The Riggle - Kesler Debate PART TWO

copied from bro Jerry Boyer's heart talk website: http://www.heart-talks.com/debate.html
and published in 6 parts for convenient reading.

                                                PART TWO

The Riggle - Kesler Debate

Elder Riggle's Fifth Speech
Friday Evening, September 17

Mr. Chairman, Brother Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen:---I was just thinking while we were singing the beautiful songs of Zion, that if the church had only continued in its primitive unity and purity, and there never had been an apostasy, a drifting away into sectarian confusion, how we could all meet tonight as members of one church, united in one faith and doctrine, and worship together in spirit and in truth.

I will first consider a few of the remarks of my respondent in his closing speech last night. He asked why did I not, when reading the decisions of the Hershey Conference concerning the no-mustache, standing collars, hood and bonnet rules, give the Scriptures for these? I answer, because there is no Scripture for such rules of bondage as these. I kindly ask him to produce a text for such observances.

When I read to you on last evening from the standard authors of the elder's church that they sustain my position as to the title or name of the church, he replied, "Elder Riggle is not debating with Brother Moore, or with Brother Teeter." This is too evasive. You see he dare not stand with the brethren of his church on this point, for if he does he will come to my side of the question.

Churches of God. He tried to make a point there because that this is sometimes found in the plural form in the Scriptures. He endeavored to leave the impression that they were separate and distinct organized churches. I have already made this point very clear, eve in my opening speech. I don't like so much repetition, but since he has brought up the matter again I presume it will devolve upon me to give it some attention again. When used in the plural form, the term churches always refers to the local assemblies or congregations of God's people who hole membership alone in the one divine ecclesia.

He made reference to Matt. 18, where Jesus spoke of how to proceed in case of a brother trespassing against you. I had made the statement concerning the universal body of Christ, that no man had the power to place members into it, or take them our, and Elder Kesler referred to the above Scripture to offset this argument, but in this he failed. In the above text Jesus is giving instructions on how to proceed in the local assemblies of the church. I will simply remark that we can and do carry out the instructions of our Master perfectly, without any sect organization. These instructions of Jesus were given to the church before modern sects were heard of.

Again, he has frequently spoken of literal, physical men, flesh and bones, being inducted into the church by the Spirit. In this he tried to reflect upon the position I hold. It seems Elder Kesler cannot understand spiritual things. His mode of reasoning would have applied better to the Old Testament Church, where natural birth brought fleshly Israel into that fold. The church of the Christian dispensation is a "spiritual house," made up of spiritual men and women. "That which is born of the Spirit, is spirit." It is the soul or spirit of men that is baptized by the Holy Spirit of God into the spiritual body of Christ. The members of our physical body are then brought in harmony with that inward condition. These members are the visible house in which our spirit lives, and through this visible body the redeemed spirit puts on public exhibition the fruits of a Christian life and character. In this manner the church is made visible to the world.

He spends much of his time debating the Ebeling-Riggle discussion over again. That was closed more than fourteen years ago. Last night he admitted that much of his ammunition was drawn from Mr. Ebling's speeches, and, by the way, this man Ebling was a Mormon elder.

He has frequently stated that we cannot execute God's law without making ourselves a sect; but his reasoning is false. His logic is not well grounded. I affirm that we need not join any sect in order to administer the Word of the Lord. Here is a fact. The New Testament discipline of the church was enforced in primitive times by the apostles and early ministry, and this was several hundred years before modern sects arose. Thus his argument falls to the ground.

I was surprised on last evening to not that almost his entire closing speech was spent in beating the air. He missed the mark a thousand miles. He spent most of his time trying to show that local congregations should be perfectly organized in order to administer proper government. THz is my position exactly. The local congregations of the Church of God are properly and Scripturally organized, and live in complete harmony under the divine government as contained in the Holy Scriptures. Let me state a fact, and don't forget that it is facts that count, and not a lot of mere talk, and empty statement. This organization and perfect government existed in the church more than a thousand years before the sects arose. He cannot overthrow this truth. Therefore, his contention that sects are necessary to the organization and government of the church is false. Now, then, since coming out of and renouncing all sects we have the same organization and government that existed in the church in primitive times. We read in 1 Cor. 12:28 that God, through the Spirit, placed"governments" in the church. Note the fact that these were not placed by the Lord in the sects, but in the church, and they are there today. All the members of each local assembly are brought under this government and rule, and are required to obey the same. When such members become unruly, or are found in fault our discipline---the New Testament---tells us just how to proceed, and we perfectly follow out the instructions therein given, and all this without the man-made rules of earthly conferences.

Again he asks, "Suppose all sects adopt this name, 'Church of God,' would this make then the true church?" I answer emphatically No! For a person or body of people to merely adopt that name will not constitute them the church. In order for us to become members of the Church of the New Testament we must enter it through spiritual birth; and in order to properly represent it, we must renounce all other bodies and hold membership in this one alone. This is exactly the position I hold.

Just as Elder Kesler was closing he handed me a number of questions on baptism. These will be fully covered when I reach that subject. I will now begin the discussion of the third division of the proposition-DOCTRINE.

Sixteenth. My sixteenth argument in defense of the proposition is predicated upon the great fundamental doctrine of unity or oneness.

This truth lies closer to my heart, and is dearer to me than my own life. Rather than compromise the truth of unity I would have my head severed from my shoulders. No truth contained in Holy Writ is more essential than this, and with all my powers I boldly take my stand in defense of the same. I will present this truth under a number of headings.

(1) Oneness in the prayer of Jesus. John 17:9-11: "I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which Thou hast given Me; for they are Thine. * * * Holy Father, keep through Thine own name those whom Thou hast given Me, that they may be one, as we are. While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Thy name." This was part of the prayer that Jesus offered to the Father on the solemn night of His betrayal. He earnestly prayer in behalf of His church in all ages. The burden of this prayer was for the oneness of His people. One essential to the church being kept in this state of unity is the name. "Keep in Thine own name those whom Thou hast given Me, that they may be one, as we are." But let us follow this prayer further. Verses 17, 21, 22: "Sanctify them through Thy truth: Thy word is truth." "That they all may be one; as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that Thou hast sent Me. And the glory which Thou gavest Me I have given them; that they may be one, even as We are one."

You will observe that the oneness of God's people lay so close to the heart of Jesus that on this the most solemn night of His earthly ministry, the night before His tragic death on the cross, He poured out to the Father in the most earnest pleading His great burden for the welfare of the church. He realized that the success of the great cause which brought Him to earth, and for which He was about to give His live, depended upon the oneness of His people. This is expressed as follows: "That the world may believe that Thou hast sent Me."

(2) Oneness in the death of Christ. Christ died to effect this unity, it cost Him His own life's blood. In proof of this I call attention to Eph. 2:13-16: "But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off (the Gentiles) are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For He is our peace, who hath made both (Jew and Gentile) one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; having abolished in His flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in Himself of twain one new man, so making peace; and that He might reconcile both (Jew and Gentile) unto God in one body BY THE CROSS, having slain the enmity thereby." This language is very clear. Though separated during the legal dispensation, the Jews and Gentiles became reconciled in one body---one church---"by the cross." This is equivalent to the death of Christ or His shed blood. The blood of the cross made them one.

This truth is further expressed in John 11:49-52: "And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all. Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that on man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. And this spoke he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; and not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad." These texts certainly make clear the fact that to effect a perfect onenessamong the people of God, Jesus actually gave His own life. O the cost of this wonderful truth, the wonderful price paid to effect it---the precious blood of Jesus. Dare we treat lightly a truth that cost so much? Shall we not hold it sacred and very precious, and consecrate our lives to put it in practice? This is why I am here tonight. I stand in defense of this cardinal truth. O friends, what doctrine can be more precious than that of oneness when it cost the life of our blessed Lord and Savior? I plant my feet solidly upon this truth, and against all divisions and schism. One of the greatest hindrances to the spread of Christianity is the divided condition of professing Christians at this time. Jesus prayed for a visible unity. A oneness that will convince the world---"that the world may believe."

(3) The true basis of oneness. On this point I call attention to John 17:21: "That they also may be one in us." And again, Gal. 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." When Christ broke down the middle wall of partition between Jew and Gentile, He reconciled them in one body, that is IN HIMSELF. "All one in Christ." In this blessed state it is said that they were no longer recognized as Jew and Gentile. The blood of Christ will produce the same results today if people will only renounce and come out of all creeds, sects, and institutions of men, and then abide in Christ alone. Here and here only do we find the true basis of Bible oneness.

(4) The true standard of oneness. This will be found in the following texts: John 10:30: Jesus said, "I and my Father are one." I will next read John 17:22: "That they may be one, even as we are one." Here we have expressed the standard of oneness that God demands: The people of God on earth are to be as much one as Christ and the Father are one. Measured by this standard, the position of my friends in trying to uphold sects among God's people appears ridiculous, and so it is.

(5) Divisions among God's people is condemned. 1 Cor. 1:10: "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment."

(6) In harmony with this principle the primitive church was one. Accordingly we read that on the very day of its organization the church "were all of one accord in one place." Acts 2:1. After the church had multiplied into thousands, it is said of them: "And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul." Acts 4:31-33. It is further said that "they were all filled with the Holy Ghost," and"great grace was upon them all." Again, in Acts 5:13, of this primitive church in its morning glory we read, "And of the rest durst no man join himself to them: but the people magnified them." It will not be necessary for me to enlarge here, for the purity, exclusiveness and oneness of the church in its morning glory is clearly expressed.

(7) All this comprehended one church, one faith, one name, one mind, and the result was the manifestation of the mighty power of God in their midst. There was power in that church. The sick were healed, and mighty miracles were wrought in the name of Jesus. Christ was greatly magnified in the midst of His people.

(8) This condition of unity did not always continue. A great apostasy was foretold. Paul speaks of it thus, Acts 20:29, 30: "For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them" Again, in 2 Thess. 2:1-12, the apostle foretold a great falling away or apostasy that would come before the end of the world. He foresaw a time when the people would depart from the faith, doctrine, and practice of primitive times. Jesus likewise foretold the same thing throughout much of His teaching. As recorded in Matt. 24:11, he said, "And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold."

(9) This condition of affairs in the church came early in the Christian era. Before the death of the first apostles, this leaven began to work. Paul said, "The mystery of iniquity doth already work." And John declared, that before his death many false prophets and antichrists had already gone out into the world. You see the way was already being paved for the great apostasy, and nefarious doctrines were already being introduced. This soon ripened into an awful beast power---the papacy. Pure Christianity, its light and glory, became eclipsed by the dark clouds of superstition, false doctrine, and error. A dark night followed, know in history as the dark ages. It was a long night of papal supremacy. During this time of the supremacy of the Roman Pontiff millions of God's people were martyred. As portrayed in the Revelation, under the figure of a woman, the church remained in a wilderness state during this period of twelve hundred and sixty years.

(10) God's people became scattered in sectism. The Reformation of the sixteenth century, under the labors of Luther, Melanchthon, wingli, and other, brought the church out into clearer light. These men preached justification by faith, and thousands as a result threw off the superstitions of Rome and many of the false doctrines of the post. New light began to spring forth in the earth. Luther, at least in part, discerned the body of Christ, and before his death requested that the church be not called after his name. But after the death of Luther, his followers, not clearly discerning the one divine church, organized themselves into a distinct body with a creed---The Augsburg Confession.

Among the questions Elder Kesler requested me to answer was this: "How did the various sects arise, and by what name was the church called during that time?" This is answered in my present argument. After Luther and the early reformers, came John and Charles Wesley. They began the great work by preaching sanctification by faith, and this resulted in a great spiritual reformation, that swept over both England and America. These were men of God, who fearlessly preached the truth as far as God had revealed it to them. My respondent dare not admit this. He dare not acknowledge these reformers were true men of God. Let him declare himself on this point if he will. Elder Kesler, I ask you, Do you believe Martin Luther or John Welsey were saved men? I shall presently show that according to his own teaching and the practice of his church, he cannot admit this much. The fact is he dare not concede that anyone outside of Triune Immersionists are saved, for the moment he does he denies and repudiates the doctrine of his church. But I must proceed. After the death of the Wesleys, their followers organized themselves into a human society, and out of this one has grown more than one hundred distinct bodies. In this manner it has come to pass within the last four hundred years that more than a thousand of these institutions called churches have arisen. Into these God's people have been led. (Here Mr. Riggle hung up a large chart to illustrate his point. On this chart was a large heavy circle. This circle represented the true Church of God. Inside of the circle were the words, "Church of God---one Fold, and Oneness." Around this outer or large circle were six smaller circles. These extended half way across the large circle so that a part of the smaller circles was on the outside of the large one and a part on the inside. These smaller circles represented sects. They were named the Catholic, Mennonite, Church of the Brethren, Mormon, Baptist and German Reform. In these smaller circles inside of the large circle, were a number of figures as 20, 10, 5, 30, 15 etc. These represented the saved people who hold membership in the true Church of God and also in the sect institutions. On the outside of the large circle, but inside of that part of the smaller circles that extended outside of the large one, were figures as follows: 60, 100, 300, 90, 130 and 250. These represent those who hold membership in the sects without salvation, hence are outside of the body of Christ. Mr. Riggle frequently pointed to this chart throughout the remainder of this argument.)

By leading the Lord's flock into these various bodies, they became scattered. This was prophesied in Ezek. 34:5, 6. "And they were scattered. because there is no shepherd: and they became meat to all the beasts of the field, when they were scattered. My sheep wandered. My sheep wandered through all mountains, and upon every high hill: yea, my flock was scattered upon all the face of the earth, and none did search or seek after them." And again in Jer. 23:2: "Therefore, thus saith the Lord God of Israel against the pastors that feed my people; ye have scattered my flock and driven them away." The church here is spoken of under the figure of Israel, as this is prophetic language. I have shown how sects have come into existence and also how God's people have been honestly and conscientiously led into them and became scattered.

Allow me to illustrate this point. Suppose a meeting is held in a certain place, and under the preaching of the gospel one hundred are converted to God. Their names are written in the Lamb's book of life in heaven---the class book of the church. Through salvation these one hundred people are made members of the body of Christ, the church. (Pointing to the large circle.) They belong to the divine fold. In obedience to the command of the Lord these assemble themselves together for worship. They accept the New Testament as their creed and are brought under its discipline. In obedience to it they observe the ordinances of the Lord's house. They are held together in the bond of love and Christian fellowship. They belong to Christ alone, holding membership in no other body but the body of Christ. Yet, these one hundred people constitute a local assembly or church. The Lord by the direction of the Holy Spirit places over them certain officers, as Elders and Deacons. Thus they are organized and have government. In short this is the New Testament order.

Now suppose for want of better light (Pointing to the small circles) twenty are led to join the Catholic society, twenty are Mennonite, ten the Church of the Brethren, five the Mormon, thirty the Baptist and fifteen the German Reform. Now this is what Elder Kesler calls organizing God's church, but all honest minds can readily see that this very work has disorganized and separated the local assembly of people into six separate bodies. Before they were scattered in this manner in these sects they had one doctrine, one faith, were all members of but one body, whereas now they hold membership in six distinct bodies and hold as many doctrines and faiths. It now requires six ministers to preach to them. This is the very scattering of God's flock that the prophets foretold, and that Christ and the apostles foresaw and warned the church of. On Sunday morning instead of assembling in one place they meet in six houses of worship, and all this in the same town. You will see they going in every direction. Do you know that this is the very thing that is filling the earth with skepticism and infidelity? It is contrary to the teaching of the Bible.

It may sound a little strong, but it is true, nevertheless, that sects hinder the fulfillment of the Word of God. You will remember that Elder Kesler referred to Matt. 18, where Jesus spoke of how to proceed in case of brethren trespassing one against another. Suppose Elder Kesler lived neighbor to a Catholic brother, and his Catholic brother trespasses against him. He proceeds then to carry out the first part of Jesus' instruction by going to him alone; but his brother will not hear him. Then he takes the next step: "Then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established." He takes his Mennonite and Mormon brother, who are his neighbors, as witnesses in the case. But his Catholic brother will still not hear him. Now comes the third step: "And if he shall neglect to hear then, tell it unto the church." Here he is confronted with the serious question: Which church will I bring it before? If he offers to bring it before his own church, his Catholic friend will at once refuse to come there, for Elder Kesler attempts to take the matter before the Catholic church with his Mormon and Mennonite witnesses, he will find himself up against it, for they won't listen to him. Imagine, if you will, my respondent a Dunkard, appearing before a Catholic congregation with his two witnesses, a Mennonite and a Mormon. He certainly would have a hard time presenting his case. This shows the utter absurdity and folly of sectism. Thank God, in the one true church to which Jesus gave these instructions, we can fulfill and carry them out to the very letter.

Again, sects make void the commandments of God by their traditions. Sometime ago a Baptist minister, who is a special friend of mine, called at my home for a friendly visit. I gave him a copy of my book, "Christian Baptism, the Lord's Supper and Feet Washing." I requested him to especially read that part of the book that treats on feet washing. He remarked, "Brother Riggle, I believe in it. In fact, I always have believe that it should be observed as a Christian ordinance of the church, but you know our church don't practice it." Here is a fair sample of what creeds and human traditions have done. When the people of God will forever renounce and cast aside all these, and stand united upon the broad platform of eternal truth alone, holding one faith and one doctrine, then and then only can we reach the unity enjoyed by the primitive church.

It is a fact that spiritual men in Protestantism have bewailed this condition and have longed for and spoken of better days to come. Honest men everywhere are well aware that the present divided condition of things is hindering the work of God, and the more spiritual are hoping for better things. Such men as Lorenza Dowe, that eccentric Methodist minister of bygone days, foretold a time "When creeds and divisions would fall to demerit, and Saints in sweet union appear." Thank God, we have reached those better times. The evening light has come, and the church is again returning to its morning glory. God is gathering out his people from the places where they have been scattered, and they are renouncing the creeds and doctrines of men, and are standing, as in days of yore, complete in one fold in the same unity and purity of primitive times. (Pointing to the chart.) You see sects unequally yoke together believers with unbelievers. The Word of the Lord forbids this, as will be seen by reference to 2 Cor. 6:14-16. And the Bible plainly says to those who are in there, "Come out from among them and be ye separate." And again in 2 Tim. 3:1-5: "From such turn away." I am happy to say that time has come.

(Time.)

_______________

Elder Kesler's Fifth Speech
Friday Evening, September 17

Gentlemen, Moderators, Brethren and Friends:---I arise before you with pleasure this evening to continue the discussion of the subjects that are engaging our attention, and as I had to say last night, it is sometimes a little painful to have to negative a great sermon like that you have just heard. I must admit that Elder Riggle has preached you some very fine sermons since we have been here. It seems he doesn't understand debating. He preaches like he would preach at an ordinary camp-meeting or revival meeting. He gets so emotional instead of getting down to plain Scriptural, logical reason, and then he brings up a subject on which the Christian world is practically united, and he wants you to believe that because he believes what all the balance of us believe, that his is the only church, and the balance of us are sects. That is the situation we are in tonight. I want to notice some things I have noted down here.

He says the church is visible, but I have repeatedly asked him by what name or what body of Christians the church was known from 100 A. D. to 1877 A. D. and he gets up and reiterates that the church has been standing all the while. In the primitive ages of the church we have a number of bodies, Montanists, Donatists, Walduseens, Albigenses, etc., and I want him to tell us which of these bodies represented the church he is representing tonight. Now, you see, he gets up here and assumes a position that he is here under obligations as a debater to prove. He is assuming that his is the Church of God that has come down from Apostolic times, and he wants us to believe it simply because of the fact that he assumes it. Why doesn't he come down and tell us where the Church of God was all these ages? He assumes the very point that he is under obligations to prove in this discussion, but he has utterly failed to do so. He says if I am saved I represent the Church of God. I told him last night I am saved, and I ask him if I am representing the Church of God. He says all truly saved people represent the Church of God. I am saved and I want him to admit that I am representing the Church of God. Will he do it? No, sir. He brands me with the rest of you, and calls us sects, and then tells us that sects belong to the devil. He said last evening that sects do not mean individuals; don't mean individual Methodists, Baptists and Presbyterians. What else then does it mean? Then it refers to the Methodists, the Baptists, the Presbyterians, and all other sects as whole if it does not refer to individuals. It refers to every one except the one that he has been representing before you in this discussion, as all sects belong to the devil. And yet after all that, he goes right over and communes with those hypocrites (as his position makes them), and invites them to commune with him. Oh, inconsistency, thou art a jewel! "What communion hath light with darkness?" He has come out of the darkness of sects, he tells us, and that we are in the midnight darkness of sectism. Paul says, "What communion hath light with darkness?" yet he comes right over and communes with them in the midnight darkness of sectism, and he invites the darkness of sectism to come over and commune with him. Paul would ask, "Brother Riggle, what communion, hath light with darkness?" "Ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table and the table of devils." Sects belong to the devil, Elder Riggle says in a little tract, page 4. If sects belong to the devil, then they belong to the devil's table. Ye cannot be partakers of the devil's table and the Lord's table at the same time. That is what Paul says to Elder Riggle on the subject of communion. He admits Jesus joined feet-washing and communion together. Jesus practiced them together. How does he manage this matter when he comes over to the Methodist people to commune with them? I want to know how he manages with this thing. He practices feet-washing, and when he comes over to commune with the Christian people does he bring his basin and sit around washing feet by himself? I want him to tell us how he gets along. Does he want you all to come over and commune with him around his table? Is he going to cut out feet-washing when you come over and commune with him out of courtesy to his visitors. This is something that cannot be overcome by my worthy respondent, and it is absolutely unscriptural on the communion subject.

He now admits we get saved through human agency. I would like for him to tell us what part the man plays in the matter. I press him so hard that he had to admit finally that God adds them into the church through human agency, now I want him to tell us what part man plays in the matter.

"By one spirit we are all baptized into one body," which we have to take up again, because there is a difference here. He has been telling us all this time that by one spirit we are all baptized into one body, and the Spirit baptizes men and women into the spiritual body, and he stated that again this evening. We are baptized by the Spirit. Now, baptizing according to his teaching means immersion. I am going to read from the Emphatic Diaglott, a translation from Greek into the English. "For in one spirit we all into one body were dipped." He says baptism is immersion, and he says baptism is dipping. When and where did God's Holy Spirit ever dip a man? Where did God's Holy Spirit ever immerse a man? The word baptize comes from the word baptizo, which means to dip or immerse. When and where did God's Spirit ever immerse or baptize a man according to the true rendering of the word baptize? Instead of that being rendered as we have it in the Authorized Version "by the Spirit," it is "in one Spirit," and that is the correct rendering, and it is so rendered in the Emphatic Diaglott and the American Standard Revised Version---"in one spirit are we all baptized into the one body." We are baptized into the Spirit instead of the Spirit baptizing us into the body.

He still fails to answer my arguments on the name. By the Scriptures I showed you that he has no name. 1 Cor. 1:2. Twenty years after the time he says the church was built. According to his theory the church went on for about twenty years without a name. When the church was organized it should have a name. That is just what we teach on this line. Origin. You people that know them know that they came out of the Winebrennerian Church, and they have had one lawsuit after another with them over church property, and lost out, and I have proven to you that his church comes from the Winebrennerian Church, that goes back to the Reformed Church, and the Reformed Church back to Rome, as I have proven to you in this debate. Sect. I have proved to you by Mr. Webster that the very meaning of the word sect designates him a sect just as it does any of the other churches in the land. I proved definitely by Mr. Webster that sect means a separate or religious body, separated on account of its doctrine. Now, I want to say if the common and current uses of language in the meaning of word does not settle this, then any man can question the ablest of authors we have in our land. In this position Mr. Warner and Mr. Webster are right. It is the doctrine that separates and designates him and the rest of us as sects. Jesus never built a "sect." Then the facts are, he didn't build Elder Riggle's sect. God added to the church through human agency, and he tells us that the Spirit baptizes physical men and women into a spiritual body. I here affirm without fear of successful contradiction that God's Spirit never did baptize any man, woman or child, that it is in the Spirit we are baptized, and when the work is done, we are baptized into the Spirit instead of the Spirit baptizing us. He cannot use God's law in the government of God's people as we showed you last night. If he can, he is a sect just like the balance of us. I referred to Mr. Luther, Calvin, Wesley and some others and asked when the Church of God came out of the sects, or when sects left them. Where they started and when they began. It seems he is ashamed to come out and let us know his true history in this discussion. He referred again to conference. He wants a Scripture for this. In 1 Cor. 1:10 God wanted no division among them. Col. 3:16: "Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing." Our conference rules are not to lay down laws for the church, but they help us to unify ourselves in matters in carrying out the principles of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. I "can't understand spiritual things." It seems to me he is just as dull of understanding as I am. Our rules are merely as guides to help us and unify us so as not to be divided as his people are, so anyone can go around and preach any kind of doctrine or can act just as he pleases. "God alone can take men in and out of the New Testament Church." Well, God alone takes into the church through human agency and instrumentality and takes out of the church by the same method and by the same rule. As he wanted the Scriptures, here they are.

He says, "It is the soul that is taken into the invisible." What part of man is taken into the visible phase of it? If the soul is taken into the invisible part, how does it get in there? I get my argument from Mr. Ebeling. I know you know better than that. The Mormon's argument is right, and that is what is troubling him all the time. He was afraid I would get hold of it. "The church had government 1500 years before the sects arose," he says. All right, I gave you the Montanists that arose about 150, Donatists 170, Walduseens 650, etc. Back in that primitive age of the church we find different bodies of people before that time. He tells us that the church had government 1500 years before there were sects, then he must admit that the Church of God existed among some of the bodies---the Montanists, etc. Do you get the idea? I want you to get this. This is the point he has been emphasizing here. 1500 years before the sects arose, the Church of God existed. He must admit then that the Donatist, Montanists, etc., or some of these people represented the Church of God back in that age. 1500 years before Mr. Luther. Doctrine of unity. He preached a wonderful sermon, a powerful sermon on the doctrine of unity, and there is not a Baptist minister, there is not a Methodist minister, there is not a Christian minister in this town, there is not a minister of the Church of the Brethren in all the country that would not preach just the same doctrine of unity from God's eternal truth from the Scriptures he gave us, but he wants you to believe that because he preaches unity like we all believe it, his is the true Church of God, and all the balance of us are sects. Every position he takes in this discussion proves just as much for me as it does for him. Just as much for you as it does for him. In his illustration on the chart here we have the Church of God, one fold. The Church of God is inside of this circle. He tells us that there are saved in the Methodist Church, in the Catholic, the Mormon, in the Baptist, the Mennonite Church, and German Reformed, and he even admits there are some saved people in the Church of the Brethren. Here is the Church of God, the one fold, inside his circle. When they get out of the fold he wants to tell us they are still in the fold. I want him to tell me when they get out of the Church of God and get into the sects, how are they in the Church of God still? When they get entirely out of the fold, this circle, he tells us that when they get out of the Church of God, out of this circle and into the sect, that they are still in the Church of God. I don't see for the life of me how he would put up an illustration of this kind, because when a sheep gets out of the fold how is he in the fold? When a man gets out of Christ, where Christ is the head of the church and the fold, and he gets out where the devil is the head, in the sects, is he still in the one body? You see, his own illustration condemns him, and shows you when he gets out of the Church of God he is on the road to hell and that without remedy, because he says sects belong to the devil. I don't expect to say anything more about that beautiful sermon. He had an argument like that yesterday, I believe, and I told him we teach and preach the doctrine of unity, but I don't want him to try to make you people believe because he preaches it that he is right and all the other sects belong to the devil. "Luther and Wesley preached sanctification." Does that prove his position? What in the name of reason has Luther and Wesley's preaching to do with Elder Riggle's church. They might have preached a great many doctrines and all that, but that doesn't prove that his is identical with the New Testament Church. Maybe he is getting tired of his position and he wants to prove that Mr. Wesley and Mr. Luther are identical with the new Testament Church because they preached sanctification. Where was the church he represents during the time of Luther, Calvin and Wesley? Does he find his name there? He can't find any people on the face of the earth that called themselves by the name "Church of God" until 1830 A. D., when the Winebrennerians took that name, and he has assumed and appropriated it, but I am inclined to believe that he has no legal right to the name. How could he take the name in the year 1830 about 47 years before his church came into existence? In his illustration or diagram, he says ten joined the Catholic Church, that they were no longer in the Church of God. I want to ask him now whether he acknowledges the Catholic Church as his brethren in Christ. Now I want him to get up here and tell you people whether he recognizes the Catholic Church as the true Church of God, and the Catholic people as his brethren. He wanted me to say the Catholics were my brethren. I want him to show me that the Catholics are his brethren, and then we will show you. The Bible doesn't say you should take a Catholic with you, Matt. 18, but it says, thy brother, but I want you to understand he can't tell it to the church. Suppose one of his brethren trespassed against him, he can't lay it before the church at Akron or Beaver Dam, because they have no power to act. In order to lay it before the church he would have to put it in the church paper that my brother has trespassed against me, and we can't settle it in our church, so we have to put it before the entire brotherhood, and scatter all the trouble all over the great universe and just let them know the disturbance and trouble I am having among my brethren. If he cannot settle the trouble in the local congregation at Akron like we do, then he has to have the whole body to help him. He cannot evade the issue here. He has got to tell it to the whole brotherhood, or to the local congregation, just like you and I and other churches do.

I deplore the divided state of Christianity just as much as he does, but does that prove that he is the right church? Not for a moment; nor for an instant. I was starting on my argument number six last night, and I said his church was wrong because it was not identical with the New Testament because of its unscriptural government. Mr. Warner claimed no authority to build a church. It has no centralizing force or power to unify them in methods. If he tells it to the church at all he has to tell it to the whole brotherhood and disturb the peace of the brotherhood because of the troubles between him and his brethren.

(Time.)

_______________

Elder Riggle's Sixth Speech
Friday Evening, September 17

Mr. Chairman, Brother Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen:---As I was closing I had this thought before your minds, that spiritual men and women in Protestantism have deplored the divided condition they are in, and long for better days. As before stated, these better days have come. My respondent, in his closing remarks, said that he also deplores the divided condition of modern Christianity. This is a frank admission on his part. I admire his honesty in saying that. I only wish that he would take his stand for the unity and oneness of the people of God, and renounce and discard all sectish clans. Now the difference between Brother Kesler and myself is this: He says he believes the great truths I present, but the trouble is he does not put them in practice. If he did, he would at once cease upholding a sect that has no foundation in the Bible. I believe these truths with all my heart, and I also plant my feet upon them, and put them in practice in my life and ministry. I have discarded everything that is not of Christ and in harmony with the truth, and abide in the one body, the divine church alone. Here I stand upon an unchangeable impregnable rock that can never be moved. In this church we need no rules of conference, but have one infallible discipline, and are under the government of heaven. The unchangeable truth will be the standard of judgment in the last great day.

I was about to show you our attitude toward the honest souls who are still in the various societies or organizations of men. Elder Kesler can see (I surely think he is not blind), in fact, anyone can see that those individuals who have been led into the different sects (pointing to the chart), and are nevertheless saved are still inside the fold of salvation and are also members of the Church of God. Whereas the people who are not saved, and yet hold membership in these institutions, are on the outside of the fold of salvation, that is, they have no membership in the true Church of God. There are multitudes of just such people in these various societies who are living every day in sin and unrighteousness. They are the ones the apostle referred to, "Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof." What are God's people, who are yoked up with these sinners and hypocrites, to do? The answer is clear. "From such turn away." "Come out from among them, and be ye separate." This is a positive command from God, and every sincere person must obey it. We readily admit and recognize the fact that there are many honest and sincere people who are really saved, and yet hold membership in these various bodies. Such have been born of the Spirit of God. They are members of Christ. They have been led into these places because of tradition. We extend to all such our Christian love and the hand of Christian fellowship, whether they are Methodists, Baptists, Evangelical, Church of the Brethren, or any other. Elder Kesler cannot do this. His narrow sectish doctrines and practices will not allow this. In the communion service we invite all saved people, even though they belong to various institutions, to come with us and partake together of the emblems of the Lord's house. As before stated, all members of the house have a right to come to the table and partake. This includes all Christians wherever found. The Church of the Brethren debars from the ordinance service all other Christian people but those who believe and practice as they do. They leave all Methodists, Baptists, Evangelicals and others out in the cold as far as they are concerned. Elder Kesler would not dare to invite any other Christian people to participate in their ordinance service without renouncing the teaching of his church. We are not so narrow. If you are a true Christian and belong to the Methodist, Baptist, Evangelical, or any other institution, you are my brother. Through salvation we all belong to the one fold. It is that extra society, into which you have been led without Scriptural authority, that I oppose. The institutions of men that have scattered and divided the people of God.

You remember I asked Elder Kesler whether he believed that Luther or Wesley were saved men. You will notice he failed to answer this question. I ask you, Elder Kesler, in duty to these people, to state whether you believe such men as Luther and Wesley were saved. Answer this if you will.

It was foretold in the Bible that in the end of this age God's people would be gathered back to their primitive oneness. Ezek. 34:10-12: "Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I am against the shepherds; and I will require My flock at their hand, and cause them to cease from feeding the flock; neither shall the shepherds feed themselves any more; for I will deliver My flock from their mouth that they may not be meat for them. For thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I, even I, will both search My sheep, and seek them out. As a shepherd seeketh out his flock in the day that he is among his sheep that are scattered; so will I seek out My sheep, and will deliver them out of all places where they have been scattered in the cloudy and dark day." As I stated before, the church is presented under the figure of Israel, for Israel under the law was a type of the church under the gospel. The cloudy and dark day in which God's people were scattered refers to the Protestant age, but you will observe that at the close of this period the Lord promised to gather His people from all the places where they had been scattered. This is now being accomplished. Permit me to use an illustration. Suppose you have a bin of potatoes and part of them are rotten, would you let the good ones remain in that bin with the idea that they would reform or save them that are spoiled? No. Of course you would not. The only way to save the good potatoes is to quickly separate them. The same is true of God's people. God never approved of mixture. Jer. 15:19: "If thou take forth the precious from the vile thou shalt be as My mouth." Friends, the gathering and separating time has come. The Lord is bringing His people together in the sacred bonds of love and unity, bringing them back to Zion, to the mountain of His holiness. Thousands, yea hundreds of thousands, have been and are being gathered. This is the great work of preparing the Bride, or church, for the coming of the Lord.

Having now closed my sixteenth argument, I will give attention to a few statements in my opponent's last address. The Holy Spirit, he says, cannot dip a man in any element. Paul says, "By one Spirit are we all baptized into one body." I have before proved that this is identical with Christ; "baptized into Christ." The element, then, into which the Holy Spirit baptizes us is Christ the Lord. Elder Kesler, by a literal rite or ceremony, can dip a person into water, but not into Christ.

He keeps on talking about physical, literal bodies of flesh and blood, muscles and bones, being added to the church. It seems to me he is not able to see much more than the literal or physical, and that the spiritual is hid from his view. The Bible says, "Flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God." It is the spiritual man that is baptized into Christ, and then the physical acts in harmony with the moral spiritual condition of the soul.

He speaks of the Waldensees and those other sects that existed in the centuries following the apostolic age. I said that the church had perfect government and organization fifteen hundred years before "modern" sects arose.

Again he refers to the congregations at Akron, Beaver Dam, and the other places where I preach, not having the power to enforce the rules that the Lord has laid down in His Word. All such talk is worthless and has no bearing on the point. It fills up time and proves nothing. The fact is, in all our local assemblies we carry out every principle of government contained in the New Testament. There is not a thing in the new covenant but what you will find practiced and fulfilled to the letter in the local assemblies of the church.

Seventeenth. My seventeenth argument is on the design of baptism.

I will first present to you the teaching of the Elder's church and then the New Testament teaching of the Church of God, so you can see the difference. I quote from "The Popular and Critical Encyclopedia and Scriptural Dictionary," by Rev. Samuel Fallows. Article "Dunker; or German Baptist Church" by J. H. Moore, present editor of the Gospel Messenger.

"They hold that faith, repentance and baptism are essential to salvation. They believe that trine immersion is the apostolic method of baptism, and receive none as members without baptizing them in this way." This is authoritative. It virtually states that trine immersion is essential to salvation. I will now present, analyse and refute the position held by the Elder's church, and at the same time clearly set before you the teaching of the Bible as held by the Church of God which I represent. This will set before you the issue between us on this important point.

I will read from "The New Testament Doctrines," by J. H. Moore, Page 35. "Baptism is a New Testament institution for all penitent believers seeking salvation. It is an act of obedience, through which one enters Christ." Again, I read from "The Doctrine of the Brethren Defended," by R. H. Miller, page 92. "We believe and teach that trine immersion was the primitive mode." This presents their position and teaching. If, as Moore says, "through baptism one enters Christ," then it follows that no one is in Christ until baptized. Since they teach that trine immersion was the primitive mode, then the only way to get into Christ or in fact the Godhead entire is by trine immersion. This is their teaching. From "The Doctrine of the Brethren Defended," by Miller, pages 98, 99, I again read. "The Christian dwells in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Spirit. *** If, then, the Christian dwells in them in that sense, and most certainly he does, the question is how does he get into them? The answer is, in the covenant of baptism he is fully initiated into the three divine powers there named." Again from the same book, page 101: "Baptism is the ceremony or ordinance by which man is brought into the church, or in other words, baptism brings us into the Father, and into the Son, and into the Holy Spirit." I again read from "The New Testament Doctrines," by Moore, page 78: "It is a putting on of Christ in baptism, or being baptized into Christ, and consummates the process that places one into the kingdom, and thereby makes him a child of God."

Question: Will Elder Kesler admit that a person who has not received trine immersion is Scripturally baptized?

Here is a fact. If he admits this, he drops the bottom out of the teaching and practice of his church.

Question: How can baptism be valid and have God's approval if not Scriptural? To uphold the doctrine of his church and to be consistent, my respondent is forced to take the position that all not baptized by trine immersion are outside of Christ and the Godhead, hence lost. Question: Can a man be saved outside of Christ? Can a person be saved outside of the triune God? According to his position all Church of God people, Methodists, Evangelicals, Christians, Presbyterians, are outside of Christ, outside of the Trinity and lost. All not baptized by trine immersion are lost.

Here is a fact. If he admits that we are saved in Christ, in the Father, and in the Spirit without trine immersion, then he repudiates and denies his own teaching and the teaching of his church.

Question: Is there any other way to get into the eternal Godhead besides trine immersion? Has God more than one method of saving men?

If you answer yes, then your teaching is wrong and the foundation of your work is a pile of sand that will not stand a thorough test of logical investigation, and must fall. If you answer no, then according to your own doctrine all people but trine immersionists are outside the eternal Trinity and forever lost. This of course leaves Luther, Wesley, Moody, and all the great and good men who have lived and died without the rite of trine immersion, outside of the kingdom and lost in the realms of eternal night. If, as Moore says, baptism "places one into the kingdom, and thereby makes him a child of God," and of course by this he means trine immersion, then there is no other conclusion to draw then this, that all not baptized in this manner are outside of the kingdom and not the children of God. May the Lord help men to see the inconsistency of such teaching. They dare not for a moment admit that anyone outside of trine immersionists are saved without denying their own teaching. Oh the crookedness of such doctrine. He makes the salvation of the world, my salvation and yours, dependent upon a rite, an external ordinance administered by man, and in a certain manner, a manner not accepted by the great body of Christians the world over, but by only a few thousand of the Elder's church. Friends, do you believe such teaching? If Elder Kesler's doctrine is true, Luther is lost, John Wesley is lost, and millions of others, because they never received the rite of trine immersion. D. L. Moody, the great evangelist, is in Hades tonight and eternally lost if my friend's position is correct. No wonder they exclude every one but themselves from their communion table. During this debate the Elder has tried hard to court the good will of you Methodist and Evangelical people, but you can see what he thinks of you. He doesn't believe any of you are saved. Only those are in the kingdom and are children of God who have passed through the triune dipping. The moment he admits that any of you are saved, he denies the doctrine of his church. Now let him take any horn of the dilemma he wishes to. The fact is, he is in a trap and cannot extricate himself.

The Elder's church teaches that triune immersion is the door into the church. "New Testament Doctrines," by Moore, pages 35, 36: "Baptism is the visible, initiatory rite into the church." "Baptism is ***the divinely appointed initiatory rite of the church." By this he means trine immersion. Again: "Doctrine of the Brethren Defended, " by Miller, page 101: "Baptism is the ceremony or ordinance by which man is brought into the church." And again: "We receive none as members without baptizing them in this way"---trine immersion. Moore in the Bible Encyclopedia. This clearly sets before you the teaching of Elder Kesler's church on this point.

This teaching cannot possibly stand the test of logical investigation, and must fall under the hammer of eternal truth. Here is a fact. If his teaching is true, then only those are church members who have received trine immersion.

Question: Will you acknowledge a person Scripturally baptized without trine immersion? Can a person become a member of the New Testament Church without this rite?

If you answer yes, then you deny your own doctrine and teaching. If you answer no, then all not baptized by trine immersion are outside of the church. Friends, just think of this. His teaching leaves everybody outside of the Christian church but trine immersionists. Of course this includes Wesley, Luther, Moody, and multitudes of other great and good men who have been mightily used of God in the past, and others who enjoy God's favor now.

Question: Can a man be saved outside of the New Testament Church? If so, what kind of a Christian would he be?

Here is a fact. All outside of the body of Christ, the New Testament Church, are lost. There is no escape from this conclusion. Then, Elder Kesler, you must either admit that we are all lost without God and without hope in the world, or admit that the doctrine and teaching of your church is wrong, erroneous and unscriptural. You see, if as your church teaches, trine immersion is the initiatory rite into the church, the ordinance by which man is brought into the fold, then it follows that all who do not by this means enter, do not enter at all. They must all be out in the cold and lost. The Lord pity us poor folks who have not accepted this Dunkard rite. I pray the Lord to show honest souls the erroneousness of such teaching.

If this is not true, then trine immersion is not the initiatory rite. If you admit it is not, then you deny your own teaching and admit it to be erroneous. Elder Kesler, can a person become a member of the New Testament Church without receiving trine immersion? If so, the teaching of your church is erroneous, and your position is false. To admit this you must deny your own practice. If they cannot, then they are all outside and without hope. You cannot escape or evade this issue.

The Church of God is not so narrow as this in its teaching and practice. Here is the truth. In not one single text in the New Testament is trine baptism mentioned as the ordinance by which man is brought into the church. This is simply a teaching of the Church of the Brethren, but not of the Holy Scriptures. The Elder cannot cite a single text or example where one man, by the rite of triune immersion, can or did take anyone into the church. There is not one. The truth is, Christ is the door. Jn. 10:7, 9. Faith unlocks this door. Rom. 5:1, 2. "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God THROUGH our Lord Jesus Christ."

Question: Where did the apostles ever claim to take members into the church by water baptism? My friend cannot cite a single instance because there are none. The apostles taught directly the opposite. As I have already clearly proved from Acts 2:47, 1 Cor. 12:13, 18, the Lord adds the members to the church by an operation of the Holy Spirit. The church on earth is the visible manifestation of the kingdom of God. God alone and not the preacher places us in the kingdom. Col. 1:13: "Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of His dear Son." Right here I want to state an incontrovertible truth. Its logic cannot be questioned. Since the church is a spiritual institution, termed "a spiritual house," it must have a spiritual door of entrance and a spiritual mode of induction. This is salvation. No man can save, therefore, God alone can take you in the church.

Allow me to say in conclusion. Elder Kesler has frequently referred to my addresses as "great sermons." He says I preach good sermons, but do not debate to suit him. I am satisfied that I am getting the truth before the people and that is my purpose during this investigation. There is but one side to truth, so there is very little left to debate over after I present the sermons he refers to. As to the force of our arguments and the logic used, I am willing to let the public decide as to that. I think he will conclude that I am debating now. The fact is, Elder Kesler has met the wrong man. I am satisfied before this discussion closes, he will have all the debating he wants. I must confess that I felt in the beginning a little like David did when he went out to meet Goliath with a sling and a stone. But now I am in the heat of the battle with victory, and feel strong in the Lord and in the power of His might. I am sure I feel just like David did when he said he could run through a troop and leap over a wall. I am here to declare the truth. It is the truth that honest people want. If my respondent's position is true and the salvation of this lost world depends upon trine immersion then the great majority are lost and but a very few are right. But facts and truths prove the position of my friend to be illogical, unscriptural and positively wrong.

(Time.)

_______________

Elder Kesler's Sixth Speech
Friday Evening, September 17

Gentlemen, Moderators, Brethren and Friends:-- Talking about dilemma, if I ever saw a man in a dilemma it was my worthy opponent in his last speech. Did you notice that he spent at least half or more on the negative side of the proposition? Did you notice that? Now he says he is debating. Is it debating for a man on the affirmative to turn around and get on the negative to try to force his negative on the affirmative side before he gets to it? I don't understand debating. I confess, if this is debating. I won't refer to that again. He wants me to know whether Mr. Luther and Mr. Wesley were saved or not. I don't know whether any man is saved but one, and that is myself. I will ask Elder Riggle if he knows of a certainty that Luther and Wesley were saved and upon what ground he knows it. He referred to Ezek. 34:10, where God is going to gather His people out of all of these sects. This Scripture had reference to God's gathering His scattered people, the Jews, out of the nations in which they have been scattered, and has no reference whatever to the day and age in which we live. You will find all of the prophets in writing of the Jews tell how God is going to gather them together, and the time will come when he will gather them and take them to their native land---the land of Palestine---and that is the Scripture that he gave you that God is going to bring the people out of the sects and bring them back to were they once were. I showed you that when you get out of the fold you are no more in the fold. Yet with all his reasoning he isn't able to show you that if anyone gets out of the fold he is still in it. Out of the fold means out of it, and it doesn't mean in it. He says the Spirit dips into Christ. You remember, I want you to keep the points, I want you to see the trap in which he places himself and the ridiculous absurdity that he is bringing before you and thinks that intelligent people like you can't see it. On page 121 of Christian Baptism and the Lord's Supper and Feet-washing, Elder Riggle says: "Baptism is a public induction into the Holy name of the Trinity." In his speech he says that the Spirit dips us into Christ. In his work treating on baptism he cannot mean anything else than that by water baptism we are inducted into Christ. If ever a man was in a dilemma he certainly is now. Now he gets up and says 1500 years before modern sects arose. I wish the stenographer would give us the absolute statement tomorrow on that point whether he said "modern" sects, or whether he said sects without the modern. If the Akron church does what he says his government is just like mine and yours and because his is like ours he wants you to believe that his is the only true church and you and I and all the other sects are outside of the fold. Any man could prove his position by an argument like that.

"God alone can take in and cast out." That is all true but you know I proved that God does this through human instrumentality or agency, and here he tells us in his work that God through baptism puts them into the Holy Trinity. It takes human instrumentality and obedience to God's word to do it. He feels "safe and secure" and therefore his is the only true church. Isn't that a wonderful argument? I feel just as safe and secure as I possibly can. He wants you to believe that his is the true Church of God because he feels good. Very well. He read from Brother Moore's book, pages 34 and 35, about baptism brings us into the Father, the Son, and Holy Ghost, and you remember the impression he tried to make on you, how absurd and ridiculous he tried to make that look that Brother Moore and Miller said that in baptism we are brought into the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and bless your good souls, my friends, Elder Riggle says the very identical and same thing---"baptism is a public induction into the Holy Trinity." Physician, heal thy self. And he gets up here and condemns Brother Miller and Moore and Kesler when he says the very same thing, and he makes it look so absurd and ridiculous in your eyes.

He wants me to defend triune immersion. He tries his best to draw me from the negative line and place me on the affirmative side. Why in the name of intelligence and reason does he spend half of his time talking about triune immersion instead of explaining single baptism and telling us that is the baptism? I tell you, he is playing away from his doctrine just as long as he possibly can. He is going to spend very little time on his single backward baptism. He will not spend as much time as he has already spent on triune immersion already. Listen and see if he does. I want to say something that is a little unpleasant. Elder Riggle turned around and addressed himself personally and directly to me. The moderators are modest, and Elder Riggle knows that is not in keeping with courtesy. It looked like an effort to browbeat a man, and I hope he will not do so any more.

He is not so narrow. Does he admit sprinkling as baptism? He can't uphold his baptism if he admits sprinkling. His is the narrowest. He denies your practice, sprinkling and pouring, I deny his.

In 1 Cor. 12:13, 18: Again he affirms that the Spirit baptizes into the body. By solid reason I showed you that he is certainly wrong here---that the correct rendering is shown by the Emphatic Diaglott and Revised Version we are baptized into the Spirit and he cannot show that God's Spirit ever baptized a single individual. We are baptized "in" the Spirit, but the Spirit does not baptize us into the body.

I tried to court sympathy. I just leave that with you to see who has tried to court sympathy the most in this discussion. I don't like positively to oppose statements that my opponent makes. I will continue my line of argument.

His government is wrong and his position is wrong, and he is not in identity with the New Testament Church because of his unscriptural government. It has no centralizing power to unify them. In Acts 15 we have the first conference that the church ever had. He has nothing like this except it be, my dear friends, something like what happened at Anderson about the year 1909. Elder Riggle and a number of his other brethren got in a conference in that great camp-meeting and they decided against the wearing of the necktie among his brethren. Just two years after that, 1911, I think, or at least two years apart, they had another similar conference that convened at the call of Elder Riggle that came together and revoked the decision that they entered into two years before and expressed their regrets that they had passed the decision. He said something about our conference changing rules and tried to make it look ugly. I say again, physician, heal thyself. People that live in glass houses must not cast stones. Again, the Church of the New Testament had elders for every church. Acts 14:21-23 we learn that they ordained elders in every church. He has his elders ordained for the entire brotherhood, and not for every church. His position is wrong on most every point that he can bring. The seven churches of Asia each had an angel as their overseer. Not so in Elder Riggle's church. Judas had fallen away from the apostleship. Matthias was chosen in place of Judas, Acts 1:15-26, and not after the fashion that Elder Riggle's offices are called into his church. If so he is just like the balance of us. His argument in the debate so far proves that he doesn't do it that way. Again, in Acts 6:2-6, I want to read that which will show you just how they got church officers in the apostolic times, and not so in my worthy opponent's church: "Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them and said, 'It is not reasonable that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables. Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. But we will give ourselves continually to prayer and to the ministry of the Word.' And the saying pleased the whole multitude; and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip and Prochorus, and Nicarnor and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas, a proselyte of Antioch, whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed they laid their hands on them." The matter of selecting the men was placed in the hands of the church, and after the church had made their selection, then they were placed in authority to do the work. The great Apostle Paul had to go to Ananias for instructions and then to the church. Acts 9:6. This is God speaking to Saul: "Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do" God must have men to talk to men. He must work through human instrumentality. Acts 13:1-3: "Now, there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers, as Barnabas, and Simeon, that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, 'Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.' And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away." God does the work, but He does it through men. Mot so in the church represented by Elder Riggle. Whenever a man wants to preach, he just simply gets up and preaches, and then he goes and demands ordination from the hands of the ministers. Not so in the new Testament Church. It is presumptuous for a man to rise up and call himself a minister, an elder or a deacon, and force himself on the church, and then demand an ordination at their hands. I understand he has a presbytery in his church, and anyone could go to the presbytery and say they had a call to be a deacon, and he must be recognized. He says that the elder gets his call from God. If he wants to preach he will go and say, "God has called me to preach, now you must recognize me." God works through the church, and doesn't recognize any other means. If I believed that God worked independently of his church, I would be at home, and I don't see any reason for Elder Riggle and me to be out here if God works independent of us. "It is God that worketh in you both to will and to do of his own good pleasure," and he doesn't work any other way. Any institution has a right to select its own officers. Shall his church be made an exception to all rules on this point? Listen: The churches select their own officers. They have a prerogative, a right to do so. Shall the church be made an exception and let anyone get up and say, I have had a call from God and you must recognize it?" Not so in the New Testament Church. Elder Riggle hasn't the right system. Mr. Warner did not start it right when he started out. I have another budget of questions that I would like for Elder Riggle to take along. I want to give him as good grade as I can when it is all over. I want to give you just a few syllogistic arguments.

1. Religious bodies that believe that Jesus built the New Testament are sects. That is Elder Riggle for you. All of the people that believe Jesus Christ built the church are sects. The church Elder Riggle represents believes Jesus built the New Testament Church, therefore the church he represents is a sect.

2. "New Testament Church never ceased to exist since 33 A. D.," says Elder Riggle. The church he represents had no existence until 1877 A. D., therefore his is not the New Testament Church.

3. "We lose membership when we sin." That is Elder Riggle for you. It is a sin for you to live there; therefore, all of you who joined and live in any sect (except the one Elder Riggle represents) forfeit the membership in the Church of God. Just as his illustration shows, they are out of the church.

4. "Sects belong to the devil." Elder Riggle for you. "Some of God's children are in the sects." Therefore, some of God's children belong to the devil.

5. "All saved people belong to the Church of God." Elder Riggle for you. "But some saved people belong to the sects" (Elder Riggle for you), therefore the sects are the Church of God. It takes us all in except Elder Riggle, because his is not a sect.

I am presenting another argument against his doctrine. You see I have to lead out. I regret very much that he spends so much of his time in the negative, when he ought to go forward and present the doctrines of his church. He promised you he would start on the doctrines, and now he spends the balance of this time on the negative side---that is going to come sometime in the future. Because, my friends, he is afraid to go forward and take a firm stand anywhere, so I will have to lead out, even if it does enable him to fortify himself against the impregnable position that we are occupying. He ought to go forward and present it so that I could meet him in a negative way. The doctrine of the building of his church is erroneous. That is the seventh argument under our position. He says, "The hand of God, though invisible to man, builds and organizes a church visible to all. Though organized by the Spirit, the church is composed of men and women." Extract from the Gospel Trumpet, May 20, 1915, by Elder Riggle himself. I have it in my case. If he wishes it will be produced. How does he know when the church is organized, if God organizes the church? How does he know when it is organized, when God is through with it, and when God is done with the organizing? How does he know whom the Spirit has selected for the deacon, the minister, or the elder, when the Spirit has ordained a man to the eldership or any position in the church? I would like for him to meet the issue here, and tell us plainly how he knows it. "Jesus built His own church." Page 336, Ebeling-Riggle debate. Page 330-331 and as his theory is that until Pentecost there was no church, and on page 334, where he says Christ only gathered the material. He has stated in this discussion that there is no salvation outside of the Church of God. You remember that he made an argument, and if I have time I will meet it in a negative way, that the church was built on the day of Pentecost, and if there is no salvation out of that, then there was no church in which to be saved, and hence no man was saved before the day of Pentecost. No salvation out of the Church of God; you must get into the Church of God in order to be saved; there was no Church of God until the day of Pentecost. That is his teaching. He is in a dilemma if he ever was. Teaches that all John's converts, and all of Jesus' disciples, were just simply left without salvation until there was a Church of God built on the day of Pentecost, so they could be saved in it. "No salvation out of it," he says.

(Time.)

_______________

Elder Riggle's Seventh Speech
Saturday Night, September 18

Mr. Chairman, Brother Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen:---There are but three points in Elder Kesler's closing speech last night that are worthy of my notice. First. Organization. Although, as the manuscript will show, not less than three times during this discussion I have fully covered and explained this point, that the Church of God is an organized body both in its general and local sense, and I have explained just how the local congregations are organized. In the face of all this my respondent has spent most all the time of his last three speeches misrepresenting me and trying to leave the impression upon the public that we as a people do not believe in organization. I do not say that he has done this willfully, but if not, he has done so ignorantly. The fact is, during almost the entire time spent in the last three speeches he has been beating the air and missing the mark. In one sense I feel sorry for the man. He ought to have prepared himself better before he entered this discussion. He had several months' time to acquaint himself with the position, doctrine, and practice of the Church of God. As I stated, although I have clearly explained this point, as the manuscript will show, yet for the benefit of those who may have received the impression, through his talk, that we oppose organization, I will make one final statement and then let the matter rest.

I will read from my own book entitled, "The Christian Church; Its Rise and Progress," pages 40-43:

"Therefore, when men charge us with discarding all organizations, they either ignorantly or willfully misrepresent us. As the Word teaches, so we teach. The church that Jesus purchased with His own blood, He also 'built' (Matt. 16:18); that is, organized. 'In whom (Christ) all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple into the Lord.' Eph. 2:21." These Scriptures and many others clearly set forth the Church of God as a symmetrical and perfectly organized structure. Of this fact there is no question; but with regard to who hold the prerogative of organizing the body, not all so well agree.

The general teaching in sectarian theology is that God only saves and gathers men out of the world into a general mass, and that it is the duty of ministers to form the material thus provided into organic form. But our teaching is that God not only saves men into his church, but also forms them in due order, and really organizes the church itself. In order to show which position is correct, we will now appeal to the Word. A few texts will be sufficient to settle the question. The church, as we have seen, is a building, a house; that is, an organic structure. Now, it must be apparent to all that whoever is the architect and builder of a house is also its organizer. But "He who hath builded the house hath more honor than the house." And "He that built all things is God." Heb. 3:3, 4. "But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased Him." 1 Cor. 12:18. "And God hast set some in the church, first apostles," etc. Verse 28. To furnish with organs, "built," "compact," "fitly framed together," and to "temper the body together," cover all that is included in the word "organize." And "All these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit." 1 Cor 12:11. Yea, "It is the same God which worketh all in all." 1 Cor. 12:6. He, then, through the Spirit, is the organizer of His own church.

As we view the pure church in her morning glory, we see her a perfectly organized body. She had law, discipline, and government. This was all contained in the gospel---the New Testament. The law of Christ being a perfect rule of faith, the church needed no other, and it needs no other today. There is no excuse for the modern creeds of men. Modern sects are of human origin; hence they need man-made rules and discipline. The Church of God is divine; hence the divine law is sufficient for its government.

Moreover, the Lord calls, qualifies and sends forth by His spirit certain ones for the ministry. Among those are evangelists, pastors, and teachers. They prove their call by their ability to minister. Such are acknowledged by the church, and by the direction of the Lord are ordained by the imposition of hands to the important work to which the Lord has called them. This is all done by the direction of the Holy Spirit, without voting into office. In every congregation saved out of the world by the blood of Christ the Lord calls certain ones, and by His spirit qualifies them to be elders or overseers. Others he calls to the work of deacons. "He sets the members every one in the body as it pleaseth Him." The ministry recognize these calls, and by the laying on of hands, just like the apostles and ministers of old, dedicate to the various kinds of work those whom the Lord has chosen and qualified. This is called ordination. These officers of the church are in authority, and execute His word. They are called 'overseers." They are not made so by man, but "the Holy Ghost hast made you overseers" (Acts 20:28). The church is commanded thus: "Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves." Heb. 13:17.

So, before advent of any of the modern sects, God's church was a perfectly organized structure and we are happy to say that since we have come out of and discarded these sects of human origin, and have been abiding only in the church divine, we have the same government, rule, discipline, officers, authority and organization that the primitive Christians had.

My respondent spoke with reference to the congregations in and around Akron, Ind., where I am pastor, and then made the statement that in the primitive church elders were ordained in every congregation. He followed this with the statement, "In Elder Riggle's church they don't do that way." Here again he does not state the facts. We ordain elders and deacons in every local church, just as we are instructed in our book of discipline---the Holy Scriptures. In the congregations in and around Akron there are regularly ordained officers, and they fulfill their offices and work in administering the government of the church the same as in the primitive church. In all our congregations the Holy Scriptures are taught, and its rules of discipline are administered in the very same manner that Jesus and the apostles instructed. We do believe in organization, and practice what we believe: organization identical with that in the New Testament. Elder Kesler tells you that this constitutes us a sect. I emphatically deny the charge. Let me state a fact that all can see. If organization in harmony with the New testament would make us a sect, then the primitive church in the days of the apostles would be a sect for the same reason. Right here is where his contention fails him, and all his arguments go to pieces. You see there is no logic or orthodoxy in his teaching. Now, in case of trespass, as mentioned in Matt. 18, the local assemblies of the saints fulfill this to the letter, and that without joining any sect or subscribing to any man-made rules. I contend that the New Testament is a perfect discipline, therefore we need no additional rules of conference. Our congregations are commanded to obey the officers of the church, as they administer this discipline, and this fulfills Paul's instruction: "Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves, for they watch for your souls." I like facts, and here is a fact: The New Testament was never given for any sect, but for the church.

Second. The Christian church was fully organized on Pentecost, and includes all Christians. Referring to this, Elder Kesler says, "According to Elder Riggle, no one was saved until Pentecost." This needs but a passing note. I reply the church, as a distinct institution in the world, was fully organized on Pentecost. I have abundantly proved this, and Elder Kesler has not been able to overthrow the fact. Now, the Old Testament Church was a typical institution. The entire old covenant dispensation was one of types and figures, all pointing forward to the great blessings of the Christian church. Therefore, there is a sense in which this heavenly Jerusalem includes all the redeemed from Adam to the end of time. As seen in the book of Revelation, this golden city included the twelve tribes of Israel. Christ died for those under the old covenant as well as for us under the new and Paul tells us "That they without us were not made perfect." It is in this sense that the church which I represent---the body of Christ---includes the whole family of God in heaven and in earth. You see all his talk about no one being saved until Pentecost is all for effect and has no real bearing on the subject in debate.

Third. My respondent gave a quotation from my book on "Christian Baptism," page 121, and tried to leave the impression that I taught the same as his church. You see, I read a number of quotations from their standard authors wherein they teach that the literal rite of baptism inducts people into Christ, or the Holy Trinity. Now, by reading a disconnected sentence from my book, he endeavored to show that I teach the same thing. This I emphatically deny. I will now read the quotation he gave, which will show that he misstated the facts. "Baptism is a public induction into the holy name of the Trinity; a public testimony of our great salvation from sin; a ceremonial and figurative washing away of sins; and emblematical death, burial, and resurrection, in which we attest the fact that we are risen with Christ to walk in newness of life." Now I will read again from my book, page 62, where I clearly explained in what sense we are immersed into the name of the Trinity in the rite of baptism. You see, the Elder was careful not to read my explanation of the above statement. "It might be well right here to explain in what sense we are immersed into His name in water baptism. Peter said, 'Eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto baptism doth also now save us.' 1 Pet. 3:20-21. Baptism is a figurative salvation. The saving of eight souls in the ark during the flood was a figure of our salvation; and Peter plainly tells us that baptism is a 'like figure.' Figurative means emblematical. Our induction into Christ, into His name, is wrought by the Holy Spirit. It is a work of God, and not of man. By a work of divine grace the soul is baptized into Christ, and at the same time into His name, and into the Kingdom of Heaven. This is a spiritual work. Now, water baptism is an emblem of this inward work, and outward testimony to the fact. *** It is a figurative induction into Christ. In baptism we publicly confess His name, take upon us His name before the world, and thus emblematically are baptized into His name."

This needs no comment. It sets before you the position I occupy on this subject. The literal rite of baptism is only an emblematical induction into the Trinity, a figurative salvation. If my respondent ever brings this matter up again you will know that he misstates the facts. The language of "my blood" clearly shows that our induction into Christ is wrought by the Holy Spirit, that it is the work of God, and not of man. Baptism only testifies in a public manner to this fact, whereas Elder Kesler's church teaches that the literal rite of water baptism, by which they mean trine immersion, is the real induction into Christ and the Godhead entire; that all who have not been thus baptized have no relationship with the Trinity---are not children of God. This is the issue between us on this point.

He has not answered a single argument that I presented last evening. Just simply passed them over by saying that I had come over and taken up the negative side of the argument. This is not the case. The rules of this debate require me "to set before you in a specific way the points of teaching and practice wherein we differ from the church of my respondent." You see, that is just exactly what I have been doing, and then he cries, "He is coming over on the negative side." The difficulty with my respondent is I am covering too much ground, and he cannot reply to my argument. He tried to befog your minds and divert your attention from the subject now in debate. In my last speech I was not treating on the mode or action of baptism, whether it was one immersion or three, but the subject was my second argument on the third division of this proposition: The DESIGN or PURPOSE of the institution. I was setting before you in a clear manner the difference between his church and the Church of God on this particular point. You see, they teach that baptism is a saving ordinance, and it is through this rite that people both enter the church and the eternal Trinity. We teach that this work is effected by God alone through the Holy Spirit. As they hold, all people who have not received the rite of triune immersion are debarred from salvation and the Kingdom of God. He cannot escape the issue. I hold it before him, and he must face it. He dare not deny the charge. Simply passing it by by stating that I have come over on the negative side will not satisfy this intelligent people. I am here to debate the question. Why doesn't he come out boldly like a man and state himself? I want to keep before your minds the fact that according to his teaching and practice, all who have not received baptism as his church administers it are lost and doomed to hell. Now let him face the issue. This is their teaching, as I have read from their standard works, and he cannot deny it. I challenge him to state to this congregation whether he believes that anyone outside of triune immersionists are saved. I anticipate that he will not answer. If he would for a moment concede this much, he would set himself in array against the doctrine of his church. You remember I asked him whether he believed that such men as Luther, Wesley, and Moody were saved? He replied, "I don't know whether these men were saved. I only know of one man who is saved, and that is myself." Here again he is evasive. I did not ask him whether he knew these men were saved, but whether he believed they were. With him nobody is saved but trine immersionists.

I will now continue my line of argument as to the design or purpose of Christian Baptism. Elder Kesler's church places water baptism on the same plane with repentance and faith. I will read from the "New Testament Doctrines," by J. H. Moore, page 36: "It is not an outward sign that the inward change of being born again has already taken place, but it is the external part of the act. Baptism may be an evidence of the inward change made necessary for an entrance into the Kingdom, but cannot be a sign of an entrance that has already taken place. The work of grace in the heart---faith, repentance, confession, regeneration and baptism---may be regarded as parts of the process that make one a new creature in Christ Jesus. They are parts of the process that consummate true conversion. In this process baptism is the visible part, and belongs to the process as much as repentance or faith."

In this you will see that according to their teaching no one is converted until he has passed through the rite of baptism, which to them means trine immersion. They place this external ordinance on the same plane with repentance and faith. I will now present our position as set forth in the New Testament, and in doing so will refute the above teaching. I will read from my own book on "Christian Baptism," pages 100 and 101:

"Our salvation is not dependent upon and ordinance administered by another. There is one mediator between God and man---Christ Jesus the Lord. Through Him guilty sinners may approach the Father, and upon the conditions of repentance and faith receive pardon and be fully reconciled to God. This is the doctrine of the New Testament. Now, to teach that baptism inducts a person into the Kingdom, and that until he is baptized his sins are unpardoned, is to virtually say that believers who have not been baptized are lost. A believer cannot baptize himself, and people are often placed in circumstances in which they cannot be baptized by others. Are such a one still under the guilt of sin? Suppose a sinner repents with a broken and contrite heart, forever turns away from sin, and believes on Christ with all his heart, but is a thousand miles away from anyone authorized to immerse him. Would he still be under the condemnation of his sins? Is his salvation dependent on an external rite that is not in his power to perform? Incredible.

Such a doctrine predicates salvation upon an external rite administered by man. It would send to hell many who, though willing to observe all things commanded, have not the opportunity to be baptized. Suppose I repent and believe the gospel today, but have not the opportunity to be baptized until tomorrow. Suppose I die before I can reach a minister authorized to administer baptism. Am I exposed to eternal ruin and damnation, even though I have repented and believed the gospel? Such teaching is inconsistent. It contradicts the entire New Testament.

Some, however, admit that such persons would be saved without baptism. But to admit this is to admit that remission of sins may be obtained through repentance and faith without water baptism, for no one can be saved without remission of sins. In the name of Christ, I affirm that God did not make my salvation dependent upon an act which I cannot perform for myself. There is not in the New Testament one single sentence which even intimates that a true believer is condemned and doomed to hell because he cannot receive an external ordinance. Everyone who truly believes on Christ is immediately pardoned and has eternal life."

The Church of the Brethren teaches that remission of sins follows baptism. I will again read from "The New Testament Doctrines," by Moore, pages 55, 56: "The remission of sins should follow the sacred rite of baptism." "In the time of the apostles it seems to have been well understood that the remission of sins followed baptism. Those who believed on Christ as their Savior made the good confession, repented of their wrong-doing, and were baptized, felt assured that their sins had been pardoned---that they had been saved from their sins; were in Christ, having been baptized into him, and were therefore in a saved state."

Always remember that by baptism they mean triune immersion. So, according to their teaching, the remission of sins follows the triune rite. Question: Can a person receive remission of sins without trine immersion? If he answers "Yes," then he denies the teaching and practice of his church. If he answers "No," then only those who have received trine immersion have their sins remitted. I will here state a fact. If Elder Kesler stands by the teaching and doctrine of the church he represents, then only those who have received trine immersion are pardoned and have obtained remission of sins. This, of course , excludes Luther, Wesley, and millions of others who have never received this external rite. Question: Can a person be saved without having their sins remitted? Are not all people whose sins have not been remitted lost? If remission of sins follows triune immersion, then how can people receive remission without it? Here is another fact. If they cannot, they are all lost. If my respondent will admit that they can, then he denies his own teaching, the doctrine and practice of his church. Against this absurd teaching I present the following truths, which set forth the teaching of the Church of God on this particular point:

To teach that baptism must precede actual remission of sins contradicts the plain teaching of the New Testament throughout. Jesus himself says, "He that believeth on Him (the Son of God) is not condemned." Jn. 3:18. That is, all believers are pardoned. Again, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved." Acts 16:31. "If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shall believe in thy heart that God hath raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." Rom. 10:9. "Whosoever believeth on Him shall receive remission of sins." "All that believeth are justified." Acts 13:39. "He that believeth on Me hath everlasting life." Jn. 7:47. To these texts I could add many others.

The New Testament positively teaches that repentance and faith always must precede baptism. Only those who believe with all their hearts are eligible to this ordinance. "If thou believest with all thy heart thou mayest." This is the way the early ministers taught. Baptism, then , is for believers, and not for sinners; and all the above Scriptures clearly teach that those who believe are free from condemnation, are born of God, are justified, have everlasting life, receive remission of sins, and are saved. They are now the sons of God. Rom. 5:1`: "Being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." And again, Eph. 2:8, 9: "By grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast." What could be clearer than the truth contained in these Scriptures? Through repentance and faith every sinner has access to God. One test forever settles this point: "He that believeth on Him is not condemned." The moment a person believes on Christ, after having repented of their sins, condemnation is removed and they are saved.

I firmly believe and teach that there are myriads of redeemed souls in Paradise tonight who entered the Kingdom through repentance and faith, and yet never received the rite or ceremonial ordinance of triune baptism. John beheld this vast multitude around the throne on high, and asked, "Who are these, and whence came they?" The answer was not these are they which came up through great tribulation, and washed their robes and made them white in the water of triune baptism. No, indeed. "These are those who have washed their robes and made them white IN THE BLOOD OF THE LAMB." Paul plainly set forth the conditions of salvation as "repentance toward God, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ." This is without any external rite administered by man.

Elder Kesler's church further teaches that the washing of regeneration is baptism. I will again read from "The New Testament Doctrines," by Elder Moore, page 80: "The washing of regeneration evidently refers to the washing associated with the process of regeneration. This, of course, means baptism." "Baptism, which Paul calls the washing of regeneration." Don't forget that by baptism they always mean trine immersion, for nothing else with them is baptism. Let me here state another fact. The apostle says, "He hath saved us by the washing of regeneration." If, as the Church of the Brethren teaches, this is trine immersion, then all not having received this rite have not this washing of regeneration, and are not saved. If not saved, they are lost.

Question: Can a person be saved without the washing of regeneration? If so, how? Please tell us by what means? If, as the elder's church teaches, this is baptism---or trine immersion---how can anyone be saved without this ordinance? If any one can be saved without the rite of triune immersion, what would be the difference between their salvation and those who are saved by this washing? Can people be saved more than one way? If so, will Elder Kesler please give us the Scriptural proof? I think all honest people can see the fallacy of such extreme teaching.

One more fact in this connection. If trine immersion is this washing by which we are saved, then all of us who have not been baptized in this manner are lost. This is a logical conclusion that cannot be questioned. Dare Elder kesler admit that none of us is saved who has not received trine immersion? If he does admit this, he drops the bottom out of his teaching, and virtually denies the doctrine of his church. More than this, the whole fabric of trine immersion falls to the ground and exploded delusion.

Against their position I will present the following truths: Very frequently in the Scripture the term "water" is used to represent different things. Jesus , "If any man shall drink of the water that I shall give him, he shall never thirst." Here by the term water he meant salvation, as in Isa. 12:2: "With joy shall you draw water out of the wells of salvation." We read in the Scriptures of the "water of life." On one occasion Christ said, "If any man thirst let him come unto Me and drink; and out of his belly shall flow rivers of living waters. This he spake of the Spirit, that they which believed on Him should receive." In this instance, by the authority of Christ, water is emblematical of the Spirit of God. Again, in the Revelation, water is used to symbolize multitudes of people. It is in this manner that in Jn 3:5 the term water is used in connection with new birth. It is used to signify the Word of God. People are born of the Word and Spirit. These are the two great agencies through which the new birth or regeneration is effected. This is a spiritual work, and can only be wrought through spiritual agencies. No human administered rite can accomplish this work. mankind has access to God through Jesus Christ without a human mediator.

The temple was a beautiful type of the church. At its door was a laver of water. The priest was required to wash his hands and feet at this laver before entering that literal structure. This typified a cleansing necessary to enter the Church of God. Water did not typify water. When we inquire as to what this cleansing element under the Christian dispensation really is, the answer is found in Jn 15:3: "Now are ye clean through the Word which I have spoken unto you." Paul calls it "The washing of water by the Word." The gospel, then, is the cleansing element through which the sinner must pass, at which time, through the agency of the Holy Spirit, the blood is applied, and the newly regenerated soul enters the Kingdom of God. Thus regeneration is by the Word of God and by the Spirit of God.

(Time)

_______________

Elder Kesler's Seventh Speech
Saturday Evening, September 18

Gentlemen, Moderators, Brethren and Friends:---I do want to congratulate my worthy opponent on the fine sermon he has delivered this evening. It seems he doesn't understand debating. He makes a very good revivalist, but he doesn't understand debating. He is sorry for me. I am glad to know one fellow in the congregation sympathizes with me, but I didn't know he was so stranded. Suppose he had not had his books here tonight, what would have become of the fellow? I believe he read about half of the time our of his own books. If he hadn't had the books here I don't know what would have become of him.

2 Cor. 6:14-18: "Be not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? and what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? and what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? fro ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God and they shall be my people. Wherefore, come out from among them and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you." I asked him on the communion question how he reconciled that when he goes over into the darkness of the sects, and communes with them, but he hasn't answered it. "What concord hath Christ with Belial?" He says sects belong to the devil, and then he invites them to commune with him. I want to know how he gets this to work together. "What agreement hath the temple of God with idols?" "Wherefore, come out from among them and be ye separate, saith the Lord. and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you." He has been quoting this Scripture and trying to apply it to us, and tells that we have to get out of the sects and come over to his sect. If there were sects in Paul's time, and Paul wrote to them and told them to come out of those sects if he tells us that there were no sects in Paul's day, and applies it down here in these modern times, this is not treating God's word wit the respect that I think is due it. ! Cor. 12:14-26: Here is another Scripture we are not seeing just alike. You will find in one of these verses, the 18th, "God hath set the members every one of them in the body as it hath pleased Him." My worthy opponent is contending that body means the church. Now, I want to read this Scripture to you. Verse 14: "For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot shall say, 'Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body'; is it therefore not of the body? And if the ear shall say, 'Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body'; it therefore not of the body? If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling? But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased Him. And if they were all one member, where were the body? But now are they many members, yet but one body." Now, do you think Paul has changed from the subject he is writing on and changed the subject? You see, my friend wants to come right down here and say that Paul is speaking of the spiritual body. Paul is writing about the natural body. My friend wants to take it out of its setting and say that it applies to the Church of God. Listen: "And the eye can not say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the foot, I have no need of you." It is unpleasant to talk like this after a man that seems to be so earnest in this matter as Elder Riggle, but I believe he is wrong on these points, and I am here to set the matter out in the right way, and that is why I am on the negative on this subject.

Sects divide God's people," he says. You remember the illustration he gave last night. Why did his people go to work and start a new sect and add to the many already in existence? When they started up a few years ago the world was almost as divided as it is now, and if he preaches so much on unity, whey didn't he join the Catholics if he thins they are his brethren? Instead, he goes to work and starts up another organization. That doesn't look like contending for the unity of the faith, by just simply starting up a little body and saying, "We are the church, and all you people are sects." Thus he defeats himself in his doctrine of unity. He said the time would come when some would give heed to seductive spirits and doctrines of demons, and would draw away disciples after them. Hasn't that been the history of these people? You that know these people, you know that they go around drawing away disciples after them, and isn't that the nature of their work? He is trying to draw you away from you church homes over in the little body that his people have started in these modern times. The Scriptures could not apply more directly on the face of this earth to any other than the people that my worthy opponent is representing in this discussion. Why didn't he join the Catholics if they are his brethren? He say, "I cant admit the M. E.'s to communion." What union can there be in interdenominational communion? Here we have in his illustration on the chart the Mennonites, the Church of the Brethren, the German Reformed, and others. Of course, they are out of the church, as I told you last night---everybody that is outside of that ring is in the sects and under the government of the devil, and I asked him to tell us if "our of" actually meant "out of." Well, here are these churches outside of the Church of God, and he wants them to come in and commune with him. What would that add to unity? What agreement could there be there? All these different churches, with their different views, and practices, and teaching. Eating together is not communion. There can be no communion unless there is union. You can eat together, but you can't commune together under conditions that kind. Just another thought: You remember about that illustration last night about rotten potatoes and good potatoes. He said we represented a basket of potatoes, some of them good and some of the ban---rotten. The bad ones will spoil the good ones if we mix them, he said. Now, then, here come these rotten potatoes out of the sects and go into communion with the Church of God. According to his own theory, when the rotten potatoes go to communion with good ones they will spoil them---spoil the Church of God. That is what we are objecting to tonight, my dear friends. Now, my friends, to preserve the unity of the church we cannot invite you to partake of the communion with us, but one thing I will promise you, my dear friends, I will never compare you to rotten potatoes. Did Elder Riggle's people ever come and commune with your M. E. people in this town? It their custom to come over and commune with the churches? He says I don't practice what I preach. I would like Elder Riggle to tell me if it is his custom to commune with the different churches, if he practices what he is preaching. Do you not think, my dear friends, that his idea of open communion is for you to come over and commune with him, rather than to come over and commune with you? That is the way it looks to me until he shall straighten this matter up.

God's church existed 1500 years before there were sects. I brought this up, and I called for a statement from the stenographer, but did not insist on it, so do not have it, but I have the statement all the same. "Of sect Babylon, the Lutheran is the oldest sect of Protestantism, and its creed was not formed until 1530 A. D. Since that date all the sects of Protestantism have arisen." Page 5 of "Church of God and Sects Contrasted." Again, on page 10, we read that "The church of God existed years before the first Protestant sect was organized, so it is separate from all sects. It existed 1500 years before the first Protestant sect was organized." I asked him under what name God's church existed during these 1500 years, and he has been as silent as the grave, and he will remain so. He cannot come out and answer this question without convicting his people. I am inclined to believe the name he has assumed he has no legal right to under the sun, and hence we stand in the negative because of the fact---because of his own statements that God's people existed 1500 years before there was a Protestant sect. Now, then, he kind of softened the thing down a little. He says in a book here, "A few honest souls have been ignorantly led into the sect," and the balance of you are rotten potatoes. Pages 19 and 21. I want to read from this little book: "A few honest souls, however, have been ignorantly led into the sects, and have imbibed the sect spirit." Page 21, we read: "No man can remain in that which the Bible condemns (and he says the Bible condemns sects) and continue guiltless before God." You can't stay in your own church, my dear Christian friends, without the guilt of the awful sin, heresy, as my worthy opponent says. "Sects are full of sinners"; they are rotten, and therefore sinners. Open communion. D. M. Montgomery says, "The General Baptist Church was organized in 1611; the Particular Baptist Church in 1633. At the organization of these denominations closed communion was the prevailing rule among the various denominations." History General Baptists, page 11: "Facts are eternal things," and I want to say that facts are stubborn things, and we are presenting them to you in a way I know he will not be able to meet and refute them. Don't you think, after all he has talked, the fact is he wants you to come over and commune with him, rather than he come over and commune with you? I told you last night he doesn't lead out. He doesn't proceed with his work. He told us he was going to give us doctrine, and instead of giving us his doctrine, he has contended against the doctrines of the Church of the Brethren, and would like to draw me off in the affirmative. He say I miss the mark. There hasn't been any mark set up. Whenever he sets up a mark, something like this illustration on his char, when I get a chance at it you see what I do with it. He keeps in the background, and that is the trouble. Extract from his books were timely for him, and when he comes to the next speech if he doesn't have his books I don't know what will become of him.

He says, "God organized the church." Doesn't God do the work through the instrumentality of men, and did he organize my friend's churches at Akron and Beaver Dam? Did God do it alone, or did He do it through the instrumentality of the Holy Spirit alone? And when God built up the churches at Akron and Beaver Dam, does he mean to say the God dot it alone, or does he not claim to figure somewhat in the work? We are not denying that God built a church, that God organized a church, but we believe He doest it through His people, but he wants you to believe that He does it independent of men. That is the difference between us. He put up affirmative to my negative last night. I have to force him forward. He is afraid to go ahead, and that is the reason why I have to go forward and lead. I misrepresent him. Elders. We have forced him to the point how they get elders, and I showed you that God never chose an officer except through the instrumentality and agency of God's holy people in the early church, and he didn't refer to a singe one of the Scriptures. I showed you that officers were selected through the church, and he has failed to meet the argument, and so the argument will stand until he does. I say the same principle that constitutes other sects does the same thing for him. I proved by Mr. Warner and Mr. Webster the meaning of sects. Why doesn't he take the definition given by these men? To make an assertion and deny you are a sect doesn't prove anything. You can prove anything under the face of the sun if assertion and denial will prove it. I followed every argument he made---followed up---and I told him I wouldn't make issue where there is no difference. He hasn't brought out any argument but what any people under the sun could bring up, and because we all believe alike on these points, he wants us to believe that the Church of God is the New Testament Church because he says so. I asked him if Luther and Wesley were saved. He asked me if I believe, or if I knew that Luther and Wesley were saved. I only know that on man is saved, and that is myself. Now, he refers to triune immersion. Now, I want him to prove to you that Mr. Wesley and Mr. Luther were not baptized by trine immersion. It is up to him to prove that Mr. Luther was not baptized by trine immersion. Mr. Wesley belonged to the Church of England, and that had trine immersion.

Why doesn't he come up and present his own way of baptism? On page 120 of his book, we read: "We must preach to the people that they are positively commanded to be baptized, and that to disobey means condemnation." "We must preach to the people, everybody, unlimited in any sense, that they are positively commanded to be baptized, and that to disobey means condemnation." There it is, my friends. I have read it right out of his own book. Eternal right. Let me read to you again from his own book, page 117: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. There can be but one conclusion, namely, that all who willfully refuse to be baptized will be damned." That is as strong as I ever put it in my life. That will prove the question to Elder Riggle.

Elder Riggle says: "Water represents salvation." We will read John 3:5: "Water means the Word; stand for Word." IN the name of all that is intelligent, if a man can take these words: "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God," and can substitute "Word" for "water," he can substitute "water for "blood," and he can substitute anything else for blood. I am surprised that a man with the intelligence of Elder Riggle to get up before an intelligent people and "take away" from the holy truth and substitute God's word. If he says "water" is "Word," he can say it is anything else, and say "blood" is "water," or anything else. I object to such misinterpretation of God's eternal truth.

Now, I want to continue my argument number 7 I had last night. His doctrine of the building of the church is error. We are inducted into this church by a spiritual birth. This is given in the Ebeling-Riggle debate in Brother Riggle's speech, page 335: "We are inducted into this church by spiritual birth." He tells us there was no church until Pentecost. I said I would take the negative side if I had the time. I deny that it is a fact that the church was organized on the day of Pentecost. We are inducted into the church by a spiritual birth; then none had spiritual birth until Pentecost, as there was no church until that time, is the teaching of Elder Riggle.

(Time)

_______________

Elder Riggle's Eighth Speech
Saturday Evening, September 18

Mr. Chairman, Brother Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen:---My respondent is welcome to the kind of talk he has been giving in his last address; but I purpose to continue my regular line of argument, and keep on presenting facts in defense of my position. He still brings up 1 Cor. 12:18. I know the reason why. It stands squarely in his way, and refutes his position; but, as I have clearly explained it several times already, I am willing to rest the point on the arguments already presented. As certainly as God has placed the members in our physical body, so He has in the church.

He again referred to my chart, and tried to cover up the facts. I have but a moment to spend on this point. (Pointing to the diagram.) You will notice that all who are saved in the sects are within the fold of salvation, and hold membership in the Church of God. He has endeavored to make you believe that I teach that all in the sects are outside of the divine fold and likened to rotten potatoes. This is positively not the truth. I have stated more than once during this debate that we recognize all saved people as our brethren and sisters, and in the fold of Christ, and more than this, we extend to them our Christian love and fellowship.

He finally came out and admitted that in his sect they will not commune with the people of other sects. I have given you the reason. According to their teaching, he doesn't believe anybody else is saved but themselves.

He constantly brings up the matter of God using human instrumentality in setting the officers into the church. Let the Word of God settle this matter once and for all. I will read two decisive texts on the point. Acts 20:23: "The flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers." And Eph. 4:11-12: "And he gave some apostles; and some prophets, etc. * * * for the work of the ministry." For emphasis, I might add another. 1 Cor. 12:28: "And GOD HATH SET SOME IN THE CHURCH, first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers," etc. You see, these texts positively teach that it is the Lord, and not man, who calls and qualifies persons for the work of the ministry. This is no accomplished by human conferences, voting them into office, but through the agency of the Holy Spirit: "THE HOLY GHOST hath made you overseers." Our part of this is to recognize the divine call and qualifications, and dedicate thereunto by the laying on of hands, and thus in a public was recognize the call of God.

My respondent accuses me for substituting Word for the term water, and tried to make an impression upon your minds. In my last speech I gave a number of tests to prove that it is the Bible that teaches the fact that the term "water" frequently stands as a symbol for a number of different things. I did not mention nearly all of them, but enough to show you that my argument is well grounded. I think I made clear the point that regeneration is accomplished through the two great agencies, the Word and Spirit of God. But does the Scriptures really teach that the Word of God has a part in regeneration? You will find the answer to this in 1 Pet. 1:23: "Being born again, not of corruptible see, but of incorruptible, by the Word of God, which liveth and abideth forever." There are many other texts which teach this same truth, but since all truth runs parallel, one clear text on a point is as good as a thousand. We are born of water---the Word---and the Spirit. Elder Kesler contends that this means the literal rite of triune baptism. This is the issue between us, and I am ready to let the matter rest upon the testimony of eternal truth. Upon repentance and faith is predicated our eternal salvation.

I will now present my final argument on the purpose of design of baptism, and as I bring forth the truth of what the New Testament teaching really is, you will be able to see the strong position the Church of God occupies on this important point.

(1) Baptism is a ceremony,---an external rite,---whereas the removal of sins is an internal work---a purification of the soul or heart. 1 Pet. 1:22-23: "Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfamed love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently: being born again * * * by the Word of God, which liveth and abideth forever." In the light of this Scripture, what folly for men to thin that by an external ordinance which they can perform upon others the hear of soul can be purified. The inspirited testimony is that this purifying of the soul is by "the truth through the Spirit."

(2) The household of Cornelius were baptized after they had receive the remission of sins and were sanctified by the Holy Ghost. Acts 10. Before baptism Cornelius "was a devout man," "a pious man." Young's Bible Translation, and the Emphatic Diaglott. Webster tells us that pious means "dutiful to God; religious." Cornelius "feared God with all his house, and prayed to God always." Verse 2. His prayers were heard, "and came up as a memorial before God." Verse 4. He was "a just man." Verse 22. He was accepted of the Lord because he worked righteousness. Verses 34, 35. He was acquainted with the gospel message. Verses 36, 37. Do you think this man was a sinner?

As he was in prayer, an angel appeared to him and instructed him to send for Peter, who would declare unto him the way of the Lord more perfectly. While he was evidently in a justified state, he had not yet received the fullness, the baptism of the Holy Sprit in sanctification. He was not fully saved. Peter came and delivered the message of the Lord to him. Verses 34-43. Now let me read, beginning with verse 44: "While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them that heard the words. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentile also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God." Now, friends, note well the fact that all this was before the rite of water baptism was administered. Now, after Peter beheld this wonderful manifestation of God's power, in which Cornelius and his household were sanctified in the baptism of the Holy Ghost, he asked, "Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized, WHICH HAVE received the Holy Ghost, as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." Here is a clear case where people were both converted and sanctified before water baptism, and this fact stand square against my respondent's position.

(3) We have another clear example in the conversion and baptism of Paul. His conversion took place while he was on his way to Damascus. After he fell from his horse to the ground, and found out that it was the Lord who was working with him, he immediately surrendered, saying, "What wilt Thou have me to do?" Right there he fully yielded. By reference to Acts 26:16-18 it will be seen that right at this time the Lord gave him his call and solemn charge to the ministry. In all candor, I ask, Would God call a man to the sacred office of the ministry who was yet unsaved? I think not. And all this was before baptism. After this he was led to Damascus, to the home of Simon, where he remained in prayer for three days. After this a holy man by the name of Ananias, by the direction of the Lord, came in unto him and, laying his hands upon him, said. "Brother Saul (would he address a sinner thus---a man yet unconverted), the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, has sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled wit the Holy Ghost. And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales." By the laying on of the hands of Ananias Paul here received the Holy Spirit. He was now fully saved. Now, after all this it is said he "arose and was baptized." I merely referred to these two examples to show you that this is the order throughout the New Testament, and it proves that Elder Kesler's position is unscriptural.

Among the questions the elder gave me to answer was this: "Give one person who was saved in the New Testament without being first baptized?" I answer, Cornelius, Paul, and the thief on the cross. As you all know, great men sometimes differ. Elder Kesler is considered among his people as a great man. Jesus Christ was a great man; and these two great men differ. Elder Kesler's teaching is, that you are not saved until baptized in water; while Jesus said to the thief on the cross, "Today shalt thou be with Me in Paradise," and of course, being nailed fast to the cross, he could not be baptized.

(4) Baptism is a ceremonial washing of sins. You will find this expressed in the following texts: Acts 2:38: "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission sins." Acts 22:16: "And now why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away they sins, calling on the name of the Lord." This language was addressed to Jews, who understood the nature of ceremonial washings, and was never addressed to Gentiles. I will now read Dr. Adam Clark's comments on these texts. Acts 2:38: "Take on you the public profession of the religion of Christ by being baptized in His name; and thus acknowledge yourselves to be His disciples and servants. For the remission of sins: Baptism pointing our the purifying influences of the Holy Spirit; and it is in reference to that purification that it is administered, and should in consideration never be separated from it. For baptism itself purifies not the conscience; it only points out the grace by which this is done." Acts 22:16: "Wash away they sins: Let this washing of they body represent to thee the washing away of thy sins; and know that the washing away of sin can be received only by invoking the name of the Lord."

This commentator very clearly expresses the purpose of baptism. It is a ceremonial washing away of sins, a figurative salvation, a symbol of something that has already taken place through the blood of Christ. Wesley, the great reformer, expressed it thus: "It is the outward testimony to an inward work." This is our position exactly, and expresses the true design of this Christian rite.

(5) There is a beautiful figure of salvation and Christian baptism to be found in the law of shadows as recorded in Lev. 14:2-8. It is the law of cleansing as applied to the leper. First the leper was brought to the priest, who took two birds, and cedar wood, and scarlet, and hyssop. He next had one of the birds killed in an earthen vessel over running water. Next he took the living bird, and the cedar wood, and the scarlet, and the hyssop, and dipped them in the blood of the bird that was killed. Then he sprinkled the blood upon the leper seven times, and pronounced him clean. Here we have the beautiful type of salvation. The priest was a type of Christ; the leper, a type of the sinner; and just as the leper came to the priest for cleansing, so the sinner must come to Christ for salvation. And as the priest sprinkled the blood upon the leper, so Christ"hath washed us from our sins in His own precious blood." After the sprinkling of the bleed, the priest examined him "and pronounced him clean." And just so when the blood of Christ is applied to the sinner's heart, the Holy Spirit witnesses to the soul that we are clean. But, after all this, it is said that the leper was commanded to "wash himself in water, that he may be clean." This prefigured baptism. It was one of the "divers baptism" of the old covenant. You will notice that this is also called a cleansing, but it came after the blood had been applied, and the priest pronounced the man clean. Just so in the antitype. The blood is first applied, at which time our sins are really all washed away, and the Holy Spirit witnesses in our soul that we are clean. This is salvation. But this newly converted person is now commanded to arise "and be baptized and wash away they sins." This latter is the ceremonial washing, a figure of that which already has taken place.

(6)This figurative salvation is mentioned in 1 Pet. 3:20-21: "In the days of Noah, while the ark was preparing, wherein few---that is, eight souls---were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." You see, baptism does not really save by cleansing away "the filth of the flesh"---sin---but the apostle declared it to be but a "figure" of salvation. The salvation of eight souls by water is a figure of our salvation from sin, and Peter plainly tells us that baptism is a "like figure." Now let us turn back to the first figure and see what it teaches. Before the flood came, Noah and his family had entered the ark, and the Lord closed the door. This is clear. They were in the ark and safe before the water came. All who failed to enter the ark first were drowned. Now, let me impress the fact that that ark was a type of Christ, and the flood or great submerging a type of baptism. Only those who first entered the ark were secure. True to the figure, through salvation we must first enter Christ; then after this come baptism, or the water.

(7) I now call attention to Rom. 6:3, 4: "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into His death?" This takes place in conversion, or regeneration. It is by the Spirit of the Lord that we are baptized into Jesus Christ. "Therefore---or because of the fact that we have already been inducted into Christ---we are buried with him by baptism into death." The former is an internal work; the latter an external work.

(8) I will now bring witness on the stand who will corroborate the truth I have been presenting, and the orthodoxy of my position. He is the great Jewish historian---Josephus. His testimony is valuable in that it explains the ceremonial nature of baptism, he himself being so well acquainted with the ceremonial washings of the Old Testament. "Now, some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God: and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, who was called the Baptist. For Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness toward one another and piety toward God; and so to come to baptism. For that the washing of water would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to putting away, for the remission of some sins only, but for the purification of the body: supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified BEFOREHAND by righteousness." This clearly shows that before John baptized, people had to in a practical way demonstrate in their lives"righteousness toward one another and piety toward God." "The soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness," and this made them eligible to John's baptism.

(9)I will now read from "An Outline of the Fundamental Doctrines of Faith," by Daniel Webster Kurtz. This is a standard work sent out by Elder Kesler's church from the Brethren Publishing House. This writer, whom they all acknowledge to be a scholar, takes my side of the question. Page 40, under the heading "The Symbols of the New Testament": 1. Baptism. Baptism uses the material (water) which is the symbol of cleansing, hence signifies a spiritual change of mind and heart from sin to purity, righteousness, and holiness. It illustrates the change that takes place in true repentance. Baptism is also a SYMBOL of burial---a burial of the old man of sin, who is now dead---a resurrection of the new creature in Christ Jesus." "Baptism, if it means anything, IS TO SYMBOLIZE: (a) a cleansing; (b) a burial of the old man of sin; (c) a resurrection of the new man; (d) an entrance into God." On page 43, the same writer says, "A symbol is a material thing which represents a spiritual truth." Good. Elder Kurtz, of the Brethren Church, comes out plainly and clearly sustains my position. The scholar admits that baptism is only a symbol of the inward cleansing. It is a material thing which represents a spiritual truth. You see Elder Kesler and Elder Kurtz, both of the same church, stand in square contradiction to each other. This is the same Elder Kurtz of which my respondent said a few nights ago, "I will stand by what Brother Kurtz teaches." Now let him do it. If he does, he will take my side of the question, and deny all he has been contending for on the subject of baptism, its design or purpose.

(10) A symbol is a sign, representation, token, emblem, and figure of something, as an olive branch is a symbol of peace, and a scepter of power. Baptism, then, is only a symbol of salvation. There are three New Testament ordinances: Baptism, the Lord's Supper, and Feet-washing. All these are ceremonial. In each literal elements are used. In baptism, water; in the Lord's Supper, bread and wine. Of the latter Jesus said of the bread, "This is my body"; of the wine, "This is my blood"; of the other, "Be baptized and wash away thy sins." You will observe that in both these the sign has the name of the thing signified. It must be admitted by all scholars that this is very common in the Scriptures. Are we to understand these texts in their literal sense? Certainly not. Elder Kesler agrees that when Jesus said, "This is my body," and "This is my blood," his meaning was, this represents it. Why will he not be as candid, then, with that other ceremonial rites---baptism? "Was away they sins," is to be understood in the same light. It represents it, or testifies to it.

My respondent asks for a text that teaches that "water" signifies "Word." Eph. 5:27: "That washing of water by the Word." John 15:3: "Now are ye clean through the Word."

(Time)

_______________

Elder Kesler's Eighth Speech
Saturday Evening, September 18

Gentlemen, Moderators, Brethren and Friends:---I certainly am glad to see my dear brother so earnest, and manifesting such zeal, but you must know that zeal and energy is not argument. He preached another very beautiful sermon, so far as that matter is concerned. I have some more questions treating on another subject on which we differ.
1. What word did Jesus and the apostles use to indicate the meal Christ ate with his disciples on the night of his betrayal?
2. Was that word ever used to indicate the Passover, or the loaf and cup?
3. Please define that word.
4. Is the word "paschal" ever used to indicate the "last supper" of Christ?
5. If Christ ate the Passover in the night of betrayal, when did he eat the "supper" of Luke 22:20; John. 13:2-4; 1 Cor. 11:25?
6. Was the "loaf and cup" ever called the Lord's Supper by an inspired man?
7. What authority have you from the Bible to call the "loaf and cup" Lord's Supper?
8. How can you have a Lord's Supper without having any supper at all?

Here are some more questions on a different subject:
1. Show where any inspired man ever held open communion?
2. Did Jesus contemplate a divided Christianity, and therefore provide for interdenominational communion?
3. Can a Christian commune at a sectarian table and not be guilty of the awful sin of heresy?
4. What body of Christians help open communion 100 A. D. to 1600 A. D.?
5. (a) Do you commune with Catholics, Mormons, Unitarians, Russelites? (b) Do You exclude them?
6. How many churches were represented in the model communion (at Corinth, 1 Cor. 11; at Troas, Acts 20:7)?
7. Do your commune with fusionists, thus recognizing their baptism?
8. Isn't it true that you idea of open communion is to have others to come to your communion, rather than you to go to theirs?

I would like to have these returned to me tomorrow evening at the opening session. Now, I come to notice briefly a few remarks of the last speech of my worthy opponent. "I can't get away from 1 Cor. 12:18," he says. It seems just as hard for him to get away as it does for me. I stick right down to one straight teaching---by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, and I showed you that the correct rendering is "in one Spirit" by the Emphatic Diaglott and the Revised Version. His application of the Scriptures is erroneous. Paul was using the body as an illustration, but in the verse we are contending over (verse) he meant the natural body, but when he got down to the 27th verse then be began to talk about the church. The balance above that was the natural body, just as I showed you. Paul declare God set the members into the church. I don't like to emphatically deny the position of my friend, but I wish he would read that word"church" in the 18th verse. "All that are saved are in the fold." Well, then, my dear friends, we would like to know how he is going to keep the unsaved out of the fold. I don't see for the life of me, when he holds his open communion, how he is going to keep the unsaved people---the bad potatoes---from coming in and mixing up with the good potatoes and spoil them, as he said yesterday evening.

"Water," he says, stands for "Word." See the inconsistency. Still contending that "water," in John 3:5, means "Word." If he has the liberty of thus substituting "Word" for "water," you can prove anything that you want to prove as the Word of God. If you haven't the right word to suit you, can put another one. This idea of substituting God's eternal truth we are here to oppose with all our God-given powers, and while he wants you to be so careful that you be not misled by the arguments I am representing, I believe it will be well for you to watch my respondent just as much as you watch me, and when he substitutes God's eternal truth with something that suits his doctrine, something that he doesn't find in God's Word, I seriously object to it. He preaches what he believes. I wouldn't expect him to do anything else. "Purify your souls through obeying the truth." How is he going to purify himself in obeying the truth unless he obeys all the truth? You want to watch him, my dear friends. Cornelius was not saved before baptism. I will just read the Word on that subject, Acts 11:14. Here is Cornelius telling the story himself when he prayed and his prayers were heard. God told him to send for Peter. Here is what Cornelius said about it: "Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved. And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning." And what was the first word that this man Peter gave to Cornelius, the first command to obey that would purify his soul? "He commanded him to be baptized in the name of the Lord," and that is the first account that this man did after he received the Holy Ghost. My friends, Elder Riggle says that purifying of the heart comes by obeying the gospel. He says Ananias called him "Brother Saul," therefore he was saved before baptism. Why, Paul stood upon Mars Hill and spake to those Jews and said, "Brethren, my heart's desire for you is that ye might be saved." They were not Christians, my dear friends. You will not say that these people that Paul was speaking to were saved, and yet he called them brethren, Ananias used the term"Brother" out of courtesy, as Paul used the word" Brethren."

The thief on the cross was saved. I asked for an example of anyone that was saved in the New Testament Church without baptism, and he tells us now there was no church until Pentecost, and then he goes back of Pentecost, when there was no church, according to his theory, and tells us that the thief was a saved man. "There is no salvation out of the Church of God," he tells us. Baptism---a ceremonial washing away of sins. I want to ask, with reference to the ark, if these people were saved from the great flood of waters before the flood came? Was it not really the ark that saved them from the flood that came? I believe he quoted from Josephus that John's converts had remission before they were baptized. How does he know, when the Bible says, "He preached baptism for the remission of sin." Is he going to tell us that when those people came to be baptized that God had already pardoned them, and that they were baptized because of the fact? I asked him to tell us about baptism before, but he hasn't done it until this good hour. I am going after him, and Brother Kurtz, too, presently if he doesn't tell the truth. He refers to that leper, and wants to know if the water in the laver was the type of baptism. No, but the washing of the priests in that water was a type of baptism. The water was not merely the type, but the washing was the type. Gives my position. I haven't taken my position. I am trying to follow him up in his arguments. In the illustration about that leper over here in Leviticus, I believe the reason he gave you for his position about that leper was that the priest pronounced him clean, and he was clean before he washed in water. I want him to tell us if that man had not gone and washed in that water, if he actually would have been really cleansed of his leprosy" I want to give you another illustration that I think is better. Take Naaman the Syrian, when he went to be cured of his leprosy. 2 Kings, 5, we have the case of Naaman. The prophet told him to go down and wash himself seven times in the River Jordan and he would be cleansed, healed of his leprosy. He did not want to go, but they persuaded him to go down, and when he dipped himself seven times his flesh became whole as that of a little child. Would he have been healed of his leprosy if he had not obeyed the command of God? Now, then, we have gone far enough. I wanted to finish the argument before I started argument 7.

His doctrine of the building of the church is erroneous. Will Elder Riggle tell us how John the Baptist's converts became members of the church. If there was no church until the day of Pentecost, will Elder Riggle will us how John the Baptist's converts became members of the church? "Through salvation they enter the church and become members of it," says Elder Riggle in the Ebeling-Riggle debate, page 336. John's converts were saved. Luke 1:77. The process by which they were saved put them into the church. They are not His children until built into His building, His church, by the building process. If so, what is the need of His church in the world? We will turn back to something else. I think he has come out enough so that I will not have to misrepresent him. You know what he said about salvation and baptism being a figurative salvation, and that there is a type of salvation, a figure of salvation, and a sign of salvation. Now, I am going to give you some straight Scriptures on this truth, and then I don't care what he and Brother Kurtz and all of the other people say, I will stand by the Word of God. Rom 5:13. Adam was a figure of Christ. Adam was the Adam, and Christ was the second Adam. So Adam was a figure of Christ. Heb. 9:11, Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not mad with hands. In Heb. 8:3, of a true tabernacle which the Lord pitched, and not man. Heb. 11:17-19. When Isaac escaped from the untimely death was a figure of our resurrection in the future. God said to Abraham, "Lay not thy hand upon they son, for now I know that thou fearest me."

Abraham received him from the dead in a figure so that Isaac's untimely resurrection is a figure of the true resurrection. 1 Peter 3:20: "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us." I have given you four positive Scriptures that some things were figures of something else. Now, I take a stand emphatically and firmly upon God's word that in the figurative salvation, in baptism the figure came before the real thing came. The figurative salvation in baptism comes before the real salvation in Christ comes. Now, do you get the thought? He tells you the figure comes after the thing is done. If your are really saved in Christ, then baptism is a figure of the thing that has already been done. I tell you that baptism precedes the thing that Elder Riggle says has already been done, and these four illustrations show that to be a fact, unless he be allowed to make baptism an exception to all the rules in instances of this kind. Must we accept his doctrine and theory and say that baptism is an exception to every similar case in the Bible? I say we are standing on God's eternal truth. The great judgments that fell upon God's people back in Israel, when they fell 2,300 in one day because of unbelief, were ensamples (types) of the judgment that shall befall those who may be disobedient and refuse to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ now. Heb. 7:27. The daily offering of the high priest, first for his own sins, and then for the people, is a type of Christ offering himself for the people. Heb. 10:11-12. The daily offering of the priest under the Mosaic law was a type of Christ in the end of the world offering himself once for all. (Scripture) the paschal lamb. 1 Cor. 7:27: "For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us." Here is an issue again. He tell us that the real work is done, and then the type comes. I wish he would tell us how the judgments that are going to befall the people of our age precede the judgments that befell God's people back in the wilderness. We see the type come first, and they the real thing. Then, the daily offering of the high priest is a type of Christ. He wants to say that Christ offered himself before the daily offering of those priests. Then, again, the paschal lamb that was offered in the Passover, he wants you to believe that Christ our Passover was sacrificed before those lambs were sacrificed. Our opinion is that the type preceded the thing typified. It is only a type of a salvation that is to come subsequent to or in the act of baptism. There is no questioning this logic. It is Scriptural reasoning. Again, "The Jewish tabernacle was a beautiful type of the church Jesus came to set up." Elder Riggle's book, page 114. Now, that tabernacle was merely a type of a figure of the church which Jesus Christ was to build---a type preceding the real thing that He was to do by and by. Elder Riggle sustains my position. In his book, page 114: "Jewish tabernacle was a beautiful type of the church or kingdom that Jesus came to set up." Again, on page 115: "Of what was the water in that laver a type?" I tell you, my dear friends, that the washing of those priests in that water was a type of baptism, and when you take that away you have no type of baptism. They were not allowed to enter the tabernacle to minister or worship until they had bathed in that laver of water. Matt. 24:32. When you see the leaves coming forth in the Spring you know that it is a sign that Summer is coming. The sign precedes the thing signified. The sign of salvation in baptism is a sign of the real thing that comes in the act of baptism. Matt. 24:3-29, Sun not giving light, moon darkened, sign of Christ's coming. So you se this again is the sign away back of the thing signified. The signs precede. Rom. 4:11: "Abraham received a sign being uncircumcised, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised." A sign that righteousness will be imputed to those who afterward believe. And so here is an issue between my respondent and myself. It is for you to decide these figures, these types, and these things that typify, when we show you from God's eternal truth that these figures or types and signs precede the real thing typified or signified. Symbol, emblem and ceremonial are not Bible terms. These are terms he has manufactured and reads into God's Word to accommodate his theory. Symbol---a sign by which one know or infers something. A type; that is Webster. Baptism cannot be a sign or symbol by which we attest our sins are previously pardoned, a thing God alone knows. Baptism can't be a sign, or if so, then everyone that is baptized has his sins remitted, and my friend will not admit that. It is unscriptural to say that sins are symbolically washed away in baptism. Still, symbols precede the thing symbolized. Emblem. Emblem is an object. Baptism is not an object, not a "quality" or "figure of an object." Emblem precede the thing symbolized. The loaf and cup are emblems of Christ's body before His body was broken and His blood was shed. When He sat down to the table, when He said, "This is My body which is broken for you: My blood which was shed for you." These are emblems which mean that the emblem preceded the thing symbolized, and hence you see our position is correct and Biblical so far as that matter is concerned. Ceremonial---relating to ceremony or external rites. It is unscriptural to say sins are ceremonially washed away. There is no Scripture for an such statement. When you stood up to be tied up as man and wife there was a ceremony to be performed there, and until that ceremony was performed you could not lead her hone as your bride. The ceremony must precede the thing that is to be effected by it. Then again, naturalization. When a foreigner comes to our country we have a mode of naturalization. He may claim to be an American just as much as he pleases, but we will not recognize him under our government until he goes through the ceremony and becomes a citizen. Ceremony preceded the thing effected by it. The real thing must come through the ceremony. It can't come any other way.

(Time.)

The Riggle - Kesler Debate
[ Selected ]

Elder Riggle's Ninth Speech
Saturday Evening, September 19

Mr. Chairman, Brother Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen:---A few remarks in the closing speech of my respondent will require attention. (2) In my argument on the design of baptism, I proved conclusively from the Scriptures that this is but a literal and external rite or ceremony, a figure or symbol, an outward washing and testimony to an inward fact. It is a public testimony to our salvation that has already been wrought within our hears through the blood of Christ. In reply to this, Elder Kesler positively denies that baptism is in any sense an external washing, a symbol or sign of an inward work. You will remember I read from one of their own works written by Daniel W. Kurtz, a leading spirit and writer in Elder Kesler's church. And by the way, this book is published and sent our by the Brethren Publishing House, of Elgin, Illinois. In the book, page 40, Elder Kurtz speaks of baptism under the heading of "The SYMBOLS of the New Testament." This writer says that baptism is "the symbol of cleansing," and also "a symbol of burial." Elder Kurtz goes on further to say that "baptism, if it mean anything, is to symbolize: (a) a cleansing, (b) a burial of the old man sin, (c) a resurrection of the new man, (d) an entrance into God."

Now note the fact. This scholar from Elder Kesler's church positively states that baptism is only a "symbol," "and if it mean anything, it is to symbolize." To this Elder Kurtz adds "A symbol is a material thing, which represents a spiritual truth." You see Elder Kurtz occupies identically the same ground that I do. He readily admits that baptism cannot really save, and that in this ordinance people are not really delivered from sin, but that the rite simply is a material thing, an ordinance which symbolizes or represents a spiritual truth. Now I have read this from this standard writer of the Brethren Church to show you that Elder Kesler takes issues with one of the leading men of his own church who is on my side of the question. The only reply Elder Kesler made to this was very evasive. He said, "I am going after him and Brother Kurtz too if he doesn't tell the truth." And again, "I don't care what he and Brother Kurtz and all of the other people say." You see Elder Kesler to sustain his contention must take issue with the leading brethren of his own church. But now I will bring a witness to testify in my favor and against Elder Kesler that will be hard for him to turn down. The Gospel Messenger, the official organ of his church, July 31, 1915, number, says under the heading of "Ceremonial Washing:" "In the New Testament baptism is sometimes represented as a washing. In other words, as a CEREMONIAL washing." You see by the authority of the Brethren Church my position is sustained and Elder Kesler is refuted.

But now to cap the climax. After spending several speeches in denying that baptism is a symbol or figure of something real, in his last speech last night, Elder Kesler was forced to virtually concede that my position was right, and practically admitted that baptism after all is a symbol or figure, but he spent considerable time arguing that a figure or symbol of the real must always precede the thing symbolized or prefigured. From this he argued that baptism in water as a shadow, figure, or symbol or real salvation from sin, must come before the work is wrought in the heart. This is the way they practice it in their church. They first take their candidate down in the water, and after they have administered three dippings, they lay their hands upon the head of the individual who has been baptized, and invoke God to forgive them of all their past sins and grant them the Holy Spirit. In this they admit that after all baptism is not a saving ordinance; for baptism to them according to their own practice, has not the power to forgive or wash away sins. If baptism is a saving ordinance, as both Moore and Miller teach in their standard books of doctrine for the church, why does the minister lay his hands upon the individual already baptized and ask the Lord to forgive them?

(2) Elder Kesler has raised an issue and spent considerable time on it, that the figure or symbol of a thing must precede the thing itself. I am prepared to meet him squarely on that issue, and prove that his contention and premise is wrong and his argument illogical. I positively deny that a figure or shadow of thing always precedes the thing itself. (Here Mr. Riggle stood between the light and the large chart, and called attention to the shadow produced upon the chart.) You will notice my shadow upon this wall or chart. There must be a substance FIRST in order to produce the shadow. There can be no shadow without a substance first to produce it.

A sculptor does not produce a figure of something not in existence. Scattered throughout the country will be found statues or figures of such men as Lincoln, McKinley and others. I ask, did these figures precede the actual existence of these men in the world? Of course not. These figures represent either some on now living or some on who has lived in the past.

Now I will meet him on the Scriptures and give some clear examples on this point. The Sabbath was instituted at Sinai in the time of Moses; bit it pointed back to God's rest at the end of the six days of creation work. "God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it He had rested from all His work which God created and made." Here the sign, symbol, or figure clearly pointed back to an event several thousand years before. It was a memorial of God's rest back at the creation of the world.

Next, the Passover. Every Bible student knows that this Jewish institution was a great memorial of the deliverance or escape of Israel from Egyptian bondage. It clearly pointed back to a past event. But the Elder says it pointed to Christ our true Passover. Yes, it was a double symbol as are many of the types and figures of the law. But with reference to Christ, let me remark that the substance existed before the figure or shadow. Christ was "a Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." You see the Elder did not go deep enough in his reasoning. Let me state an incontrovertible fact, and my respondent cannot overthrow it. The entire plan of redemption originated in the mind of God back at the foundation of the world. The giving of Christ as an atonement for sin, and in fact every detail in the entire economy of grace as revealed in the gospel of Jesus Christ, existed in substance in God's infinite wisdom and knowledge as a plan from the very beginning. But this substance after twenty-five hundred long years cast its love betoken shadow upon the earth in the form of the Jewish tabernacle, its altars, furniture, priesthood, sacrifices and blood of atonement. All these were but a shadow, figure, or symbol of the things that then existed in the infinite wisdom and mind of God. Thus the substance preceded the shadow or figure, had to in order to produce it. In the fullness of time, however, this substance came down to earth in the person of Jesus Christ.

I will here call attention to another symbol. That is the communion. When the people of God meet together and break the bread and drink the cup, is it to commemorate an event yet future? No, indeed. It points back to the death and suffering of our Lord Jesus Christ on the cross of Calvary. "Do this in remembrance of me." What event in Christ's life and ministry does this refresh in our minds? Answer: "Ye do show the Lord's death till he come." This great Christian ordinance belongs to the symbols or ceremonies of the gospel, and it clearly points back to an event already past. Predicated upon the above Scriptural truths, I state a fact: A substance must exist before the shadow that represents it. Tested by this logical fact, Elder Kesler's whole contention is exploded. In the language of John Wesley, "Baptism is the outward sign of an inward work." And the inward work must precede the rite that symbolizes it.

Last evening I made the point that all the ordinances of the New Testament are only external rites. As it fits here so well, I want to impress this thought. Literal emblems are used to represent spiritual things. In the Lord's Supper, Jesus said of the bread, "Take, eat; this is My body," and of the cup, "This is My blood." Will my respondent contend that this was the literal body and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. No, indeed. He readily admits it was only a symbol or figure, something that represents it. But when it comes to baptism, he has been contending that the language must be taken in its strictly literal meaning. Right here is where he is wrong. Facts are against him. The sign has the name of the thing signified.

He asks, "Was Noah and his family saved before the flood came?" Emphatically yes. And this is where the Elder's talk fall flat. (Here Mr. Riggle took a small box to represent the ark and a glass of water to represent the flood of waters. He placed the box before the glass of water, and placing his knife into it, said:) This box represents the ark, and the tumbler of water represents the flood. This knife in my had represents Noah and his family. Now they I place this knife in the box and close it up to represent Noah and his family entering the ark, after which the Lord closed the door. This was the salvation of Noah, and it all took place before the water came. Anyone can see that. Now Peter tells us that this was a figure of our salvation. So, according to the figure, people must now get into Christ and obtain salvation before they are ready to pass through the rite of water baptism. The apostle emphatically says that baptism does not put away the filth of the flesh, which Paul in Gal. 5:19, 20 tells us is sin, but is the answer of a good conscience, because that our sins have already been cleansed by the blood of Christ.

My respondent told you last night that Cornelius was not saved until after baptism. The Scriptural account, however, squarely contradicts him. Before Baptized he was a just man, which evidently means that he was in a justified state. He feared God with all his house, and prayed to the Lord always, and God heard him. He worked righteousness and was accepted of the Lord, but he was not sanctified until Peter came to him; and while Peter was preaching, the Holy Ghost fell upon Cornelius and his entire household. They spake with tongues and magnified the Lord. And all this was before the rite of water baptism was administered. It was after Cornelius had received the Holy Spirit that Peter said, "Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost?"

Allow me here to call attention to another point. Since my opponent says that salvation can only be received through baptism, what does he do with backsliders? Does he baptize them over again? If not, why not? Suppose people backslide and go into sin, and they cast them out of their church, and then they desire to come back again. Through what means will Elder Kesler take them in? If baptism is essential to salvation, why do you not baptise the backslider? Peter tells us that a backslider is in a worse condition than a man who was never saved, so if anyone needs salvation it is the poor backslider. Will Elder Kesler please explain this point?

In my first five speeches I presented fifteen arguments, sustained by more than sixty clear Scriptural proofs in defense of the first and second divisions of the proposition, that the Church I represent is identical with that of the New Testament in Origin and Name. In my last three speeches, I presented two more arguments in defense of the third division of the proposition, Doctrine. These covered the subject of unity and the design and purpose of baptism. These I have supported with abundance of Scripture and logical proofs, and this congregation well knows that Elder Kesler has not been able to even shake an argument presented, or a single proof brought in defense of it. With all his bluss and bluster, you well know that he has made no impression upon the position I occupy. Thank God, in this debate, I stand upon the impregnable rock of eternal truth, and there is not enough power on earth or in hell to ever shake it. It is hard for men to come up against the truth of God, that which will stand after this world is no more.

Under this third division of the proposition, there is but one more point of doctrine in which we differ from the Church of the Brethren that I will have time to consider. That is the two resurrections and the Millennium reign. In order to set before you their teaching on the two resurrections, I will read from "The New Testament Doctrines," by Elder J. H. Moore, pages 182, 183; "Here we have the 'first resurrection' and the 'second death' distinctly named, with a period of one thousand years between them, the resurrection of the righteous being at the beginning of the period, and the resurrection of the wicked at the end. The statement, "The rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished,' is further proof of the resurrection of the wicked one thousand years after the resurrection of the saints." This, from their standard book of doctrine, sets before you their teaching on this point, and in refuting it by the Word of God I will present the position and teaching of the Church of God.

I refer to Rev. 20:5: "But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. THIS is the first resurrection." This Scripture does not state that a thousand years would intervene between the resurrection of the righteous and that of the wicked. The language of the Scripture clearly shows that the "rest of the dead" are included in the first resurrection. Let me press the point. The statement "this is the first resurrection" is not made until after " the rest of the dead" are included. This clearly refutes the notion of two literal resurrections being taught in this text. As you all know, the Revelation is a book of symbols. The first resurrection includes every convert of the cross from the incarnation of Christ to the hour of His second advent. The period covered is the gospel dispensation. Facts prove that during the Christian era there have been properly tow great spiritual resurrections. The first in the beginning of the Christian era, before the dark night of utter apostasy, and the second since that time, or from the reformation period to the end of the world. Between these two great spiritual awakenings there lies a thousand years of utter night or spiritual darkness. But both these taken together, that is, the great host saved in the beginning of the Christian era, and the rest of the dead made alive in Christ in the closing days of this dispensation, constitute the first resurrection.

When we come to the final resurrection of the dead, there is not a hint anywhere else in all the Bible that the righteous will be resurrected a thousand years before the wicked. Let me here state a fact. Both Christ and the apostles taught but one resurrection of the dead future. 1 Thess. 4:13-17: "But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with Him. For this we say unto you by the Word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord." In verse 15 where it is stated that those alive shall not prevent them which are asleep, other translations render this "precede." This is the thought in the apostle's mind. Conybears and Houson in their translation render this "shall not enter into His presence and be rewarded before the dead are raise." In this Scripture I have just read the apostle is treating on the hope of the church. He speaks of those who will be alive on the earth at the time of His coming and the dead in Christ who are sleeping in the grave. The former shall not precede and be rewarded before the latter are raised but "the dead in Christ shall rise first," that is, before the living are changed and rewarded. Then both together shall be caught away to meet the Lord in the air and be ever with Him. Now, then, the question is, How many of the dead will hear the voice of the Lord when He "descends from heaven with a shout, and with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God"? We have a clear answer to this in the words of Christ Himself, as recorded in John 5:28, 29: "Marvel not at this, for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in their graves shall hear His voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have dome evil unto the resurrection of damnation." This proves that there is but one great resurrection future, and this will take place in the "hour" of Christ's coming. At that time all that are in their graves shall hear His voice and come forth. This no only includes the righteous dead, but the wicked as well, "they that have done evil." Dan. 12:2: "And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." Here we have the general or universal resurrection of all the dead taking place at the same time. Acts 24:15: "And have hope toward God which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust." Here are three reliable witnesses that there is but one literal resurrection future. They are Jesus, Daniel and Paul. In this last, the apostle plainly says that there will be "A resurrection." I ask you, how many is this? There is only one answer. To suit the teaching of Elder Kesler's church, it must read there will be two resurrections of the dead, with a thousand years intervening, the first of the just, and the second of the unjust. But Paul was not versed in this modern theory. He only knew of one resurrection future, and included in that one will be both the just and unjust. Rev. 1:7: "Behold He cometh with clouds, and every eye shall see Him, and they also which pierced Him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of Him." This could not be unless they are all raised at the same time. By reference to Rev. 20:11-15 you will see that this will be a general or universal resurrection of all the dead, both righteous and wicked. The will all come forth and appear before the great white throne of judgment.

My respondent may ask, Does not the Bible speak of the first resurrection? Certainly, but this is a resurrection or quickening into life of the soul or spirit of man which is dead in trespasses and in sins, while the final resurrection will be that of the bodies of both the righteous and wicked at the second advent. The first takes place now, while the second will take place at Christ's coming. All sinners are now dead. Eph. 2:1, 5: "You being dead in your sins." Col. 2:13. Again, Rom. 8:6: "To be carnally minded is death." Ezek. 18:4: "The soul that sinneth, it shall die." James 1:15: "Sin bringeth forth death." Rom. 7:9: "Sin revived and I died." 1 Tim. 5:6: "She that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth." 1 John 3:14: "He that loveth not his brother abideth in death." All these texts certainly establish the fact that all sinners are in a state of death. Jesus said, "I am the resurrection and the life." "I am come that they might have life." John 10:10. Eph. 5:14: "Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light." Thank God, this takes place now. John 5:25: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live." John 5:24: "He that heareth My word, and believeth on Him that sent Me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life." John says, "We know that we have passed from death unto life because we love the brethren." Rom. 6:13: "Yield yourselves unto God as those that are alive from the dead." Col. 2:12: "Ye are risen with Christ." Surely all these scriptures clearly establish the fact that the first resurrection is a spiritual attainment, and is now enjoyed by the people of God. I believe that I have clearly refuted the doctrine of the Elder's church that there will be two literal resurrections future. I want to right here lay down a safe rule: Don't build a theory upon metaphorical or symbolical scripture, and then bend the plain testimony of the texts that express the utterances of Jesus and the apostles to suit that theory. Place such interpretation upon the symbolical scripture as will harmonize with the plain statements of scripture elsewhere.

In the few moments' time remaining, I will attack another doctrine held and taught by Elder Kesler's church. And this will set forth our position and the teaching of the church I represent on this point. I will read from the "New Testament Doctrines," by Elder Moore, page 183: "Christ's personal reign." "The coming of Jesus on the clouds of heaven, and accompanied by the holy angels, means the ushering in of the Millennium or the one thousand years' reign of Christ upon the earth." I boldly challenge Elder Kesler to cite one text of Scripture where it is said that Christ shall reign one thousand years on this earth. Where is the proof that he will reign on earth at all after his second coming? The only place in the Bible where there is a hint of a thousand years' reign is in Rev. 20, and by turning there you will find that it was not literal resurrected people here on the earth that were reigning, but the "souls" of the martyrs, those who were beheaded while down here on the earth, and "they" lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. Not a word is said of them reigning on this earth. This reign enjoyed by these disembodied spirits of course took place in Paradise. The only reign upon the earth that is taught in the Scriptures is now enjoyed by those who are fully saved through Christ. The apostle says that "They who received abundance of grace and the gift of righteousness, shall reign in life by one Jesus Christ." This is a present reign through the abundant grace of God. My friend may ask, Over what do you reign? I answer, Over the devil; for Jesus said, "I give you power over all the power of the enemy." Over sin. "For sin shall not have dominion over you." And over the world, and its fleshly lusts. "This is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith." In my respondent's church, they expect to reign over the devil when he is bound with a great chain; be we enjoy a victory a thousand times great than this. We reign over the Old Fellow while he is loose.

I will here present a fact that completely refutes the doctrine of the Brethren Church that these will be another age of a thousand years to follow the Christian dispensation. We are now living in the last age of time. Heb. 1:1, 2" "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the Fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son." These days, then, which go to make up the Christian dispensation are the last. There can be no days after the last days have ended. With the closing of the gospel dispensation, time will end. Matt. 24:14: "For this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations and then shall the end come." From this we are certainly to conclude that we are now living in the last dispensation of time. 1 Cor. 10:11: "Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come." Upon us, then, during the gospel age, the ends of the world are fallen. This is rendered in other translations, "the end of the ages." There are many other texts that clearly teach the same truth, but I have only time to refer to one, and it is decisive. 1 John 2:18: "Little children, it is the last time * * * whereby we know that it is the last time." The apostle John squarely contradicts the teaching of the Elder's church, that there is another age of a thousand years of time to follow the Christian dispensation, which Elder Moore is pleased to call "the Millennium or the one thousand years' reign of Christ upon the earth." I am inclined to believe that the old apostle was right. "It"---the present age---"is the last time." To accept John's teaching is to reject the teaching of the Brethren Church on this point.

Friends, we are now living in the last days of this world's history, even in the closing days of this last dispensation of time. The instant of Christ's coming the general resurrection of the dead will take place, the final and general judgment will follow, at which time the righteous will be rewarded and the wicked punished and the earth and all the works therein will be burned up. 2 Thess. 1:7-9. I have not the time now to read this text, but by referring to it you will find that when the Lord descends from heaven in His second coming, it will be in flaming fire, taking vengeance on the wicked, who will then be punished; and at the same time He comes to be admired of all them who love His appearing, and will grant them their rewards. In Matt. 25:31-46 we have Jesus' own description of His coming and what will take place in that great day. Instead of setting up a Millennium reign of a thousand years as Elder Moore teaches, He will sit upon the throne of His glory, and all nations will be gathered before Him. A final separation between the righteous and wicked will then be made. To those on the right hand He will say, "Come, ye blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you." To those on the left hand, "Depart from Me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire." At this very time, "these," the wicked,"shall go away into everlasting punishment; but the righteous unto life eternal." So you see there will be not time for a Millennium reign. By reference to 2 Pet. 3:9-11, which I have not the time to read, it will be seen that in that great day of Christ's coming, the earth and all the works in it will be burned up. So there will be no place for a Millennium. When this age ends, instead of ushering in a Millennium reign of a thousand years, as Elder Kesler's church teaches, it will usher in final judgment when the righteous will be rewarded and the wicked punished, and at this very time the earth and all in it will be burned up.

Instead of setting up the kingdom and beginning His reign after the second advent, Christ accomplished this at the time of His first advent. Mark 1:14, 15: "Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying, The time is fulfilled, the kingdom of God is at hand." From the time of John the Baptist it is said that the kingdom of God was preached and many pressed into it. In Col. 1:13 we read that Christ hath now translated us into the kingdom of His dear Son. Thank God, then, we are in the kingdom now, and reign in this life.

From 1 Cor. 15:22-28 we learn that at the time of Christ's second advent, He will have completed His reign in His kingdom of grace for the conversion and salvation of a lost and ruined world. And then instead of setting up a kingdom, He will deliver up the kingdom to His Father, who will reign all in all as from all eternity.

(Time)

_______________