of sins." "He that helieveth on the
son hath everlasting life." Thus you see, that faith is
the great condition. This was the doctrine of the Re-
formation of the sixteenth century and it is the doctrine
of our church.

If 1 had time I would advance more proof but mv
time is almost out, and I must come to a close.
Time expired,

And the holy spirit. 221

[mr, Terrell's opening speech— 4th prop.]
The president moderator read the proposition as fol-
lows:

The Holy Spirit bears an immediate direct and per-
sonal testimony to the heart of the believer.
Gentlemen Moderators-
Having established to all unbiased minds, on yester-
day, that faith is the great principle through which
men are justified I now proceed to another proposition
which brings me to the evidence of the pardon of all
past sins. This is a great proposition and while I look
to the Giver of all wisdom for his blessing, I hope I
shall have an interest in your prayers, that I may be
led fruitfully into all truth. If I am wrong this morn-
ing, the great body of protestants are wrong with me,
and we are all left without any evidence of the pardon
of sins!

Without further preliminary, I will proceed to read
my proposition. It reads as follows:

The Holy Spirit bears an immediate, direct and per-
sonal testimouy to the heart of the believer.

The term "immediate testimony," means at the time,
clear, plain and direct. "Personal"' means without an
agent, not by represententative, or not by another. —
Pardon; what is it? I cannot give abetter definition
than the one given by Mr. Campbell, in his debate with
Mr. Rice. He says st is not a process, but a single act
of God's free grace — that ft is an act of the great Sov-
reign, and takes place in heaven. It is an act of the
infinite mind, commonly called the forgiveness of sins.
It is not done in man, but it is done in heaven for him.
It is the act of God and can come from no other source
but God.

The evidence cannot exist before the fact — it can-
not be prior to the fact. This is a self-evident state-
ment, to all who have ever thought on the subject.
The evidence cannot reach back one moment prior to
the time of the pardon of sins. From this fact, I argue

222 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

that the evidence of any man's pardon that now lives.
cannot be in the bible. As the act of pardon takes
place in heaven and is an act of God, the evidence
must come from God, and could not, in the very na-
ture of things, come before the act was performed, or
else the evidence testifies to what is not done.

You now see the awkward position of my friend,
Mr. Pritchard. He believes the evidence of the for-
giveness of sins is in the bible, and consequently he
makes the bible bear witness to the pardon of a man's
sins before they are pardoned, and consequently makes
the bible bear testimony to what is not true. The evi-
dence of pardon cannot be in the bible, for this would
be the same as to say that the evidence existed before
the fact existed, which you see cannot be.

Here I plant my stakes, and from here I cannot be
moved. My first step is to show the gentleman that
he cannot find the evidence in the bible. He may try
it, but he w T ill fail in eYe.vy attempt he makes, for he
cannot find where the evidence of any fact existed be- .
fore the fact existed.

But again : As pardon takes place in heaven, no act
that we can do can possibly prove it. Pardon is an
act of the Great Sovereign, and consequently the evi-
dence must come from him, which shows beyond the
possibility of a doubt, that no act that we can do can
be an evidence of our pardon.

I may have occasion to refer to this argumnnt again,
and in order to prepare the way, I will just observe
that the bible was written more than eighteen hun-
dred years ago, and consequently must have contained
the evidence of my pardon eighteen hundred years
ago, or that long before it was true that I was par-
doned.

The gentleman may say we have the promise of
pardon in the bible; but the promise of pardon and
the evidence are very different things. A man may
promise me money, but that is no evidence that he has.

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT, 223

paid it to me. A man that is considered good may
promise to pay money, and never do it. The promise
in that case is no evidence ; and even if he did pay me
as he promised, his promise is no evidence to me that
fee has paid me. As pardon is an act that takes place
in heaven, no act on earth can prove it. The evidence
must come from where the act takes place.

My anxiety and striving may evince to my fellow-
man that I am desirous of pardon, but this is no evi-
dence to others that I am pardoned, or to myself. Oth-
ers cannot give the evidence that I am pardoned, nor
need any one look to any source for the evidence of
pardon but to God ; for pardon is his act done in hea-
ven, and the evidence must come from him. You see
where this leaves Mr. Pritchard, and his brethren ! —
From these conclusions, he will find, there is no escape.
A feeling child may weep in consequence of having
transgressed the laws of a good parent ; but its tears
are no evidence of its pardon. We learn not from
the child that it was pardoned; but the evidence of its
pardon must come from the parent. The child itself
learns not from any of its own acts that it is pardoned;
but the child must learn it from the parent, for, in this
case, the parent is the pardoning power. The parent
is the judge when the child should be pardoned ; so is
God, not we, when we should be pardoned. Neither
can our fellow man assure us of pardon, for it is beyond
the reach of our sensesj and we must depend on the
1 testimony.

The question now comes up with ail it force : Who
is the witness ? Man is not the witness in this case, for
pardon is one of the things of God, which man does not
know. The bible is not the witness, for its evidence is
elder than the fact, which we have seen could not be
the case. St. Paul says, "the natural man receiveth-
not the things of the Spirit of God, neither indeed can
he know them, for they are spiritually discerned." —
Again, he says, " What man knows the mind of a man

"224 DEBATE Off BAPTISM

save the spirit of a man that is in him ?" and the argu*
ment of the apostle proceeds, as if he had said, No
man can know the mind of God but the Spirit of God
that is in him.

Pardon is one of the deep things of God, and no man
knows it but by the Spirit, which searcheth all things,
yea the deep things of God. Such is the state of the
case, and my friend can never get over it. I cannot
see how he will attempt it !

There is no being in heaven or in hell that knows the
act of the mind of God but the Spirit of God that is in
him, and, of course no being but the Spirit can reveal
to man the pardoning act of the mind of God. This is
out of the question. The matter then stands thus :

1. If God pardoned man he knows it. This all
will agree to.

2. If God knows that a man is pardoned he can let
us know it. This will not be disputed.

8. He is good enough to let us know it.
To all this no one can demur. Well, then, has God
given us the assurance that he will give us the witness
of the Spirit. I say he has, and if you ask me for the
proof, here it is : " And because ye are sons, God hath
sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying,
Abba, Father." Gal. 4: 6.

When a man is pardoned he is a son, and here is di-
rect testimony, that Godsends forth the spirit of his
Son into the hearts of such. This is evidence to the
point. But let me read again; "For ye have not received
the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have
received the spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba,
Father, the Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit,
that we are the children of God." Ro. 8: 15, 16. This
is proof clear enough for any one who believes the bi-
ble, but it is stated that the spirit bearteth witness.
1 John. 5: 8. This witness is so important that he says
in a previous chapter, that if any man have not the
spirit of Christ he is none of his. You can now see, my

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. U%

idiristian friends, what is to become of Mr. Pritchard *
theory. It cannot stand the test in the light of the scrip-
ture.

I will now qsaote another passage, which reads as
follows: "In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard
the word of truth the gospel of your salvation: in whom
also, after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that
Holy Spirit of promise." ISph. 1: 13. This is the
pledge of our pardon, "the Holy Spirit of promise. "W-
This, blessed be God, is the evidence of pardon. The
world can neither give or take away this assurance
which the Christian feels of the forgiveness of sins.

Again, the Apostle says; "Now he that hath wrought.
ns for the self same thing is God, who also hath given
unto us the earnest of the Spirit." 2. Cor. 5: 5 Here
is evidence as good as any one could desire. How will
the gentleman get over this? Here he speaks of the
earnest of the Spirit, which he has given us.

But I must proceed to bring my proof: "Now we have
not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which
is of God: that we might know the things that are
freely given to us of God." 1 Cor. 2: 12. What plai-
ner evidence could any one produce on any proposi-
tion than this? The apostle says, he has given us the
Holy Spirit that ice rni^ht know the things gi\en us of
God. That is the same as if he had said, that we might
know that he has granted the pardon of our sins.
Having the blessed assurance of his Sprit that we have
the forgiveness of sins, and acceptance with God " we
are always confident," as the apostle says, and fear not
what man can do. This is the confidence that fills the
heart with joy, — the assurance that the world can nei-
ther give or take away. Blessed be God, brethren, you
know when you felt this confidence! You who have
this assurance know what it is worth; but those who
never had it know not how to appreciate it. He who
has felt the kindling flame of the love of God knows
its value* but these destitute of this heavenly assurance

O

223 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

directly from God know not the comfort it imparte.

But the question arises, is this blessed witness of the
Spirit of God immediate? It most undoutedly is, for "the
8 pk it itself bcare'h witne.s with our spirits that we are
the children of God." Surely it is immediate, andpr-
smah, for it is the spirit that bears witness and no one
else. This is then the immediate and personal witness
cf he Spirit with our spirit that we are the children
of God. "Because you are sons he hath sent forth the
spirit of his Son into your hearts crying, Abba, Fath-
er;'

I have now clearly set my argument before you
frcm the word of God, and if I had time r I could say
, more on the points introduced; but I shall have
time to fill up my arguments and elaborate hereafter.
And I shall also produce more arguments, which Mr,
Pritohard will never be able to answer.
Time expired.

MR. PRITCHARD'S FIRST REPLY 4 r fli PROF;

Gentlemen Moderators:

This is the last day of our discussion, and as Mr,
Terrell has thought it best, from some cause unknown
to me. for him to occupy but three hours to-day in the
discussion of this proposition, we will have to advance
into the merits of the question, at once. There are
seme things in the speech of Mr. Terrell this- morning,
which are to me exceedingly mysterious, and. which
not understand. He speaks as if he did not un-
derstand the issue which he has made himself. In-
stead of proving, as he is solemnly bound by his pro-
position to do, that the Spirit of God makes anew, a
direct and immediate revelation distinct from the bible,
fee has been proving, what no one who believes the
Gospel denies, — viz — that the children of God receive
the Spirit. That the audience may see what the issue
is, and that Mr. Terrell has not been debating the is-
sue, I wish to know of him, if the real issue between

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 227

US is, that Methodists believe that Christians receive
the Spirit, and we deny it ? (Turning to Mr. T., Mr.
P. said) Do you, sir, knew that we, as a community,
deny the truth 'of what Paul says, that, " Because ye
are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of his Son into-
your hearts''? or, that we are sealed by the Spirit, af-
ter we believe ?

(Mr. Terrell — I will answer you sir, when I speak
again.)

Mr. Pritchard — As I wish this point settled ii&w) I
... an answer now.

(Mr. Terrell— Repeat your question, sir.)

Mr. Pritchard — Do you know, that we, as a commu-
nity, deny the truth of what Paul says, that, " Because
ye are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of his Son
into your hearts"? or, that Christians are sealed by the
Holy Spirit of pro-mtse ?

(Mr. Terrell — I don't know that you do, I never heard
you do it.)

Mr. Pritchard — The gentleman knows very well we
10 not, and he dare not say that we do. What then,
I ask, had his speech this morning to do whith the pro-
position, more than it had with any other subject of
which a man might think? He has been laboring to
prove a proposition a3 wide as the breadths of heaven
from the subject before us. That Christians receive
the Spirit, I believe, as firmly as any man now living ;
but that it brings a new revelation right from heaven
to every believer, and that too, without any medium, 1
do not believe.

But I have another question for Mr. Terrell to ans-
wer. Is it not the faith of your party, and do not you
believe that the Spirit of God operates either with or
without faith, and that God sends the Spirit of his Son
into the heart of an infidel to make him a son of God ?

(Mr. Terrell said — We believe that, sir; that is the
faith of the Methodist church.)

Mr. Pritchard— That will do sir. Now, that Mr.

'2 k 2S. DEBATE ON BAPTISM

Terrell and his party do not believe one of his proof
texts, I am prepared to prove by him. He admits
that we believe that, " because you are sons, God has
sent forth his Spirit of his Son into your hearts." Yes>
because you are sons, and not to make you sons, he says
we believe. But, how is it with him? Why he and
his brethren believe, he says, that it is not " because you
are sons ,^ as Paul says, and as we believe, but to make
infidels the sons of GJ-od, that God sends forth his Spirit.
Yes, God sends the naked Spirit of his Son into the
heart of an infidel to make him the Son of God. Now,
if he believes that the Spirit God is sent into the heart
of a man to make him a son of God, he does not believe
that it is sent into his heart becausehe is a son; and if he-
believes that it is " '-because you are sons," that the
Spirit is sent forth, as he, says, we believe, he does not
believe the faith of his party, that it is to make you sons.
He must say that the bible is right, and consequently
That we are right, and Methodism wrong, or that he
:'iiid his party are right, and the bible wrong. He
cannot believe the creed of his party and the bible
both right, for they fiatiy contradict each other.

But how is it with the first chapter of Ephesians ?
Does he believe that we are sealed with the Holy
■Spirit ? Did he not affirm, while debating the ques-
tion of infant baptism, that we are " sealed by water
baptism."' 1 Did I not then quote this very passage to
prove that his Methodism was wrong ? Did I not then
lei} you to remember this, for I would have use for it
on the last proposition ? Now, if Mr. Terrell believes,
what he solemnly affirmed then he did believe, viz :
that we are sealed by baptism, he does not believe
that we are "sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,"
as Paul teaches in Ephesians, U 13. If he believes
that we are sealed with baptism, as he told us he did,
he does not believe, as he says we do, that we are
sealed with the Spirit ; and if he believes that we are
sealed with the Spirit, he does not, and .cannot believe

*

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 229

that we are sealed with baptism. He can give up
what he said on infant baptism, and confess the bible
true, or he can deny that the bible is true, and hold on
to his baptism seal. Which will he do

Having shown that Mr. Terrell does not and can-
not, while he remains a Methodist, believe the very
passages which he quoted to prove his proposition, 1
will proceed to show you what the issue is. His pro-
position reads: wt The Spirit of God bears a direc \
immediate and personal testimony to the believer in
Christ of his pardon."

Direct testimony from heaven, means testimony
which comes straight down from God. The New
Testament, which has come to us through Christ and
the Apostles, has nothing to do with it. Immediate
testimony, means testimony which is given without
any medium. If the Spirit speaks to the believer di-
rectly, the testimony is not immediate, but through the
medium of words. Consequently, Christ and the A-
postles have nothing to do with that ; for it is wholly
independent of them. Well may the advocates of im-
mediate revelations say that some things which Christ
and the Apostles taught are not true, for they feel them
to be false in their souls. Personal testimony means
tistimony which is the exclusive property of the person
who receives it: — It is his own, and given for his spe-
cial benefit. It is given to him, but to no one else. If
it comes from God, or the Spirit of God, it is something
revealed to him that is not revealed to any one else.
It is then, a new revelation, distinct from the bible, and
independent of it. Such highly favored ones can fly
away to heaven, and no thanks to Christ and the A-
postles for the New Testament.

That Mr. Terrell is a believer in the new and imme-
diate revelation, of which I now speak. 1 will prove by
a proposition which he offered to affirm in a discussion
with Bro. Wright, and which I find published by Mr.
Terrell in the " Greensburg R epository." Hear it :

230 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

" The evidence which a Christian has of his pardon
is an immediate revelation in his hsart, made by L\-
Holy Spirit"

Mr. Terrell is then, a believer in immediate revelations
distinct from the bible, and wholly independent of it.
This is just what he is to prove to-day. Shakers and

ikgrji are not greater believers. in immediate rev
tions than Mr. Terrell; and they have equally as much
respect for the word of God, as Mr. Terrell and his
party have. They are all crazy on this point.

But here is the word " testimony" what does it mean?
I will let Crabb define it. He says : " Testimony is
a species of evidence by means by means ofwii;>:
from testis, a witness. Testimony is properly :
evidence. Testimony is that which is offered or giveji
by persons or things person fied in p: oof of any thing ;
evidence is said to arise from testimony^ when we de-
pend upon the credit and relation of others for the
truth or falsehood of any thing. 5 * Synonymes, p. 444.

"Evidence," he says, (i arises -from testimony;'' so
evidence and testimony are not the same, but stand re-
lated to each other as cause and effect. A witness who
bears testimony in court, makes the thing about which
he testifies evident to the court. Testimony is design-
ed to make things evident ; but a thing that is evident
or self-evident, needs not testimony to make it so. —
>;ice, we say, a thing is evident of itself and needs
not proof. t: Testimony" says Crabb, u <s 'propirly
parol evidence" Mark that! Now, "-parol" means
:., or by word of mouth." If testimony is properly
parol, or by the word of mouth, then, there never was
:ior never can be such a thing as testimony without
words, and without some mouth through which the
words were spoken. As testimony is always given by
the word of mouth, and as Mr. Terrell affirms that the
Spirit of God bears an immediate testimony, he is guilty
of the folly of affirming that the Spirit of God bears
testimony without any medium but through the medium of

AN! THE HOLY SPIRIT. 231

tos. My first argument against his proposition is.
that there never was nor never can be such a thing as
immediate testimony, for testimony is altpqys given orat-
hy or by the word of mouth; — through ike media r.
words, and immediate means without a medium. TV _-
mony may be written after it is spoken, bucit is neve: 1
given without words.

Now I must examine some of _Ur. Terrelfs proof pi
his immediate testimony. His first was. ("i suppose he
intended it as proof, for I saw no use he made o:
that he triumphantly found on yesterday that we are
justified .by faith only. x\lr. Terrell said, it v.w .
faith only, and the bible says, •'■ we are not justified
by faith only." I suppose the gentleman means, t
ihe triumphantly proved that the bible does nor tell 3
truth.

His eecend was, that the testimony coner-i-.".. \.
t cannot exist till the feet itself exists. This was 'if -
signed to show, that the bible is not, anc: c ■• . 1
be any evidence of pardon. But the testimony : -
cerning a fact, he says, cannot exist till the fact :>. .
^xist. Abraham received testimony from God.
him the nations of the earth should be blessed,
thousand y crs before the fact of a single soul being
messed in him existed. .Abraham thought it was testi-
mony, and believed it with all his heart ; but he was a
rpoor stupid creature, for Mr. Terrell says it
-testimony, for the testimony concerning a fact ca

t till the fact itself exists. The Apostles, in preacb-
Christ 111 every part of the world, appealed to the
testimony of the prophets, which was given from
to fifteen hundred years before the death of Christ, to
prove that '- Christ died, was buried, and that he
again the third day, according to the Scripture-. —
But, says Mr. Terrell, the Apostles were deceived, the
prophets did not bear testimony to these facts, for the
";mony of a fact cannot exist till the fact itseh

e have no testimony that the d al will

233 DEBATE ON BAPTISBf

ever be raised , for the dead are not yet raised, &nd
Mr. Terrell says, that the testimony concerning a fact
cannot exist till the fact itself exists. Nor have we
any testimony that the Saints of God will ever inherit
the kingdom beyond this vale of tears, they do not yet
inherit it, and testimony can*3o^ exist till the fact ex-
ists, Mr. Terrell says. There bave been thousands-
condemned and hung, upon testimony which existed
before they were guilty of muder. Existing difficul-
ties, and threatening to murder, have been brought in
as testimony to condemn the murderer ; and by such
testimony he has been condemned. How easily he
might have escaped the sentence of condemnation by
calling upon Mr. Terrell to plead his cause. He would 1
have told the court, that the known difficulties,. and alt
the threats of the murderer were not testimony against
him, nor any testimony at all,, for testimony cannot ex-
ist before the fact exists.

But, he asks, how can the bible be any evidence to*
us, that we are pardoned ? Our names are not in the
bible Wonderful discovery ! How does the bible
convince a man that he is a sinner ? His aame is not
:n ii How do we know that the Lord commands u*
to repent ? Our names are not in his word. How do<
we know that there is any thing promised to us. iiu
heaven, earth or hell, in the Bible? Our names are
not in the bible. Will Mr. Terrell tell us in what lan-
guage his name is written in his new revelation that he
is contending for ? ;

Just after this, he said : If a child violates the com-
mand of its father, it caniaot know that it i& pardoned!
till its father fays .so. I can say Amen to that. So we-
who violate the commands of God,, cannot know that
we are pardoned till God says so. Saying it is so, is-
not immediate, Mr. Terrell, but through the medium of
words.

He quoted John, 5,6: "And it is the Spirit that
feeareth witness," to prove his- propc^itioa. The mk&

A>'D THE HOLY SPIRIT,

233

is not whether the Spirit bears witness, for we all be-
lieve that, but whether the Spirit bears immediate tes-
timony to every believer; — whether it makes a new
revelation distinct from the bible, and independent
of it.

He quoted also, 2 Cor. 5, 6, " Who has given us the
earnest of the Spirit?" Now that passage says no!"
one word about pardon, not one word about his new
revelation, nor a word about testimony, personal nor
impersonal, direct nor indirect, immediate nor mediate,
What, then, has it to do with the discussion ?

God hem power to make a new revelation, he says. — ■
Yes, and he has power to destroy this world instantly r
but will he do it because he has the power? We are
not debating about what God can do, or what he can-
not do, but what does he do ? Whether he makes a,
new revelation to every believer or not?

The evidence of a sinner's pardon is not furnished m
the bible, he says. We will see how this is before we
are done with this proposition. Before showing you,
what the testimony is by which we know we are par-
doned, I must bring before you a specimen of the new
revelations of Mr. Terrell, and the manner in which
they are received. 1 find one to my hand in Wesley's
Journal for May, 1759. Hear it :

k - At eleven 1 preached at Bearfield to about three
thousand, on the spirit of nature, of bondage, and of
adoption. Returning in the evening I was exceeding:
pressed to go back to a young woman in Kings wood.
(The fact I nakedly relate, and leave every man to his
own judgment of it.) 1 went. She was nineteen or
twenty years old ; but it seems could not write or
read." (A first rate subject for the delusion.) '• 1
found her on the bed, two or three persons holding
her. It was a terrible sight. Auguish, horror, and
despair, above all description, appeared in her pale
face. The thousand distortions of her whole body,
showed how the dc\>s of hell were gnawing her hearu

234 DEBATE GN BAPTISM

She screamed out as soon as words could find their
way, I am damned, I am damned; lost forever. Six
days ago ycu might have helped me ; but it is past , I
am the devil's now. 1 have given myself to hirn. His
I am. Him I must serve. With him I must go to
hell. I will be his. I will serve him.. I will go with
him to heli. I cannot be saved. I will not be saved.
1 must, I will, 1 will be damned. She then began
praying to the devil." (Remember the Spirit of the
Lord is supposed to make her say, and do all these
things.) " She then fixed her eyes on the corner of
the ceiling, and said, There he is; ay, there he is;
c:ome, good devil, come. Take me away. You said
you would dash may brains out; come, do it quickly. I
am yours, — I am yours. I will be yours. Come just
now. Take me away. - '

Now, after all this foolish and ridiculous talk,
which is said to have been caused by the Spirit of the
Lord, this woman, who could neither read nor write,
is said to have received the mm revelation for which
Mr. Terrell contends. This case is but a specimen of
Hundreds given by Wesley and others. And we are
called upon to regard such things as more sacred than
the word of God.

(Here Mr. Terrell said — Please read where she was
converted.)

Mr. Pritchard — I will :

\\ We interrupted her by calling upon God again ;
on which she sunk down as before ; and another young
lady began to roar out as loud as she had done. My
Brother now came in, it being about nine o'clock. We
continued in prayer till past eleven; when God in a
moment spoke peace into the soul, first, of the first tovment-
<ed, and then of the other. And they both joined in
-singing praises to him who had stilled the enemy, and
ike avenger.'''

Now, here it is ; the Spirit it supposed to lay hold of
*:he woman, and make her pray to the devil ; say

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 23&

is bis — that she belongs to him. That, she is his — that
she must be damned : cannot be saved, but must go to
hell with the devil. That he promised to come and
dash her brains out, and to pray to him to come and
do it quickly. Now, did the Spirit of the Lord, or the
excitement of the meeting, make her tell all the^se
falsehoods? Does the Spirit convert men by making
them lie? We know it does not. Bat we are told
that the same Spirit which made her tell all these
things, which we know to be untrue, revealed to her,
a few minutes after, that she was a child of God> and
not the devil's at all, as it had told her before. A man
who can believe all this, can certainly believe in a new
revelation distinct from the Bible, and independent
of it.

(Here the President Moderator said :— Mr. Pritch-
ard, are your remarks relevant to the subject?)

Mr. Pritchard — They are; I certainly have a r...
to examine the very thing Mr Terrell relies on for his
proof of pardon. Such extravagances as these of
which we now speak can be brought about by any
man of common sense, good or bad, if he will only try
to do it Mr. Wesley says that he could always tell
who would be the subjects of these strange bodily ag-
itations by their position in the andience. You gen-
erally see them take their seats, fix themselves in one
position, and their eyes upon the preacher, and sit in
that position till they fall into that singular state. —
What more does a professor of Mesmerism ask, to
produce the same effects upon any man. All the phe-
nomena of a Methodist conversion can be explained
upon the principles of Mesmerism. They are not su-
pernatural and spiritual, but purely natural and ani-
mal. We see the same things in some form ever}' day.
They are brought about by the great and universal
(aw of nature, — that of equilibrium. If we see a man
laughing, we are almost certain to laugh or smile,
even if we do not know what he is laughing at. If

236 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

we see a person crying, and apparently in great dfe
tress, we feel and weep, because we see him weeping .
The principle is, that persons with whom we associate
will, if we do not resist, make us feel and act, as they
feel and act. Paul recognized the principle when he
said : Evil common ications corrupt good manners ;"
and we know that associating with good men will
correct bad manners. Whenever any man or set of
men, good Or bad, get our confidence and love, they
will make us feel, think, act, and do just as we do.

(Here the Moderator saki again — Will you tell us
in what respect you consider your remark relevant?)

Mr. Pntchard — If I examine ihe thing on which Mr.
Terrell relies for proof, and show that it can be ex-
plained upon natural principles, it will follow, that it
is not a revelation from God.

(Moderator — You are right. You can proceed.)

Who does not know what I now say to be true? —
Who has not seen, in ftifs country, peaceable men,,
when two of their neighbors would get into a fight,
pull off their coats and declare that they could whip
any man on the ground ; and that too, without any
one saying one word to them. Now, if these things
be so, (and we know them to be so) what, I ask, in all
the world is more natural than for men and women, in
the times of great and general religious excitement*
hearing the songs, the groans, the prayers, and feel-
ing exhortations, and also the shouts and screams of
of the ignorant, and believing them to be the legi-
timate fruits of religion, to feel like singing, groan-
ing, praying, shouting and screaming as their asso-
ciates do ? These things which we see and hear al-
most every day, are looked upon as the effects of a
direct and immediate revelation to the subjects of
these bodily agitations.

That they are not from God, but purely animal in
their nature, and the legitimate offspring of excitement
I. will now prove. When Wesley was preaching u free

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 23?

^race and sinners rights,*' he prayed to God. "that it* it
be the truth, to set to it his seal; and almost before we
asked," said he, "God sealed the truth by causing one
and another, and another to fall" till the whole audience
seemed to be crying for mercy. This was the very thing
he willed and labored for.

Whitefield, who was preaching, at the same time,
Galvanism in its worst form, prayed in like manner for
God to set his seal to what he preached, and in an au-
dience of "twelve thousand" he says, "Some fainted; and
when they had got a little strength would hear and faint
again. Others cried out in a manner almost as if they
were in thesharpesi agonies of death, i think I was ne-
ver myself filled with greater power." Never before did
I see a morel gorious sight"

Now, who can believe that God, by a direct revela-
tion, revealed to Mr. Wesley, that what he preached
was true, and to Whitefield, that precisely the opposite
was true? Who does not rather believe, that Wesley
and Whitefield made their own seals, for their doctrine
by their enthusiasm, and that God had nothing to do
with them?

I must briefly state a few morefacts in relation to
these things. I. The subject of the agitations are not
among the most pious • and Godly of the parties to
which they belong; nor are they generally looked upon
by their brethren as the most valuable members of the
party. The most hypocritical generally have the bright-
est revelations, and the most marvelous experiences to
tell. 2. These bodily agitations have not been con-
fined to the religious, for men of all ranks, and of all
parties, and of almost all nations and countries, savage
and civilized have been the subjects of them; bat never
only in the times of great and general excitement.

Among the Romans nearly two thousand years ago,
in the time of a great political excitement, these things
appeared among the nervous of that people; and so
general and alarming were they that the Romans made

238 DEBATE ON BAPTISE

a law, that, when any one in their assemblies should be
taken with these bodily and nervous agitations, the as-
sembly should immediately brake up and go home till
the excitement was over.

3. In the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, these same
nervous agitations appeared among the Roman Cath-
olics in Germany and France; and so alarming were
they in their effect, that in Germany, laws were made
against them, and in. France many of the subjects of
them were put to death because they were supposed to
be possessed of demons. The excitement which pro
duoed them, 1 believe, was caused by crowds of them
going together to visit the tombs of the departed
saints.

4, These agitations have not been 'peculiar to any
party, for Romans, Pagan and Papal, Presbyterians,
Methodists, Baptists, Mormons, Quakers, and Shakers
have all been troubled with them. The Mormons Me-
thodists and Skakers depend more upon these things to
prove that they are of God, than upon any thing else.
If they prove one right, they prove all right. If they
are immediate to one they are to all. So I think.

Time expired.

MR. TE-P.RELl/s SECOND ADDRESS 4TH PROP.

Gentlemen moderators:

I should think I was paying but a poor complement
to the intelligence of this large and respectable audience
should I imagine or pretend to imagine thatthey would
jok upon the boisterous ravings of my friend as argu-
ments or that they contained any thing like argument.
But I have no idea that any person here will think so.
He has not touched the point at issue at all, and my
arguments in my first speech remain untouched, and'
unanswered, and forever must remain so,

Mr. Pritchard read from Mr. Wesley's writings about
the young lady that Mr. Wesley visited. Now we ne-
ver contended, rordid Mr. Wesley ever contend, that

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. <*>*

this effect as seen in the young lady's words and man-
ners was the effect of the gospel. Mr. Wesley says,
page 48, "This ranting is the effect of the dogs of hell,"
and not the spirit of the gospel. He thought, as we do r
that there is an influence attending the word; aud this
case brought from Mr. Wesley's works, is merely a
quibble of the gentleman. When I was coming here
this morning, i remarked that Mr. Pritchard would try
to get off With a quibble. I felt satisfied of this, not that
I can prophesy; but as I came so well prepared to prove
what 1 contend for, I felt that he must and would resort
to quibbling. He has proved that my expectations
were correct, by his quibbling and evasive manner.

My arguments the other day were true, and they wilt
stand while the world stands. The word of God is
furnished for us to try our pardon by. If it does not
correspond with the word, it is wrong of course. This
the gentleman knows. He only endeavored to raise
a dust to cover a retreat.

Had not Abraham the evidence of promise? Yes, he
had, but not that the fact had taken place. Abraham
died in faith. The evidence that Christ had tasted
death was only after his death. The evidence of Christ's
resurrection was after the fact, and could not have been
before.

He speaks about a new revelation, but I will read
you a passage: "For ye have heard of my conversation
in times past, in the Jews religion, how that beyond
measure I persecuted the church of God and wasted it,
and profited in the Jews religion above many of my
equals in mine own nation, being more exceeaingly
zealous of the traditions of my fathers; bat when it
pleased God, who separated me from my mothers womb
and called me by his grace; to reveal his Son in me,
that I might preach him among the heathen, immedi-
ately I conferred not with flesh and blood." Now this
revelation was made in Paul's heart.

He undertook to criticise me this- morning, I have

"240 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

understood that this was the best way to puzzle any
body, and when all other things may fail, this may be
used as a last resort. His first question was: "Do you
not know that as a church, we believe in the operation
of the Holy Spirit?-' I answer, that I do not know
that Mr. Pritchard or the church he belongs to believe
any such thing. Mr Campbell talks of the indwelling
dwelling of the Holy Spirit; but so far as I can tell, he
denies it elsewhere.

Mr. Campbell says, if a man thinks he is pardoned,
he will be just as happy as if he really was pardoned.
That is the way he talks about it. But I will read
.from his "Christian System,'- page 248:

'•Think you that the family of Noah could have been
saved if they had refused to enter into the ark?
Could the first born of Israel have escaped the destroy-
ing angel, but in houses sprinkled with blood? Or could
Israel have escaped the wrath of Pharaoh, but by being:
immersed into Moses in the cloud and in the sea? —
These things are written for our admonition, upon whom
the consummation of past ages has come. Arise, then,
and be immersed, and wash away thy sins calling on
the name of the Lord. The many who refuse grace, will
neither prove you wise nor safe m disobedience."

Here immersion is taught, as the great requisite. —
Mark the language! Every one must be immersed or
else he cannot be saved! it is for remission of sins too.
This cuts off every Baptist, and all the professing world
who have not been immersed for remission of sins. —
Mr. Campbell has passed sentence upon you all; but
the sinner who is immersed, comes up out of the water
as pure and spotless as an angel. These with him are
those who have the Spirit of God dwelling in them;
but all the balance of mankind are without any evi-
dence ot the forgiveness of sins. Thank God, this is
not the religion of Christ. I might immerse a hypocrite
a thousand times and he would only be a hypocrite
still. But according to his doctrine if a man should get

AND THE HOLY SPifclT. 341

to hell and imagine himself pardoned, he would be
happy. Who will believe such doctrine?

He refers to James again to-day. I suppose he is not
satisfied with the day's work on yesterday. I am not
surprised if he is not satisfied, for I should not be, if I
were in his place. Must I explain that passage again?
I cannot think it necessary. What I said on that sub-
ject yesterday is well recollected by this audience. I
hope he Will now be satisfied about the passage from
James, as I have not time to go over the ground occu-
pied on yesterday.

He says the Romans made a law, 1 know they made
a law against the saints. But does he mean the law
that broke up the worship of Christians? or what
law does he mean? J could not see what he had in view
when he referred to this matter. Me, of course, was not
to the point.

Mr. Pritchard makes being born again the evidence
of pardon; but to this I object, and 1 may as well tile
my objections now as at any other time.

1. He must have a proper subject or it must be a
failure. He is liable to be deceived and think a person
a proper subject when he is not, and in this case being
born of water is no evidence. Here is one chance for
a failure.

2. He must have a proper administrator, or the work
is null and void. Here is a great uncertainty. No
one can know the heart of another, and if the admin-
istrator should be a wicked man, all his official perfor-
mances would be of no consequence. Here is another
place for deception, and a very large one too,

3. If it be not done with water, it is not acceptable
and the water must be pure and clean at that. Con-
sequently you must be where there is water to immense,
or die without any evidence of pardon. Here is an-
other difficulty, and a very great one too.

4. If it be not done in the name of the Trinity, it is
not valid. Here is another opportunity for wrong or
for mistake, P

2'±% DEBATE ON BAPTiaM'

5. If our bodies were washed4n a puddle-hole, it wouitf
not be pure water? Can he say his body was washed
with pure water? Surely he cannot. Now you see
what becomes of his system when brought to* the test
It will not bear examination.

He has commented on "the deep things of God" men-
tionedin one of my proof tests* but what has he made
out of it? Has he answered my argument? No, my
Christian friends and he never can. 1 have shown you
that the pardon of sin is an act of God, an act of the
mind of God, or one of the deep things of God, which
the apostle says no man can know; but the Spirit
searcheth all things, yea the deep things of God. The
pardoning act then, being God's act, and it not being
in the power of man to know it, only as the Spirit of
God reveals it, my proposition is proved true beyond
all doubt.

Another argument bearing upon this point is the facC
that no evidence of any act can possibly exist before
the act itself exists. This argument Mr. Pritchard has
not, and, I think, he will not touch. Pardon takes place
in heaven, and no evidence of it can exist before it
takes place, and consequently it cannot be in the bible;
for all the evidence in the bible was there before any
man in our times was pardoned, and consequently bore
iust as much testimony in the case before he was par-
doned as after. But it is not so with the witness of
the Spirit. It comes right from God, personally and
immediately, and is a proper witness to what was tran-
sacted in heaven..

v; The Spirit bears witness with our spirits that we
are the children of God, and if children, then heirs,
heirs-of God, and joint heirs with Christ." Here, bles-
sed be God is the testimony of pardon, and all the
world can never get round it. This one passage would
be sufficient if I could not produce another one. I feel
strong on this passage I here plant down my stakes,

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 24S

and the gentleman may do his utmost, but move me
he never can.

That holy comforter — the indwelling of the Holy Spi-
rit, is the blessed assurance of the good man. There
are three that bear witness, and blessed be God, tht
Holy Ghost is one of the witnesses, and the gentleman
can never take this holy comforter from us. It corner
right from God. and bears witness to the act of God, in
pardoning our sins, and gives us to feel a foretaste oi
heaven in the soul. 0, my christian friends; this is
dearer than life to me. Take from me this blcssec.
ess and all is lost. God can reveal to us the fact
that he has pardoned our sins. He has the power '
do it. He has promised to us the witness of the Spi-
He is good enough to fulfil that promis e, and I be-
i he does fulfil it. He does then pardon men. ,
:-.nd will give them the evidence of it.
(Time expired.)

MR. PRITCHARD's SECOND REPLY 4TH PROP.

Gentlemen Moderators :

As there was nothing worthy of attention in the last
rch of Mr. Terrell, I will commence this where I
closed the other. I will notice all he has said in due
time. To show you that the bodily agitations which
always attend Methodist conversions, and which are
looked upon by them as certain tofons of divine pres-
ence, are not caused by the direct and immediate
power of God, I will present a few more facts in rela-
tion to them, in addition to those already before you.
My fifth fact is,

5. That you may send out a man of piety, modesty,
and of good sense, who will state his proposition, and
bring, in a dry and uninteresting way, argument after
argument, as strong as holy writ, to sustain it, and
the people who hear his discourses, instead of "faint-
ing, then hear and faint again, then cry out as if they
were in. the sharpest agonies of death/' will sit and

244 DEBATE Otf BAPTISM

sleep profoundly while he speaks; and will leave the;
house saying, "he is the driest preacher I ever heard,
he don't make us feel like Bro. B. does." But if you
will send out a man of wickedness and corruption, and
with the eloquence of a Maffit, and one too, into whose,
head an argument never entered, he will set an audi-
ence on fire in ten minutes, and in one hour will pro-
duce all the bodily agitations, fainting and falling at
Shakerism; and will also produce all the screams and
yells of a Methodist camp-meeting. Now, I ask every
man of common sense, if it can be possible, that the
Spirit of the Lord forsakes the good old man of piety
and common sense because of his modest;/, and asso-
ciates with the corrupt and audacious because of his
eloquence and impudence : and under his labors pro-
duces all the phenomena of a Methodist conversion ? —
Who can believe it ?

8. My sixth fact is, that these bodily agitations —
the strange phenomena of Methodist conversions have
always visited the religious tribes' who encourage, and
seek after them, but they have never been known to
visit a people who discountenanced them, nor enter a
religious community where they were not welcome.
Now, it must be admitted, that Presbyterians, and oth-
ers who discountenance them, are as pious, godly, and
religious, as Methodists, Shakers, or Mormons, who
encourage them. Presbyterians, Baptists, and others
have sometimes been troubled with such men as Ed-
wards, and consequently with these strange phenom-
ena, but still they do not countenance or encourage
them.

.. 7. My seventh fact is, that persons who are thrown
into this singular state at religious meetings., in the
times of great excitement, can be, and have been re-
stored to a sound mind in two or three minuUs by an ex-
perienced Mesmerizer. Dr. Dodds, in his Lectures,
mentions some cases, and pledges himself to restore
any one in Jive ?ninutes. Can feeble man drive the"
Spirit of God away ? We know he cannot.

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 245

8. My eighth fact is, that this excitement, and these
nervous and bodily agitations have been known to re-
sult in death ; but the Spirit of God was never known
to murder a man, woman or child while trying to con-
vert him or her. In the town of Brownsville, Union
co., Indiana, only some sixteen or eighteen miles from
this place, a lady died in the meeting house, in the
presence of hundreds of persons, some of whom are
now present, while under the bodily agitations of a
Methodist conversion. Her new revelation was a
powerful and fatal one. The Methodists who excited
her will remember it for some time to come.

9. My ninth fact is, that Methodists do not believe
themselves, that the work which is among them is the
result of a direct and immediate impulse of the Spirit;
for they never expect it, and never have it without a
powerful exertion on their part to bring it about. They
give feeling exhortations, tell affecting anecdotes of
the conversions and happy deaths of fathers and
mothers, call the people to the mourner's bench, hal-
low glory, sing, shake hands, and make use of all oth-
er means of which they can think, lawful and unlaw-
ful, to raise the excitement, and bring about their con-
versions. Now, if they believe it is all the work of
the Spirit, why do they make use of such means ? If
Mr. Terrell should answer, that the Spirit will not
operate unless they make use of such means, he will
give up the question ; for that would make the opera-
tion through the medium of their exertion, and not
immediate as he affirms. My word for it, it they will
meet, and behave themselves decently, as others do.
such things will never be seen among them.

10. My tenth fact is, that the Spirit of God is a wit-
ness, and bears testimony to a great many things as
well as pardon. It testifies to the world, that Jesus is
the Christ the Son of God. It testifies to the world,
that Jesus died, was buried, and raised again. Now,
in not one instance, of all the instances in which the

"246 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

Spirit has given testimony, can it be shown, that the
testimony of the Spirit was immediate. Its testimony
w as not in a single instance immediate, but always
through the medium of words.

11. My eleventh fact is, that the word of God is al-
ways, and at all times, in the heart of every believer ;
and the man in whose heart the word of God is not, is
not a believer. " When you received the word of God
which you heard of us, you received it not as the words
of men, but, as it is in truth, the word of God, which ef-
fectually worketh also in you that believe." 1 Thess.,
2: 13. "The ivord is nigh thee, even in thy mouth,
and in thy heart, that is, the word of faith which we
preach." Rom., 10: 8. " Let the word of Christ dwell
in you richly in all wisdom." Col. 3: 1(5. These pas-
sages show that the word of God is always in the
heart of every believer, and that it effectually works
in them. Now, if these things be so, then it will fol-
low, that there can be no work or operation in their
hearts without the word, for the word is always there,
and always working there.

12. My twelfth fact is, that there is not one conver-
sion in all the New Testament of the 'Methodist stamp.
There is no account of the people " fainting, hearing
and fainting again." There is no account of them
coming to the mourner's bench, and crying and scream-
ing, as if " the dogs of hell were gnawing upon their
hearts." There is no account of their falling down by
tens and twenties, as if dead, and coming out of that
state shouting and screaming like mad-men. In all the
operations of the Spirit among the people in the days
of the Apostles, there is no account of it producing the
disorder and confusion of a Methodist camp-meeting,
and other meetings of that party. Now, if Methodists
preach Christianity, if their conversions are genuine,
and if the Spirit operates among them, and produces
all the disorder and confusion in their meetings by a
direct and immediate impulse, then the Apostle did not

AlfD THE HOLY SPIRIT. 247

preach Christianity, their conversions were not genu-
ine, and the Spirit did not operate among them, for no
-such disorder, shouting, screaming, and confusion at-
tended their labors at any place.

13. My thirteenth fact is, that the disorder and coll-
usion, so common among Methodists, and which are
regarded by them as certain tokens of divine presence,
are contrary to, and directly opposed to the teaching
of the Spirit of God in the New Testament. In giv-
ing directions to the members of the church how to be-
have themselves in the house of God, Paul says : " For
you may all prophesy (teach) one by one, that all may
•earn, and all may be comforted.*' Now, while all are
permitted to teach in the church, they are not all per-
mitted to scream and yell in perfect confusion, as Meth-
odists do, but are to speak " orc by One'* — one at a
rime, " that all may learn, and all be comforted." Cairi
it be possible, that the Spirit of wisdom and truth is so
inconsistent in its teaching, as to tell us in the bible
that we are not to speak in confusion all at once, but
are to speak one at a time, " that all may hear, learn,
and be comforted," and then go right piTtd the very peo-
ple to whom it give the command, enter into them,
and by a direct and irresistible impulse, compel them
to do precisely the opposite of what it commanded
them to do? Who can believe it? If the bible is
right, these things are wrong; and if these things are
right, the bible is wrong ; for the author of them, is not
tae author of the bible. Some of those Paganized pro-
fessors of that day told Paul, as some of the same stamp
now tell us, that they could resist the operations of the
Spirit. Paul replied : " The spirits of the prophets are
subject to the prophets." From this we learn, that
the operations of the Spirit are always in harmony
with our rational nature. Now, if ever this yelling,
•ailing, fainting, screaming, and all the other dis-
graceful things of a mourner's bench conversion, the
pie have no control, then the people are the sub-

2#8 DEBATE ON BAPTISE

jects of an irresistible influence, and it is not true, that
the Spirit is subject to the man who- possesses it, as
Paul says it is. Which shall we believe, the Spirit of
God in the bible, or the Spirit o.f a Methodist camp-
meeting ? But, Paul adds, " For God is not the au-
thor of confusion, but of peace,, as in all the churches
of the Saints. Let your women keep silence in the
churches ; for it is not permitted unto them to speak."'
1 Cor. 14: 31, 34. If God is not the author of confu-
sion, he is not the author of Methodism, of Methodist
meetings, nor of Methodist conversions ; for they not
only confuse all in their meetings, but frequently an
entire neighborhood. How often are Methodists heard,
not only in the meeting house, but going from if to
their homes, hallowing " glory,". " salvation," " salva-
tion full and free," as loud as they can scream; and
that too, at the hour of midnight, while all peaceable
people are in bed. "In the churches of the Saints,"
Paul says, " women are to keep silence; for they are
not permitted to speak ;" but under the influence of
the spirit of Methodism they do not keep silence, and
are permitted to speak, to shout, to scream, to faint
and fall prostrate on the floor, rise, shout, faint and
tail agian ; while the young and modest are disgust-
ed at religion, as see in them, the scoffing infidel is
left to make their disgraceful conduct his excu.se for
treating with Contempt the name and authority of
Jesus Christ. How can things which are so contrary
to every thing the Spirit of God has ever taught, be
caused by a direct and immediate impul-e of the
Spirit? What a vast difference there is between the
teaching of God's Spirit, and the teaching, of the Spir-
it of Methodism. For example : The Spirit of God
says, in the New Testament: "Let one speak at a
time, that the rest may hear, and learn." Methodist
spirit : " Let us all pray, all speak, and all shout at
once;'- so that no one can hear, and no one can learn,
God's Spirit : " The spirit of the prophet is sub-Jest fcs>

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 249

the prophet." Methodist spirit : " The operations of
the Spirit are direct and immediate, and the people
are so completely under its influences, that they can-
not help shouting and screaming in the most perfect
confusion." God s Spirit : " God is not the author of
confusion, but of peace." Methodist spirit : " God is
the author of confusion; as well as of peace ; and when-
ever he glvespeace to the soul, he always does it in the
greatest confusion." God's Spirit : " Let your women
keep silence in the churches." Methodist spirit : " Let
the women all speak in the churches. Let them shout
and pray, and we will have the blessing." God's
Spirit : " Women are not permitted to speak in the
churches." Methodist Spirit : " Women are pre-
mitted to speak in the church ; for the irresistible in-
fluences of the spirit compel them to speak, to shout,
and to make the most perfect confusion of all our
meetings ; and we know it is right, for the more confu-
sion we have, the happier we feel. God's Spirit : " Let
all things be done deo-ntbj, and in order T Methodist
spirit : " As for decency, we care but little about it,
and as for order, we want none ; all we want is the
blessing, and a good shout in the camp."

Having shown that the bible, reason and common
sense are against the positions of Mr. Terrell, I have
now some objections to the doctrince of his proposition
to ofler. And the first is :

1. That it makes us all depend, not upon the word
of God, but upon our feelings — the blind impulses of our
hearts alow for the evidence of our pardon. The
promises of God are not regarded by the believers in a
new and immediate revelation distinct from the bible.
The bible, and every thing else, must be made to bend
and bow to the light within. Men of all parties feel
that they are right ; for it is impossible for their feel-
ingH to differ from their faith. Now, if feeling is an
evidence to one of the truth of his doctrine, and the
correctness of his positions, it is an evidence to all, of

1250 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

all parties, of the same things. Well might Solomon
have said : " He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool' 1

2. The doctrine of an immediate revelation leads
men to disregard the authority of God, and to disobey
his commandment. If you tell a Methodist that Jesus
says, "He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be
saved," or pardoned of all his sins, he will tell you that
he cares nothing about that, for he received pardon
without baptism, or any other "bodily act." But, if
you ask him how he knows he was pardoned? he will
tell you he knows it by the way he feds — that the " Ho-
ly Ghost has revealed it in his soul." Thus you see,
that a belief in an immediate revelation sets aside the
authority of Jesus Christ, leads men to disobey his
commandments, and to trust in their own hearts in
preference to his promises. The man of God, believes
all that God says, obeys all he commands, and trusts in
him for all he has promised. He is, then, a happy man.
His feelings arise from his faith, and his faith rests not
upon his feelings, as do the faith of Methodists, but up-
on the promises of the Lord. He believes, feels,, and
knows he is pardoned, because the God of heaven who
cannot lie tells him he is ; but does not, and cannot
think, or imagine himself pardoned, because he feels so
and so.

3. My third objection is, That belief in an immediate
revelaiion leads men to substitute, defend, and obey
the doctrines and commandments of men, instead of
the commandments of God. If you ask a Methodist
what authority he has for the mourner's bench ? he
will tell you that God has owned and blessed it in the
conversions of thousands. But, how do you know that
God has owned and blessed it? Why, he will say, I
was pardoned there myself, and I have seen hundreds
pardoned at it just as I was. But, how do you know
that you or any one else was pardoned at it? Why I
know, because I feel it, and because the " Holy Ghost
has revealed it in my soul." But what authority have

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 251

;you for your class-meeting, and your band society ? —
Why, he will say, these are the best meetings in the
world. Bat, how do you know that they are the best
meetings in the world ? Why I know it, because I
have been made to fed happier in these meetings, than
in any other meetings.

Thus you see, my friends, that the mourner's bench,
the class-meeting, and the band society, are the com-
mandments of Mr. Terrell's immediate revelation. —
Thus you see, that a belief in immediate revelations
headsmen to substitute, defend, rejoice in, and obey the
'Joctrines and commandments of men, instead of the
commandments of God, because they make them feel
^ooi. This immediate revelation teaches a Shaker to
sing hdicruus songs, dance, fall upon his face, lick the
l&w of Mothei Ann of of the floor, shake the devil ojf\
and kick him out of the door. It teaches a Quaker to
behave himself decently, and say nothingtill the Spirit
moves him. Bat it teaches a Methodist to come 10
the mourner's bench, go to his class meeting, and the
meeting of the band, and there to shout, scream, and
yell like the Indians of the North West. We have as
much reason to believe the revelations of Quakers and
Shakers, as we have to believe those of the Methodius.

4. My fourth objection is, That a belief in immedi-
ate revelations leads to infidelity. It is a notorious
fact, that Methodists, Shakers, and Quakers, reject, and
explain away every part of the bible which opposes
their peculiar notions. That this is true, I will prove
by Mr. Terrell. He does not believe the language of
the Lord Jesus : " He that believeth, and is baptized,
*hail be saved." Nor does he believe the language of
Peter : "Repent, and be baptized every one of you, in
tbte name of Jesus Christ, for remission of sins " Nor
does he believe the passage: " Arise, and be baptized,
and wash away thy sins." Nor does he believe that,
" Christ gave himself for the church, that he might san-
tify, and cleanse it by the washing of witcr. and

252 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

word." Nor does he believe that, " Baptism now saves
us, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." These are
parts of the word of God that he does not, and dare
not believe. (Turning to Mr. Terrell, Mr. P. said,) —
I dare you, sir, to confess before this audience, that you
believe these quotations from the word of God. He
dare not confess that he believes them ; for he knows,
that in so doing, he would renounce the principles oi"
his party, and that his party would denounce him. If
he will confess that he believes all the bible, it will
save him the trouble of saying again, that he has " tri-
umphantly proved justification by faith only." If 1
were the advocate of a system which would not allow
of my confessing any where and every where that I be-
lieved the bible, and the whole bible, I would throw it
down, as a thing unworthy of a place in the head or
heart of an honest man.

I must now notice some few items in the last speech
of my friend. He quoted a passage in the 2d chapter
of 1. Cor. "We have received the Spirit, which is of
God; that we might know the things that are freely giv-
en us of God." (Now mark) "which things we also
speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth,
but which the Holy Ghost teacheth;" "expressing spi-
ritual things in spiritual words." These things, then,
which we freely receive are spoken by the Apostles,
and came to us through the medium of the words of the
Spirit, and not immediately, as Mr. Terrell supposes.

In his first speech he tells you, that the evidence of
pardon is not furnished in the Bible, but in his last he
said, '-We have aright to bring our feelings to the
word of God and by it prove that they are from God."
That is, the Bible does not furnish any evidence, but
still we have a right to come for the evidence where the
evidence is not. If the Bible does not furnish any evi-
dence what right have we to come for evidence where
evidence is not furnished?

In his first speech he told you, that pardon does not

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 253

take place in us, but in the mind of God— it is something
done for us in heaven. This I believe but it is not the
belief of Mr. Terrell and his party. When a man who
is condemned by the laws of his country, is pardoned
by the Governor of the State, he cannot know that he
is pardoned till the Governor tells him so in words; so
we when we are pardoned by the Governor of the
world, we cannot know that we are pardoned tillhe tells
us in words that we are. In his last, he said, "If a man
pays me for labor, 1 don't know that I have the money
because he tells me so, but because Yjfciit in my hand'"
thus making pardon not something done for us in heaven
but something done in us, and received into us, as we
receive money into our hands for labor. Consistent
disputant! There is a moral charge in every believer;
but this change is not pardon, but a jrerequid'e, to par-
don. We know what it done in us by our feelings, and
we know what is done for us in heaven, not by our feel-
ings, but by the word of God. God pardons us in hea-
ven, but we do not, and cannot know that we are par-
doned, till he tells in his word that we are.

Abraham had testimony he says, that the nations
would be blessed in him, but not that they had been
blessed. If he had testimony before they were blessed,
certainly the testimony existed before the fact. The
word of God said, before the nations were blessed in
Abraham, "in thee they skallbe blessed;" and after they
Were blessed, the same word says, in. Abraham they are
blessed. We learn all we know about it from the word
of God. So the word of God says to us, believe and
obey, and you shall be saved or pardoned, and after we
believe and obey, the same word says; "When you
obeyed from the heart, you were made free from sin;"
and that our souls were purified in obedience — "in obeying
the truth." Rom. 6: 18 Peter 1: 22.

Now, unless the word of God is false, we know by it
that we are pardoned. Mr. Terrell talks about pardon,
by faith only, and yet, has no more faith in the positive

254 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

statements of the word of God than to say they furnish-
no evidence of pardon. But I must notice the passage
in the eighth of Romans; "The Spirit itself beareth wit-
ness wilh our Spirit that we are the children of God'. ,r
I remark upon this first; The controversy is not whether
the Spirit bears witness, but how it bears witness — is
the testimony of the Spirit immediate, or through some
medium? Second: According to the common version
there are two witnesses; "the Spirit bears witness with
our Spirit. Now, if you say. that your feelings are the
testimony of Gods Spirit, where will you find the testi-
mony of your own Spirit? Third: This verse saysniot
one word about a new revelation, direct or immediate
testimony; nor one word about when or how we are par-
doned; it only teaches that the Spirit of God bears wit-
ness, and this we all believe. But how does it bear-
witness is the question. God commands us to believe,,
repent, and be be baptized for remission of sins; and
to every one who obeys the Spirit says, "When you o-
heyed from the he heart, you were made free from sin"
What can be stronger evidence than this? Let Mr.
Terrell show language as plain in his new revelation if
he can.

Time expired.

mr. Terrell's closing speech— 4th prop.
Christian Friends;

The gentleman wishes me to pay some attention to
his arguments. You, no doubt, as well as myself,
would ask the question: Where are his arguments? —
Does he call what he has said about mourner's benches
and class-meetings, arguments? If he does not lam
unable to tell where he will find his arguments. But
I would inform him once for all that I am not here to
defend the mournerVbench nor the class^meeting. If
that was the question I would easily defend our practice
in these respects, but that is not the question in debate.
We believe that Christians may shout, for Isaiah, say s*

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT, ^53

* ; cry out and shout," but I am not to consume time, in
replying to his irrelivant matter. I would observe, in
passing, that we do not believe that shouting is an.
evidence of pardon. This is one of Mr. Pritchard r s
misrepresentations.

He says he would not debate my first proposition,
but every word that was in that is in this. He has
therefore done the same in debating this, as if he had
debated the first proposition. I look upon what he
&aid on this point as an apology for his defeat.

Mr. Pritchard refers to a man condemned and hung,
to prove that evidence can exist before the fact to be be-
lieved exists; but here he failed, for the evidence that
the man is hung is not that he has committed the mur-
der, for there are many that commit murder who are
not hung. This argument he has not and cannot touch
No evidence of any fact can exist before the fact itself
exists. One cannot exist without the other. When a
man is pardoned he is a Christian. That he is pardon-
ed is a fact, and he receives the evidence of it because
it is a fact, and after it is a fact, and cannot receive the
evidence before he is pardoned. This argument has-
proven triumphant, and bids defiance to the gentleman's
best etforts.

While on the subject of baptism, I called baptism
the seal of the covenant, but the Holy Spirit is the seal
of pardon. This explains Ephesians 1: 13, upon which
the gentleman made such a display in his last speech.
The covenant has its seal and pardon has its seal, and
if the gentleman had made himself acquainted with
this fact, it would have saved him of much trouble. —
Baptism is one seal, or the seal of the covenant, and
the Holy Spirit is the other seal, or the seal of pardon.
The renewing of the Holy Spirit spoken of by the
apostle, was a means, a part, or evidence of the instru-
mentality in conversion and sanctification; butthewit-
ness of the Spirit is God's Spirit bearing witness with
our Spirit that we are the children of God. There

2S6 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

?must be a tree before there can be a fruit, so there must
be a pardon before there can be the evidence of par-
don.

In regard to what he says about my confusion, I have
but little to say. 1 leave it with this large and intelli-
gent audience to say how much I have been confused .
I feel no uneasiness on that head.

The gentleman tells us that he was once a Metho-
dist. I have long known that when any one turns a-
gainst a church to which he has once belonged, he will
do every thing in his power against it. Such persons
usually employ every means both fair and unfair against
the church of which they formerly were members. —
Such seems to be the case with Mr. Pritchard. He
glories in hurling his fiercest darts at the Methodist
Episcopal Church, because he once belonged to it.

I do not know that there was any thing more in
the gentleman's last speech demanding attention;
tnd 1 shall therfore proceed on to recapitulate my ar-
uments.

My first position was that pardon is not done in man ,
iut it is done in heaven for him; which Mr. Pritchard
has not denied; and that the evidence of pardon must
be from heaven. This no one can deny with any de-
gree of propriety. It is also a principle which I have
laid down and argued from, that the evidence of no
fact can possibly exist before the fact itself exists. —
This Mr. Pritchard has tried hard to get round, but from
it he has not and cannot escape. My argument then,
is this: Pardon is an act of God, done in heaven; there-
fore the testimony of his having performed that act
must be from heaven; and as it is a fact that the evi-
dence of any act cannot exist before the act is per-
formed, the evidence of the pardon of sin cannot be in
the bible. This cut my friend off at once from his bi-
ble argument. Hence ne has tried hard to get over
this difficulty, but he has not succeeded, and, as I think
no one ever can succeed who occupies his position.

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 257

God pardons a man first and then, gives him the evi-
dence of it. This is certainly the case, for it could not
foe that he would give the evidence first and then par-
don him. This would be preposterous. It would be
proving a thing before it was true. This placed Mr.
Pritchard in a singular difficulty, and he felt sensible
that he must work his way out, or give up the argument
at the beginning. This accounts for his great efforts on
this point; but for him there was no escape. Here 1
planted down my stake, and here I still stand, and still
intend to stand.

My next argument was founded on the plain word
of scripture. "Because ye are sons, he hath sent forth
the Spirit of his son into your hearts, crying, Abba,
Father." None, are sons but those who are pardoned;
and because they are sons or as an evidence that they
are sons, he has sent forth the Spirit of his Son into
their hearts. This is a plain and unanswerable argu-
ment which Mr. Pritchard has been unable to meet.

I then quoted the language of St. Paul, Eph. 1: 13;
"In whom ye also trusted after that ye heard the word
of truth the gospel, of your salvation, in whom also,
after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that
Holy Spirit of -promise." This passage is ex-
actly in point. Here is the seal of pardon or the evi-
dence of pardon. The gentleman need not smile, for
I did not say that baptism was the seal of pardon, but
the seal of the covenant. But the Holy Spirit is the seal
of pardon. This passage is quite to the point, and
there is no getting over it.

Again "the Spirit bears witness with our Spirit that
we are the children of God." This is almost the lan-
guage of my proposition, declaring, in so many words,
that the Spirit bears witness with our Spirit that we are
the children of God. You see here that we have scrip-
ture for our faith, but the gentleman only has Mr.
Campbell for his faith. What is Mr. Campbell when
compared to the New Testament writers? He is a mere

Q

£58 DE2ATE OX BAPTISM

pigma. We want the witness of the Holy Spirit and
not the witness from Bethany. We want scripture au-
tiiority, not the authority of A. Campbell.

The witness of the Spirit is in us and we feel it and
know it for ourselves. I expect I could get one hundred
persons in this assembly, were I to call on them to tes-
tify that the witness of the Spirit, bearing witness w r ith
their spirits that they are the children of God. Yes,
th&nk God, there are more than one hundred, I suppose,
who would testify, that the Holy Spirit bears record
with their spirit that they are the children of God. I
might tell the young man, if he has it not, to go to the
closet, and there earnestly seek it. It is as the well of
the water of life, and waters and nourishes the soul.

Mr. Campbell may say that it is the word — that if
we obey the word w r e imagine our sins are pardoned.
Is it all imagination? No, blessed be God, it cannot be.
There is a reality in it. But the christian may expect
hard names, from those ignorant of this blessed witness;
but if they call the Master of the house Beelzebub..
what may not we his followers expect?

I could offer many more arguments, but what I have
offered, I consider sufficient: and, although my time is
not out, I shall come to a close, and leave the question
with this large and intelligent audience. My prayer
is that good may result from our discussion, and that
truth may prevail.

Gentleman moderators and christian friends, you all
have my thanks for your attention, and the many to-
kens of kindness I have received while with you.
Time expired.

MR. PRITCHARD'S CLOSING REPLY 4TH PROP.

Gentlemen Moderators:

Our discussion is about to close ; and if it was not
for some things in the last speech of Mr. Terrell, I could
not say any thing more to add to his defeat and morti-
fication. I am now satisfied, that it was the want of
mother wit, and of knowledge of the subject, ihat

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 259

caused him to affirm what he has to-day.

He has had more to say about Bro. Campbell to-day,
than he has about his new revelation. I suppose the
reason is, because it is easier for a Methodist Circuit-
eer to dandf-rBro. Campbell, than to prove Methodism.
He has given you the views of Bro. Campbell on bap-
tism, on creeds, and on the Holy Spirit. Well, from
what I have heard from him during this debate, I am
satisfied that Mr. Terrell cannot give the views of Bro.
Campbell, for he is incapable of understanding his wri-
tings. Bro. Campbell believes, he says, that all the
Spirit there is among Christians is the written word. —
He professes to be well acquainted with the writings
of Bro. Campbell. Now hear Bro. Campbell, and see
if Mr. Terrell can understand his writings. He says :
" In the kingdom into which we are born of water, the
Holy Spirit is as the atmosphere in the kingdom of nature
— we mean that the influences of the Holy Spirit are
as necessary to the new life, as the atmosphere is to our
animal life, in the kingdom of nature." C. System,
p. 267.

Now, how can a man say, in view of language like
this, that Bro. Campbell believes that all the Spirit
there is among Christians is the word ? The Spirit of
God is the atmosphere of the kingdom of God, the very
air we breathe, he says, and is as necessary to the new
life, as the atmosphere in nature is to our animal life.
He knows his statement to be a graceless slander up-
on the sentiments of that great and good man.

Presbyterians, he says, agree with him, that these
" irregular heats" of the mourners bench are caused
by an immediate impulse of the Holy Spirit. Hear
the language of a Presbyterian :

"It is also worthy of consideration," says Professor
Hodge, "that these bodily affections are of frequent
occurrence at the present day among those who con-
tinue to desire and encourage them. It appears, then,
that these nervous agitations are of frequent occur-
rence in all times of strong excitement ; it matters lit-

280 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

tie whether the excitement arise from superstition, fan-
aticism, or the preaching of the truth. If the imagin-
ation be strongly affected, the nervous system is very
apt to be deranged, and outcries, faintings, convul-
sions, and other hysterical symptoms are the conse-
quence. That these effects are of the same nature,
whatever may be the remote cause, is plain, because
the phenomena are the same ; the apparent circum-
stances of their origin the same; they all have the
same infectious nature, and are all cured by the same
means. They are, therefore, but different forms of the
same disease ; and whether they occur in a convent or
camp-meeting, they are no more a token of the divine
power than hysteria or epilepsy." Life of Stone, p. 366.

So it seems, Presbyterians believe that these nervous
agitations, outcries, faintings, and convulsions of Meth-
odist camp-meetings, and hysteria and epilepsy, " are
but different forms of the same disease ;" and that hys-
teria and epilepsy are as much a token of divine pow-
er, and are as much proof of an immediate revelation,
as these " irregular and disgraceful heats" among
Methodists, There is no lover of good society — : no
man who feels the importance of the command of Al-
mighty God, " Let .every thing be done decently, and in
order," who can believe in, or be the advocate of these
hysterical symptoms which are so directly opposed to
every thing the Spirit has taught in the Holy Scrip-
tures.

I stated that these nervous agitations, faintings and
fallings, were not confined to the religious, for among
the Romans, in times of political excitement, these
things appeared ; and so alarming were they in their
nature, that the Romans made a law to cure them,
which was, that the people should go home, and stay
there, till the excitement was over. To this Mr. Ter-
rell replied, that he knew the Romans made many laws
against Christians. Now, this nervous disease among
the Romans, which is now witnessed among Method-

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 261

ists, was not caused by religious, but by political ex-
citement ; those who were affected with it were not
Christians, but political enthusiasts ; and the law was
not made against Christians, or any body else, but as
a cure for the disease — that the people should go home
till the excitement which caused the disease had sub-
sided. These " irregular heats"' among the Romans,
caused by political excitement, and the bodily agita-
tions among Methodists, caused by religious excite-
ment, are identically the same, which puts it beyond
doubt, that the}^ are the legitimate offspring of excite-
ment, and not of divine favor. Nor does the fact that
undoubted Christians are sometimes afflicted with these
irregularities prove that they are from God, more than
does the fact that undoubted Christians are sometimes
afflicted with Ague prove that it is caused by a direct
impulse of the Holy Spirit.

The gentleman told you that I could not say that
my body was washed in pure water. I would be
ashamed to give the lie to common sense by saying 1
have been " buried in baptism,'" and m}^ a body washed
in pure water,"' if I had only had a few drops sprinkled
on my face.

The renewing of the Holy Spirit, he says, is an in-
strumentality of our salvation. If so, salvation is not
by faith only, Mr. Terrell, and you were mistaken when
you said, " I have triumphantly proved that we are
saved by faith only." All men will sometimes own
the truth.

The Holy Spirit, he says, bears testimony through
miracles, if the testimony of the Spirit is through the
medium of miracles, it is not immediate, Mr. Terrell.
Truly is Mr. Terrell against himself.

But, the gentleman having finished his arguments, he
had to turn aside, in his usual slanderous style, to tell
you that I was once a Methodist, and that he never
knew an instance of a man turning his back upon the
people he first joined, but what he became one of the

262 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

bitterest persecuters and vilest of slanderers in the
land. No, he never knew an instance, he says, but
what the man who turned became a bitter persecutes
and the vilest of slanderers. Now, Mr. Terrell either
told the truth, or he did not tell the truth. If he told
the truth, then he never knew one but what lie, perse-
cute and slander ; but if he did not tell the truth, he is
guilty of a wilful and bare-faced falsehood before this
large assembly. Well, Mr. Terrell himself was once a
member of the Baptist church, but he has long since
" turned his back upon the people he first joined," and
is now a Methodist ; so as he has never known one but
would persecute and slander, we are are authorized by
him to tell the world, and the whole world, that he is
one of the bitterest persecuters, and the vilest of slan-
derers in the land. If he did not tell the truth, he is
guilty of persecuting and slandering those who have
changed their religious sentiments; and if he did tell
the truth, he is a persecuting, slandering fellow; so,
either way, he is a vile slanderer. The difference be-
tween Mr. Terrell and myself is, I was, while a boy, a
member of the Methodist church, but, when I became
a man, I left it and joined the Christian church. Mr,
Terrell was once a member of a Christian church, but
became an apostate, and joined the Methodists. This,
before heaven and earth, is the difference between us,
I have known hundreds who have changed their religi-
ous faith, who would neither lie, persecute, nor slan-
der; and there are many present now, of our most re-
spectable citizens, who are among the number.

The gentleman, in the kindness and benevolence of
his pious soul, exhorted me to seek for the Testimony
of the Spirit. 1 have sought for it and found it long
since. 1 think, however, that such an exhortation
comes with an iil grace from a man who has proved
himself to be one of the bitterest persecuters. and one
of the vilest of slanderers in the land. It comes with a
bad countenance from a man who has not, and dare

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT, 263

not confess that he believes the bible, I have made a
number of quotations from the testimony of the Spirit,
and dared Mr. Terrell to confess that he believed the
testimony, but he has not, he will not, he dare not say
he believes it; and yet, he can stand up here, and ex-
hort me to seek after the very thing he does not, and
dare not believe. J quoted the language of Christ, " He
that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved ;" but he
has not, and dare not confess that he believes it. I
quoted the language of the Spirit, '• Repent, and be
baptized every one of you in the. name of Jesus Christ
for remission of sins;" but he would not confess that he
believed it. 1 quoted the language of the Spirit, ; ' A-
rise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins ;" but I
could not get him to say he believed it.

(Here the Moderator said — Is not that new matter?)

Mr. Pritchard — No sir. I introduced it in my last
speech.

(Moderator — 1 did not hear it.)

Mr. Pritchard — I do not suppose you did, for you
were absent from the house when I spoke last. I re-
affirm, then, that he dare not say he believes the testi-
mony of the Spirit. I also asked him, if he believed
the language of Paul, that we are ''sanctified, and
cleansed by the washing of water, and the word ;" but
he would not say he did. I also asked him to say,
whether he believed the words of Peter, " Baptism
now saves us?" but he would not say he did. 1 now
say to Mr. Terrell, that, before this shall go to the
world, and prove to every honest mind that his new
and immediate revelation has made him an Infidel, he
still has an opportunity of making the good confession
that he believes the word of God, — I mean every part
of it. How a man can believe one part, and not anoth-
er, is something I cannot understand. I low can a man
who dare not say he believes the word of Crod, have
the audacity to stand up here, and exhort me to seek
ibr the testimony of the Spirit ? When unbelievers be-

2C4 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

come exhorters, their feelings must be awful. Alas for
the party whose advocates do not believe, and dare not
believe the word of God.

The last argument of the gentleman was, that he
could call upon one hundred in this audience who
could testify that they have received the testimony of
the Spirit. I must add a little to this. I can call upon
more than jfe hundred in this audience who can testi-
fy that all Christians receive the testimony of the Spir-
it. The issue between us is not whether Christians re-
ceive the testimony of the Spirit, but whether the testi-
mony ot the Spirit is immediate, or through some medi-
um — whether the Spirit makes a new revelation to
every believer, distinct from the bible, and wholly in-
dependent of it, or not. But what he intended to say
was, that he could call upon one hundred of his breth-
ren who would testify that his position is true.
He reminds me of the preacher who published one day
that on a certain day he would prove to every body
present that the devd is a liar. Well, on the day ap-
pointed, a great number came together to hear the sen-
tence of condemnation pronounced upon u o!d Sam." —
The preacher arose in the presence of the assembly,
and said; '-The devil is a liar, he always was a liar, and
I can prove that he is a liar. Then, turning to one of
his friends he said; Is he not a liar, Bro. Jack? Yes,
said Jack? There. said the preacher, I told you I would
prove it! If Bro. Jack had only been present while Mr.
Terrell was speaking, how easily he might have proved
his proposition by him. He would have had no-
thing to do but to say, Is it not so, Bro. Jack? and the
matter would have been settled forever.

Mr. Terrell was quite eloquent while speaking on
the " rivers of living water," and the "well of water
which springs up into everlasting life." A speech on
the nature of the man in the Moon, or one on the life
and character of Joe Smith, would have been as much
to the point. He has been the most unfortunate- man,

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 265

in his proof I ever saw ; for in not one of the passages
that he has quoted to prove his proposition, is direct,
immediate, or personal testimony mentioned. How
then can they prove his proposition, if they say not one
word about it? Nor is pardon mentioned in one of
the passages. Neither direct, immediate, personal,
nor pardon is found in one his proof texts. He knows
that he was solemnly bound by his proposition to prove,
not that the Spirit bears testimony to pardon, for this
we all believe, but that its testimony is " direct, and
immediate." I say he knows it ; for in one of his let-
ters to me, he says : " You know that the issue which
I make with you is, not whether the Spirit bears testi-
mony in the head, heart, heels, or toes, but is the testi-
mony direct, and immediate." This was then the real
issue. Now, has he proved his position ? It would be
an insult to the understanding of this audience to tell
them what they so well know — viz : that he has not.

In his first speech he quoted two or three passages,
and made a false issue; but I proved by him that we be-
lieved them all, and that/ie and hxsjjarty did not. He
has not renounced the principles of his party, and con-
fessed his faith in them yet. But I will not, I cannot
press these things upon him, for I feel for him.

The Spirit of God says to us in the word of the Lord
"Believe and obey, and you shall be pardoned. Now
our confidence is so strong in the words of the Spirit,
that w e cannot think the Spirit would tell us a false-
hood. Nor can we be deceived; for we know when we
believe and we know when we obey. These are mat-
ters of knowledge with us. Now unless the Spirit tells
us what is positively false, all who believe and obey
from the heart are pardoned, and justified in the name
of the Lord. O, how little like Abraham is that nar-
row-minded soul, who says, I will not believe till 1 re-
ceive a new revelation directly and immediately from
heaven. But the Spirit does not leave us with the
promise that we shall be pardoned, but after we believe

266 DEBATE ON BAPTISM

and obey, as it commands us, it tells us in language too
plain to be misunderstood, that "in obedience we were
made free from sin." Where is the man who believes
the Bible, w T ho can say it is not so? Mr. Terrell has
showed us nothing in hisnew revelation as strong, plain,
and clear as this. Till he does that, we will be conten-
ted with what the Lord says, believing from the heart,
we do, all things that are written from Genesis to reve-
lation. If my hope of happiness must fail it shall fail
only with the promises of my God.

1 leave the subject with you. I thank you all for your
kind and patient attention. But I cannot take my seat
without returning to the Moderators my thanks for the
gentlemanly, and dignified manner in which they have
presided over this discussion from its commencement to
its close.

[Mr. Franklin arose, and said; As there seems to be
a very great desire among the people that this debate
should be published, I wish to know of Mr. Terrell,
before we separate, if he is not willing to write out his
part of it. 1 have taken down as much of it as I could,
and intend to publish it; but I think it would be more
satisfactory to all, for each of the disputants to write
out his own speeches.

Mr. Terrell said; I cannot write my speeches, for I
have not taken notes, and consequently do not know
what I have said. I learned to preach without notes,
and am therefore an off-hand speaker. If the people
desire to read a debate, they can read the one between
Mr. Campbell, and Mr. Rice.

Mr. Franklin; I will furnish Mr. Terreell with my
notes, if he can't write his speeches without so there
need be no excuse. The debate between Campbell and
Rice costs so much, that few are able to own it; and it
is so large that fewer still have time to read it.

Mr. Teriell; I have only a word more to say, and that
is, there is a personal difficuly between Mr. Franklin
and myself, so I cannot condescend to have any thing

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 267

to do with the publication of a book, in which Mr.
Franklin is concerned.

Mr Franklin; I am not very anxious to do the print-
ing; you can get any one else to do it that you please;
I only want the people to have the book, because I be-
lieve it will do a great deal of good.
: Mr. Pritchard then said: Bro. Franklin, as this peo-
ple all know you, I would treat that insult offered with-
out cause, with silent contempt.

SO ENDED THE DEBATE,

ERRATA.

Owing to the fact that Mr. Pritchard could not be present to read the
greater part of the proof, and that it wa3 frequently the case that I
was not present, much of the proof reading was done by the printers.
Not being familiar with the subject, and some words occurring in the
work with which they were not acquainted, and not being written in a
very plain hand, they have made some mistakes, which alter or destroy
the sense. In one or two places a part of a sentence is omitted, as on
page 48. Come and comes are sometimes printed came. Lono, to wash
the body, page 42, is changed into the Latin Law. In most instances
the reader will be able to correct. BHNJ. FRANKLIN.

NOTE. The personal difficulty alluded to at the close, as existing
between Mr. Tarrell and myself, and which I did not make any reply
to at the time, related, as I suppose, to the series of letters I was at that
time addressing him throughtne Western Reformer, in which work he
was repeatedly offered page for page with me, if he wished to make any
reply. It could be nothing else, for nothing else has passed between
us in any way. He has charged me with some incorrect 'statements . —
It he will make this charge in writing, and specify the statements, I
will try to prove them correct. B. FRANKLIN.