The Riggle - Kesler Debate PART FOUR

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 FOUR

The Riggle - Kesler Debate

Elder Kesler's Fourteenth Speech
Tuesday Evening, September 21

Gentlemen, Moderators, Brethren and Friends:---I have been reading the history of the church we call the Church of the Brethren, but my friend has helped me by reading from Brother Moore's book, so I will leave that and proceed with the thought I had in mind when I took my seat. I had just asked the question if Jesus in person could build one church if He could not through His people build another. He built the Jewish Church through Moses, why can't He build another through His people? Here is a difference between my worthy respondent and myself. Because God built one church in the land of Judea that limits God's power. According to his theory God can't build another one like it any place else in the world, is his position. If the "Church of God" in America, which he says is the true church, ever gets to Australia, how will he do it? If he cannot go down to Australia and build another church like the one in America. How is God going to get any churches in Australia of He can't work through His people and build churches like the one He has in America? So you see, my dear friends, His contention here is without any foundation and without any force, so far as that matter is concerned. He denies the church I represent is the New Testament Church. I expected him to do that as far as that matter is concerned. I don't have to prove that the church I am representing is the same church that was built by our Lord Jesus Christ at the same time that I pointed out in the plain emphatic Scriptures which I gave. It seems that my worthy opponent does not apprehend the thought in the proposition. The proposition does not say that the church that I represent and am a member of is the church that Jesus built in the land of Palestine. It says the church that I am representing is identical with that in origin, name, doctrine and practice, and if he raises a contention here, we will submit the proposition to a committee of three grammarians to tell us whether this proposition says that I must prove that I represent the same church that Jesus built back in Palestine or whether the proposition says the church I represent is identical with it in origin, name, doctrine and practice. He has misapprehended the proposition, so his contention here falls down. Again, the Old Testament Church was standing in Christ's day while Christ was here and thus the argument he presents that Christ couldn't build the church until the day of Pentecost. That is his idea. The Old Testament Church was standing while Christ was in the world, and therefore because of that Jesus could not build another church while that was standing. Now I tell you, that old Jewish Church stood until 70 A. D. when Titus destroyed the city of Jerusalem. According to his contention there couldn't be an church built until after the year A. D. 70, and he said it was built in the A. D. 33. He thus refutes the position he is taking. I hope you can get that thought. Now. He says because the old Jewish Church was standing that Jesus could not build another church. The Jewish Church was standing in A. D. 70 when it fell at the siege of Jerusalem, and he says the church was built in A. D. 33, so it was thirty-seven years after that before it could be built according to his contention. The old Jewish Church was still standing after the day of Pentecost, and if Jesus couldn't build another church until the Jewish Church was destroyed, He couldn't have built it until after 70 A. D. Nothing absolutely in his argument or contention, and he will surely not bring it up any more.

Jesus said, I will build My church. He said in A. D. 32 I will build My church. Again it seems that we have to call his attention to some things along grammatical lines. It seems he doesn't understand, and we have to correct him. Jesus built or organized the kingdom and later applied the title church to it. There is where his contention falls down. I will show you in presenting my arguments that the church and the kingdom are identical, and when you belong to the kingdom you belong to the church. I showed you that Jesus built, organized and established the kingdom, and later on He applied the title church to it. Matt. 16:18. Whatever else this does mean, it does not mean that He turned the kingdom over to the apostles to build because the prophet emphatically said that the Branch, meaning Christ, shall build it. Here we have the time, place and manner when and where it was done. Right here in the world after those apostles were "set in the church." Now will he answer? Now I want him to tell us if those apostles were in the church.

I will build My church. I want to show you the meaning of "I will build." Matt. 8:7-10: "And Jesus saith unto him, I will come and heal him." The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldst come under my roof; but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed. And when Jesus heard it He marveled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel. Here was a man that wanted Jesus to heal his servant and Jesus said just like you and I would say it, "I will" come and heal him. It is the same thing that Jesus said, "I will build" My church. Did He mean away off somewhere in the future? The future form of the word does not always express futurity. Another instance, a certain man sought Him saying, If Thou wilt, Thou canst make me whole. Jesus touched him and said, "I will. Be thou clean." He didn't have to wait until away off some time like my friend says. These are the facts of the case. Our position is that Jesus built the kingdom and later applied the title church to it. Organized it as a kingdom, and then applied the title church to it, and my friend says the kingdom and the church are the same. He says the original church stands today, and he holds membership in it. I tried every way I could to get him to tell how the church got down from the apostles to him, or to trace it back down to the apostles, and he was as silent as the grave. He didn't try to trace it, but just simply asserted that it stood all the time and that he holds membership in it. If that proves an argument, you can prove anything.

Negative argument. Identical. I used that a moment ago. Our position does not compel me to prove that the church I represent is the same church that Jesus built in Palestine, but it does devolve upon me to prove that it is identical with the church in origin, name, doctrine and practice. So every argument that my friend brings up falls down.

He says the true tabernacle which God built and not man. Heb. 8:3. You remember that I told you the prophet said the Lord, meaning Christ, the Branch, should build it, and he thinks because God pitched one tabernacle, built one church, that He couldn't, through His people, build another one. He thinks God's power is limited. When God builds one tabernacle that He can't build another one like it. In other words when God saves one man's soul that He can't save another soul in the same way. There is where his position leads you. Very well; again, who built the Church on Pentecost? I would like to have him tell us.

He says the Church of the Brethren differs from the church Christ built. We will see about that as we go along. "New" as compared with others at that time. Brother Moore used it in that way. I showed you that in 1530 the Lutheran and the German Reformed Churches were built. The Baptist in 1633, and from that time down to 1708 there was not another institution started, and so it was "new" as compared with other churches. That is Brother Moore's idea.

Christ built His own church and called it "My church." That is evidently what our contention is, so we find in 1708 Jesus built another one and He called it My church. Wherever God has a people on the face of the earth, they are His people, and wherever He has a church on the fact of the earth, it is His church. God does build churches through His people now just the same as He did through His servant Moses, just the same as He built a church in Moses' day. We couldn't enjoy salvation in Christ in America if God was limited to time and place. If God built His church in Palestine, how did it get to America? My friend says God's people can't come over to America and organize a church like they had on the other side. You see where he fails.

2. Jesus Himself preached the gospel of the kingdom, and sent His apostles to preach it. Matt.4:23: "And Jesus went about all Galilee teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people." Luke 4:43, 44: "And He said unto them, I must preach the kingdom of God to other cities also; for therefore am I sent. And He preached in the synagogues of Galilee." Mark 10:7, and again in Mark 3:47, the same statement. Luke 101-17: "After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before His face into every city and place, whither He Himself would come." "And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through Thy name." Jesus first organized the kingdom and sent out twelve apostles to preach and now He added seventy more ministers to preach the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. They preached that the kingdom of heaven is "at hand." We want to show you that "the kingdom of heaven is at hand" shows the fact that there was a kingdom to be "at hand." Matt. 4:17: "Then Jesus began to preach and say, the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Matt. 26:36: "He that betrayeth Me is at hand." That little phrase "at hand" means that there was a Judas at that time. My friend says there was no kingdom of heaven. There was a Judas, and the very same expression means that the kingdom of heaven was "at hand." There must have been a kingdom of heaven at hand existing then. Neither Christ nor the apostles told the people that the kingdom was to come some time in the future. Now, you have correspondence with your friends and neighbors, and sometimes when you respond or answer your letter you say, your letter of a certain date is "at hand." Do you mean there is a letter right before you, or do you mean that the letter hasn't come yet, and you have to wait a little while for it. The kingdom of heaven is "at hand"---your letter is "at hand"---the letter is before you, and do you mean you are waiting for it? My friend would say the letter hadn't come yet, you would have to wait for it. The kingdom hasn't come yet, you have to wait until the day of Pentecost for it, is the position of my friend.

Argument 3. The kingdom existed in Christ's time. Jesus Himself said so. Matt. 12:28: "But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you." Luke 10:9: "And heal the sick that are therein, and say unto them, the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you." Luke 11:20: "But if I with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you." In positive statements Jesus said the kingdom of God is come unto you. "If I by the finger of God cast out devils, not doubt the kingdom of God is come unto." From that very fact there is no doubt that the kingdom is come upon you, but my friend says there is doubt about it. He takes a position right contrary to the Lord Jesus Christ. He says there was no kingdom until the day of Pentecost. The kingdom and the church are identical, and Jesus said there is no doubt about it. "If I by the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come unto you." There is no doubt about it, hence my friend's position goes down.

2. Men were commanded to enter the kingdom. Matt. 2:4-7: "Go ye also into the vineyard and whatsoever is right I will give you." My friend will not deny that "vineyard" here means the kingdom. Matt. 21:31: "Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, that the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you." They are going in right before your eyes, but my friend says there was no kingdom for them to go into. Luke 11:52: "Woe unto you, lawyers, for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered." My friend says there was no kingdom for them to enter, but Jesus condemned the lawyers because they hindered those that were going into the kingdom. Luke 16:16: "Since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it." But my friend says there was no kingdom for them to enter. He stands in direct opposition to the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ.

4. Kingdom taken from the Jews and given to the Gentiles. Matt. 21:42, 43: "The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes. Therefore say I unto you, the kingdom of God shall be taken from you and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof." Acts 1:6: "When they therefore were come together they asked of Him, saying, Lord, wilt Thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?" In Matt. 20:16, you have the same thought. I have four facts established here.

1. Persons entered the kingdom in Christ's time.

2. Jesus condemned the lawyers for not entering.

3. He said He would take the kingdom from the Jews and give to the Gentiles.

4. He couldn't take and give a kingdom that had no existence.

The kingdom is come, and there is no doubt about it, for the Savior said. My friend says on page 112 of his book: "The Church of God and the kingdom of God are identical. When we are in the kingdom, we are in the church." So right here I have proven that they were in the kingdom, and my friend says that they were in the church, and I don't think he will argue against himself. He will have to argue against himself if he has anything to say.

Jesus ruled in this kingdom while on earth. Luke 32:29, 30: "And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as My Father hath appointed unto Me. That ye may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel."

2. He came to earth to receive this kingdom. Luke 19:12-27. This is too long to read, but I will read a part of it: "And He said, therefore, a certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return. And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy until I come. But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, we will not have this man to reign over us." And the Lord Jesus Christ came to earth, as the book says, to receive for Himself a kingdom and then to return back where He was before He came. 11th verse: "And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by treading. Then came the first, saying, Lord, they pound hath gained ten pounds." 27th verse: "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." We find this simple plain statement that Jesus came into the world to receive a kingdom, and after he had received the kingdom He went back to His Father, and told them they should occupy until He should come back. And the reckoning will take place in the great judgment in the next world. It is just as plain as ban be that Jesus came into the world to receive that kingdom.

Jesus had a kingdom. John 18:36, 37: "My kingdom is not of this world: if My kingdom were of this world, then would My servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews, but now is My kingdom not from hence."

He appointed it to the apostles as we find in Luke 22:29, 30. This was David's throne. Psa. 132:11: "The Lord hath sworn in truth unto David: He will not turn from it: of the fruit of Thy body will I set upon Thy throne." Acts. 2:30: "Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, He would raise up Christ to sit on His throne." Luke 1:32: "He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto Him the throne of His Father David." Isa. 9:6, 7: "For unto us a child is born. unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon His shoulder: and His name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace. Of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon His kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even forever." Zech. 6:13: "Even He shall build the temple and He shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon His throne; and He shall be a priest upon His throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both." David's throne re-established in a spiritual sense.

Christ is not on a throne now. God rules in heaven. Matt. 5:34: "But I say unto you, swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: nor by the earth; fir it is His footstool; neither by Jerusalem: for it is the city of the great King." God's throne is the only throne in heaven, and God is non that throne. Again, Christ will have a throne by and by. Matt 25:31: "The Son of man shall come in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then shall He sit upon the throne of His glory."

6. The kingdom was established before His death. Luke 20:9-19: "Then began He to speak to the people this parable: A certain man planted a vineyard, and let it forth to husbandman, and went into a far country for a long time. And at the season he sent a servant to the husbandmen that they should give him of the fruit of the vinyard: but the husbandmen beat him, and sent him away empty. And again he sent another servant: and they beat him also, and treated him shamefully, and sent him away empty. And again he sent a third: and they wounded him also, and cast him out. Then said the lord of the vineyard, what shall I do? I will send my beloved son: it may be they will reverence him when they see him. But when the husbandmen saw him, they reasoned among themselves, saying, this is the heir: come, let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours. So they cast him out of the vineyard and killed him. What therefore shall the lord of the vineyard do unto them? He shall come and destroy these husbandmen, and shall give the vineyard to others. And when they hear it, they said, God forbid. And He beheld them, and said, What is this then that is written, the stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner? Whosoever shall fall upon that stone shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder. And the chief priests and the scribes the same hour sought to lay hands on Him; and they feared the people; for they perceived that He had spoken this parable against them."

(Time.)

__________________

Elder Riggle's Fourteenth Speech
Tuesday Evening, September 21

Mr. Chairman, Brother Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen:--- I will first give attention to a few remarks made by my opponent in the speech to which you have just listened.

He says there was need of another church. Under the Old Testament dispensation there was but one church, and that was the church of Moses. It was typical of the new covenant church. Since there was but one church under the old covenant in the type, there can be but one church under the new covenant in the antitype. Elder Kesler is contending for more than one church in the New Testament dispensation. Note well the fact that since there was but one old covenant church, there can be but one new covenant church. The type and antitype must agree. I ask, was the church of Moses a type of the Church of the Brethren which was organized in the year 1708 by eight fallible people in Germany? No indeed. But it was a type of the church built by Jesus Christ.

He speaks of a church in Australia and America being distinct. There is absolutely no logic nor reason in his talk. The New Testament Church is the same everywhere in all nations, in all ages. It is the same whether in Judea, Samaria, Galilee, or the uttermost parts of the earth. It is the same in all nations, in its organization, name, discipline, purity and in fact every part of it in all its phases.

I again call attention to the language of the proposition. It holds my opponent to prove that the New Testament Church and the one he represents---the Church of the Brethren---are identical---that is the same, differing in no essential point. This is the meaning of identical according to the Standard dictionary. He tries to escape the dilemma in which this places him by saying, "Elder Riggle is a poor grammarian if he will insist on this point."

It does not require a grammarian to understand the definition of terms. Right here Elder Kesler's contention falls to the ground. No wonder he tries to escape the force of this argument. He will never be able to prove that the sect that originated in Germany in 1708 is the same, differing in no essential point, from the church that Christ built in New Testament times. While we are on this point of grammar, which he is pleased to talk so much about, it will be fitting to refer to something the Elder said last night under the other proposition. You remember I challenged him to tell us from the construction of the language of a certain sentence I gave where one action or three were expressed. In his reply he clearly evaded the point, and then said, "Elder Riggle's sentence is not grammatical, and if he insists it is, we will leave it to a committee of three scholars to decide." My sentence was this: I plunged my hand into a basket of apples and of pears and of plums. Today I asked the Professor of the North Webster High School, also the Professor of the Oswego High School, as well as another school teacher of high educational standing, all three being present tonight, whether my sentence was grammatical. They unanimously replied that it is. They said if it is not grammatical then the construction of the language in Matt. 28:19 is not grammatical. All the Elder's talk along this line is simply for effect. The book will show as to who has made the best use of grammar, and I am willing to let the people decide as to that. I agree with these Professors that if the sentence I gave is not grammatical then the construction of the language of the great commission Christ gave is not grammatical, and Jesus did not know what He was talking about.

Now the origin, name, doctrine and practice of his church. I ask this intelligent congregation, do you think that the talk he has been giving proves that the Church of the Brethren, which he represents, is identical with that found in the New Testament? I am sure you do not. In fact as far as I can see he has made a complete failure, and of course I knew that he would, for there is no identity between the two bodies.

Here is some more of his talk. He says the church of the old dispensation lasted till A. D. 70, and that according to my argument the antitypical church could not appear until after that date. This is certainly a strange position for anyone to take. When did the old covenant and church properly end? I can give abundance of proof that it ended at the cross. The old covenant and church stood and fell together. Will he insist that the old covenant was in force until A. D. 70? Any Bible scholar knows better than this. Under the old dispensation the Jewish nation were God's chosen people; but when Christ died upon the cross, the apostle tells us that the law of commandments and the ordinances that clustered around it were all nailed to the cross, and right then and there the Jewish nation ceased to be a distinct and separate nation of people owned of God. The distinction between Jew and Gentile ceased, and the middle wall of partition between them was broken down. After the death of Christ, the gospel was commanded to be preached to all nations in all the world. On Pentecost, Peter announced that the promise "is unto you (the Jews) and to your children (their offspring), and unto all that are afar off (the Gentiles in all the world)." These are the facts, and I cannot but think that in his heart he knows it to be true. But in order to make a point, he says the old covenant and church lasted until A. D. 70. What happened in A. D. 70? Why the literal sanctuary or temple and also the city of Jerusalem was destroyed, and Titus marched his triumphant armies into the city. But long before this, at the very time that Jesus expired on the cross, the veil of the temple was rent in twain, and God moved out of the literal sanctuary, and thus their house was left unto them desolate, just as Jesus had forewarned them. On the great day of Pentecost, in the person of the Holy Spirit, the entire Trinity moved into the new or antitypical structure, which the apostle tells us is builded together "for a habitation of God THROUGH the Spirit."

The church and kingdom identical. The church is the visible manifestation of the kingdom of God on earth. Don't forget the point I made that in the closing year of Christ's ministry he spoke of the building of the church as yet future. "I WILL build My church." From this language we can draw but one logical conclusion. The completion or building of this church as a distinct organization in its perfected form was future of Christ's personal ministry. Let me give you an illustration. Suppose I say to you tonight at the close of this debate I am going home to build for myself a house. Would you understand from this language that the house was already built? Of course not. Its building would be future. In the very same language Jesus said, "I will build My church." He calls attention to Jesus' saying, "I will come and heal him"; but you will notice that in both instances where Jesus used this language, the healing and cleansing followed or cam after the time when He spoke these wards. So this proves nothing in his favor, but stand square against his contention.

He Asks, "where was the church organized?" You all know that from the very beginning of this discussion I have maintained that it began under the labors of John and continued under the personal ministry of Christ. I presume I have stated this more than a dozen times; yet in the face of all this, the Elder will get up and tell you that Elder Riggle claims there was no church until Pentecost. Every time he does that, remember that he is misstating the facts. The point I have made cannot be refuted, that while the church existed and the material was being gathered, the real building or organizing of this body as a distinct New Testament institution, separate from Judaism, including in its membership both Jews and Gentiles---the church in its perfected state---dates from Pentecost. As Jesus healed the man after He had said, "I will come and heal him," so the building of the church in its perfected state followed the time when He said, "I will build My church."

Elder Kesler again asked me to trace the Church of God through the different ages. I have done that clearly, and will enlarge on the point under the regular line of negative arguments that I have prepared to present to you. You remember that I have clearly shown you that in the beginning of the Christian era it was one pure church. During the great apostasy it was in a divided and scattered condition, and in the evening time in its gathered state---gathered back to the same unity, purity and power, that adorned it in primitive times.

Again he spent considerable time on the Lord building another church. The church He built was perfect, could not be improved upon, and is destined to stand throughout all ages. I maintain that Christ built but one true church. He says, "I will build MY CHURCH," not churches, "and the gates of hell shall not prevail against IT." The language of Jesus utterly refutes the position of my opponent. Christ has but one church, and this fact rules out Elder Kesler's sect that he has come here to represent.

He spent the most of his last speech reading a great many Scriptures to prove that Christ had apostles, and that they preached the gospel of the kingdom, and that the kingdom existed during the days of Christ's incarnation. Does that prove that the Church of the Brethren sect is identical with the New Testament Church? I think not. The very thing he is trying to prove has been the teaching of the Church of God, not only from the pulpit but in its literature. Elder Kesler should have read my book "The Kingdom of God and the One Thousand Years' Reign," before he began this debate, and then he would have known that our teaching on this point is exactly as he has presented it. I wrote that book long years before I knew there was such a man as Elder Kesler; and one of the strongest arguments to be found in it is the fact that the kingdom of God was in existence from the days of John and that men pressed into it. You see all the precious time that he has spent in this way is lost to him, as far as the point in question is concerned. But since he cannot sustain his proposition, he must spend his time in some manner; and reading Scriptures that have no bearing on the subject is probably as good a way as any. There is, however, a distinct sense in which the kingdom came in power on the day of Pentecost. Jesus said to His disciples, until they see the kingdom of God come with power." There was some sense in which this would be fulfilled at a time beyond His personal ministry. The context with all the evidences in hand point to the coming of the Holy Spirit in great power, and that notable day as the fulfillment of this promise. We read in Rom. 14:17: "The kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost."

It seems Elder Kesler thinks he is debating with a Disciple preacher. His arguments are the same that they use against the Disciples or Church of Christ people. I understand that after this debate he goes to Jasonville, Ind., to hold another with a Disciples minister. I am satisfied that he is using the same argument here that he expects to use there. In doing this, he is entirely missing the mark and beating the air in vain. The argument he uses against the disciples has no bearing against the Church of God. We do not teach and hold as they do. You see, he is now debating with the wrong man, especially with the kind of argument he is bringing up. It is a fact that he has spent most all his time thus far this evening on something irrelevant to the subject in debate. The many Scriptures he has read simply sustain the position that the Church of God holds. Really, I cannot see how the elder can believe in a future millennium and preach the Kingdom of God as he has tonight. In my book against the millennium theory, I use these very same Scriptures to prove that instead of the kingdom being future, it was set up during the personal ministry of Christ. All the time he has spent on that point does not touch the proposition he is here to defend. Again I ask, What has that to do with the proposition, "Resolved, that the Church of the Brethren, of which I, B. E. Kesler, am a member, and which I represent, is identical with the New Testament Church in origin, name, doctrine, and practice." He never touched that, but spent all his time on the kingdom, something that I always have taught and believe.

Really, I have nothing to refute as far as his argument is concerned, except the proposition itself. You see it devolves upon him to prove that his church is the same as the New Testament Church. This he has not and cannot do; and with his failure to do so, his proposition falls, and fall it must under the hammer of eternal truth. He just fills in his time in reading Scriptures to prove that there was a kingdom in the days of Christ, which I always have believed and taught. Having nothing but the bare proposition to oppose, I will continue my regular line of negative argument.

When I sat down I was presenting my second negative argument against my friend's proposition. "No identity between the founders of the two churches." Jesus built His own church; but the Church of the Brethren was built on the River Eder, Germany, by eight fallible creatures meeting there and baptizing one another by trine immersion. This latter, then, cannot be Christ's church. The one is divine, the other human. The one was founded by the infallible God, the other by finite fallible men.

The New Testament Church was conceived in the divine mind parallel with the gift of His son, from the foundation of the world. Long ages after it cast its shadow upon the earth in the old covenant, its church, tabernacle, sacrifices and services. In the fullness of time this "Jerusalem from above" came to earth in the person of Christ. He was its founder and builder, the spring or fountain from which it emanated, whereas the Church of the Brethren was conceived in the human minds of eight fallible persons. They CANNOT BE THE SAME. Permit me again to read from Moore: "In 1708 a small company---eight persons---met on the bank of the Eder at Schwarzenau, Germany, and were baptized. This was the beginning of a new religious sect." Oh, how different from this is the Church of the New Testament. It was conceived in the infinite mind of Almighty God, and came to earth through Jesus Christ, was purchased with His own precious blood. Elder Kesler says he believes in the church that Jesus built. Then why doesn't he renounce this new religious sect that came into existence seventeen centuries later, and abide only in that divine church? I would advise him to drop his man-made institution and like a man take his stand for the church that Jesus built. As I have before told you, I have done that, and here is the difference between us.

Third. There is no identity in the nature of the two bodies. The New Testament Church is a spiritual house. We read in 1 Pet. 2:5, "Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ." Without comments, this text clearly establishes the fact that the Christian church is a spiritual institution; and being spiritual, it must be eternal in its nature; whereas the Church of the Brethren, which my opponent represents, is a temporal, literal affair, as no man can manufacture spiritual and eternal things. This new sect cannot possibly survive the judgment fires. This institution will pass out of existence at the end of this world; while the church that Jesus built, the divine and heavenly ecclesia, is destined to exist after this earth has passed away, and will continue throughout all eternity. There is no identity.

The church of the new covenant is not a sect. It is the whole. The word sect is from the Latin word secare, meaning a part cut off. Since Elder Moore and Elder Kesler both admit that the Church of the Brethren is a sect, they represent a "cut off" faction or division. How can these two, then be identical? Allow me here to press this point home. The Church of the New Testament cannot be a sect. If so, I ask What was it cut off from? From Judaism or heathenism? God bless you, it is no part of either. It is represented as a new and distinct institution peculiar to the new covenant, and for Jews or Gentiles to enter it they had to be born from above, and when they thus came in through Christ by salvation they lost their identity; "in which there is neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor free, male or female; but ye are all one in Christ Jesus." Will my friend dare to assert that Jesus Christ was the founder of a sect which is identical with heresy?

To place this fact before you in other words, the New Testament Church is the body of Christ, hence includes in its membership every Christian in heaven and earth, the whole family of God. Now, here is the point: Since Elder Kesler has admitted that the organization he represents is a sect, it cannot in any sense be the same as the New Testament Church. You see, in order for him to prove identity between his sect and the Christian church, he will have to show that the latter is a sect, and that the two are the same in origin and name. I defy him to sustain this point. The fact is, he cannot, and with his failure to do so his proposition goes down. A person cannot be saved outside of the body of Christ. Even those in the sect the elder represents who are genuinely saved hold membership also in Christ's body. Such belong, by virtue of salvation, to the New Testament Church, and by the rite of triune immersion to the German Baptist, or Church of the Brethren sect. They are members of two bodies. Here is a logical conclusion. Since the Church of the Brethren is admitted by its leaders to be a sect, and since the Bible condemns sects, Elder Kesler and all others who hold membership there, and desire to walk in the light, should renounce the sect and come out and abide only in the church.

Fourth. There is no identity in the date, place, and manner of setting up the two institutions. First, as to date. I have already clearly proved that in its perfected state the Church of the New Testament was fully organized on the day of Pentecost in A. D. 33. The Church of the Brethren was organized in the year 1708, or sixteen hundred and seventy-five years too late to be identical with the New Testament Church. Second, as to place. One was organized in Jerusalem. This was a divinely chose place, both in prophecy and in the New Testament. This new sect, called the Church of the Brethren, came into existence on the banks of the River Eder, in Germany. No identity. Third, as to manner. One was founded and organized by the descent of the Holy Spirit on the great day of Pentecost. The other by eight people, baptizing each other by triune immersion in the Eder river. No identity.

Fifth. There is no identity between the two institutions in membership. First, in the manner. Of the Church of the New Testament, salvation makes us members. Jesus said, "I am the door. By Me if any man enter in, he shall be saved." It is by spiritual birth that we become members of the Christian church. My children became members of my family by a fleshly, natural birth; and in the same manner are we made members of the family of God, that is, by spiritual birth. Let me illustrate. Suppose a sinner here tonight falls upon his knees in true repentance, and with a broken and contrite hear and spirit meets every requisite for salvation, then by faith grasps the promise of everlasting life. He fulfills what Paul told the Philippian jailer, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved." That instant the Spirit of God witnesses to his soul that he is a child of God, and his mane is recorded in the Lamb's book of life in heaven. Will my friend deny that that man is now a member of the body of Christ? He dare not. And, being a member of this spiritual body he hold membership in the church. But does that make him a member of this other body called the Church of the Brethren? No, indeed. In order to join that he must go in through the rite of triune immersion. You see, there is no identity in the manner of becoming members of these two distinct bodies. Becoming members of the body of Christ is the result of a work of God wrought through the Holy Spirit. Becoming members of the Church of the Brethren is the result of submitting to a ceremonial rite that is administered by fallible men. Elder Moore says, "They receive no one as members who have not been baptized in this way." So there is no identity between the two bodies.

You may be saved, have individual relationship with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, live a holy life, and yet if you have not been baptized by triune immersion you cannot approach their communion service, for they will not allow you. They only accept those who have received this ceremonial external rite. That leaves everybody else outside of the church. It shows the narrowness and inconsistency of the position my opponent occupies. It has not been until lately that they even would receive members into their church who had been baptized even by triune immersion in some other body. They would not accept the Progressive Brethren or the Old Order Brethren on their triune baptism. But the late Hershey conference changed this order, and now they can accept these people if they wish to. I do not know whether they accept members from Dowie's church over in Zion City on their baptism or not. You know Dowie's Christian Catholic Church also practices three immersions. The Elder's doctrine and practice leaves all people but trine immersionists outside of the kingdom, outside of the Trinity, lost, ruined, and without God in the world. I pray their position and doctrine, and escape to the New Testament Church, which will continue the same throughout all ages. This latter church includes all the saved, all Christians, whether Methodist, Evangelical, or wherever you belong, if your are true Christians and really belong to Christ, have been saved through His precious blood, you are members of the body of Christ, the church. You are our brethren. The only difference, you are members of two bodies, which we hold membership in one only. Honest people, when they see this truth, are ready to drop the human and abide only in the divine.

But let me ask, Are the saved in the Methodist, Evangelical and other bodies members of the Church of the Brethren? Are the hosts of saved people who constitute the gathered state of the Church of God members of the Church of the Brethren? Were the primitive Christians, who held membership in this divine body long centuries before this new sect arose, members of the Elder's church? No, indeed. Every intelligent man and woman knows better. This is positive proof that the two bodies are not identical. Thus I prove that in both manner and extent of membership there is no identity between the Church of the New Testament and Elder Kesler's sect.

Again, the character of the members of the two bodies is not identical. As I have but a moment left, I see I have not the time to read an extract from Elder Kurtz' book in which he says, "The church is a hospital for sinners. It is composed of members not yet perfect." I will prove that the New Testament Church is a pure and holy church of which Christ said, "I am the door."

(Time.)

__________________

Elder Kesler's Fifteenth Speech
Wednesday Evening, September 22

Gentlemen, Moderators, Brethren and Friends:---I rise before you this evening to continue the discussion of the proposition which was read before us yesterday evening, that the Church of the Brethren, of which I, B. E. Kesler, am a member, and which I represent, is identical with the New Testament Church in origin, name, doctrine, and practice.

I am presenting to you now position No. 2. You remember the first position we gave you was that of building the church in the days of Christ our Savior, and that the Church of the Brethren was built just as churches in apostolic times were built, and therefore built of God.

Argument 3. Its foundation is Christ. Jesus the only foundation. Matt. 16:18: "And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." 1 Cor. 3:11: "For other foundation can no man lay that that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." Churches that are built on Christ obey Him. Matt. 27:24, 25: "Therefore, whosoever heareth these sayings of Mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house: and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock."

Christ is the foundation of the church, of whose faith He is the author. Heb. 5:9: "And being made perfect, He became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey Him." Heb. 12:2: "Jesus is the author and finisher of our faith," hence the Church of the Brethren has Christ for its foundation.

4. Jesus is the foundation of the Church of Christ. Churches that obey God's word are built on Christ. The Brethren obey God's Word; there, the church of the Brethren is built on Christ, and has foundation, identity, and is Scriptural.

Salvation is conditional on obedience to God's Word. Matt. 4:4: "But He answered and said, It is written, man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." Mark 16:16: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Acts 2:38: "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Acts 3:19: "Repent ye, therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord." Rev. 22:14: "Blessed are they that do His commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city."

Churches that obey God's Word are built on Christ, have remission, and will obtain final salvation. The Brethren obey God's Word, therefore the Church of the Brethren have remission and will have obtained final salvation. In this position we show that the Church of the Brethren is built on Christ as truly as other churches in apostolic times. In denying this he denies that Christ is the foundation of the Christian church, or that the Church of the Brethren is a Christian church, and that churches built on God's Word are built on Christ. Churches that obey God's Word are built on Christ. In denying these he places himself under obligations to show that Jesus is not the builder of our faith and practices.

3. It's builder is God who, through the agency of the Holy Spirit , uses His Word as the instrument. We are going to show you now the process by which we become the children of God as provided by the great God of heaven and delivered to men and women by the Lord Jesus Christ. Luke 8:11: "Now, the parable is this: The seed is the Word of God." 1 Cor. 4:15: "For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many Fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel." Jas. 1:18: "Of His own will begat He us with the Word of truth, that we should be a kind of first fruits of His creatures." We are thus showing you that the spiritual children of God are begotten by God's Word, and that is the beginning, the conception of any kind of natural or spiritual beings. These Scriptures show you positively that God's children are begotten by God's eternal truth. I asked my friend a number of questions right along this point, and he never tried to answer them, and thus we come up with the plain Scriptures of God's eternal truth and tell you that God's children are begotten through His Word. God's spiritual children are quickened by God's Holy Word. The position that my worthy opponent has been holding is that by one spirit we are all baptized into one body, that it is God's Holy Spirit that quickens to spiritual life. Psa. 119:25 "My soul cleaveth unto the dust: quicken Thou me according to Thy Word." 50th verse:"This is my comfort in my affliction: for Thy Word hath quickened me: 93rd verse: "I will not forget Thy precepts: for with them Thou hast quickened me." Isa. 55:11: "So shall My Word be that goeth forth out of My mouth: it shall not return unto Me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and prosper in the thing whereunto I sent it." God sent His Word to develop the spiritual children in God. The Scriptures are plain on this subject.

Converted by the Word. Psa. 19:7: "The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple." Again, we are born of the Word. 1 Pet. 1:23: "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible by the Word of God, which liveth and abideth forever." We are saved by the Word. Rom. 1:16: "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. Eph. 1:13: "In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the Word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise." 1 Cor. 15:14: "Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand by which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures. And that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures." Jas. 1:21: "Wherefore, lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted Word, which is able to save your souls." Here we have clear and positive statements showing that God's children are conceived, quickened, converted and born of God's Word as the instrument or means.

Churches built under the influence of God's Word in its fullness are built by God. Now, I want to remark right here that there are some people in the world that can't understand how God's Word can accomplish all these great and wonderful things. Baptism is for the remission of sins. Salvation and membership hang right on obedience to God's Word. But some people can't understand why God can place virtue and power in these things to work out this great salvation. It is just as easy for God to place salvation in our obedience to His Word as it is to place salvation in the blood. 1 John 1:7: "If we walk in the light," and the sinner doesn't do that, "we have fellowship one with another," and "the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses from all sin." In order to have the justifying, purifying, saving, cleansing blood of the Lord Jesus Christ applied to us, we must walk in obedience to the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.

We become partakers of the divine nature and experience the higher Christian graces through God's promises to us conditioned upon obedience to the Word. Sanctified by the Word. John 17:17: "Sanctify them through Thy truth: Thy Word is truth. As Thou hast sent Me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world. And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth." 1 Pet. 1:2: "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ." 1 Thes. 4:3: "For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication." You remember, he failed to present his doctrine of sanctification.

Righteousness. Righteousness comes by the Word of God. Rom. 6:19, 20: "I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness. For when ye were the servants of sin, ye are free from righteousness." 1 John 3:7: "Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous." Psa. 119:172: "My tongue shall speak of Thy Word: for all Thy commandments are righteousness." Here it is positively and plainly taught that to become righteous, and be righteous, we must do works of righteousness. This is the position of the Church of the Brethren, which has always been maintained.

Peace and holiness. Heb. 12:14: "Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord. Rom. 6:17, 18, 21: "But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness." Verse 22: "But now, being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life." Paul tells us here that when we obeyed from the heart the form of doctrine we become servants of righteousness, and that is the only way to obtain and maintain righteousness.

5. Perfection by the Word of God. Matt. 5:48: "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect." 2 Cor. 13:9: "For we are glad, when we are weak, and ye are strong; and this also we wish, even your perfection." Heb. 6:1`: "Therefore leaving the principle of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance of dead works, and of faith toward God." Eph. 4:13: "Till we all come into the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ." 2 Tim 3:16, 17: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." Hence we have it positively stated the we must obey God's Word in order to obtain and maintain the Christian fellowship, sanctification righteousness, holiness, and perfection, and that it is the only way to obtain them. Churches possessing the characteristics of the divine pattern are built by God. The Church of the Brethren possesses these, hence the Church of the Brethren was built by God. We are directed in Christian duty by the Word of God. Eph. 4:11: 2 Tim. 3:16, 17.

Temperance. Gal. 5:22, 23: "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law." 2 Pet. 1:6: "And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness." Temperance is maintained in the Church of the Brethren.

Peace. John 14:27: "Peace I leave with you, My peace I give unto you; not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your hear be troubled, neither let it be afraid." 2 Tim 2:22: "Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart." Love to God. Matt. 22:37-40. Golden Rule. Matt. 7:12: "Therefore, all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets" The Lord's Prayer. Matt. 6:9-13, and it is also given in Luke 11:2: "When ye pray, say, Our Father which are in heaven." One He gave when he was teaching on the subject of prayer, and the other about fifteen months later, when His apostles asked Him to teach them how to pray. He said, Pray after this manner: "Our Father which are in heaven." And "when ye pray say, Our Father which art in heaven."

Law of trespass. Matt. 5:23: "Therefore, if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee, leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way first and be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer they gift." In Matt. 18:15-21, it tells how to proceed in case of trespass against your brother. First you should go and tell it to your brother alone, and if he will not hear you, then lastly go and tell it to the church. We want to go to the chart just a little while. You remember, last night my worthy opponent told you repeatedly that there was only two points of difference between himself and me in this discussion, and that was triune baptism and the full meal that we eat and designate the Lord's Supper. We have got along nicely in this discussion. We find that Jesus tells us that we should love God with our whole heart soul, mind, and strength, and our brother as ourself. The Church of the Brethren maintains that we cannot maintain this love unless it is manifested by keeping God's commandments. We have shown him the Scriptures that God tells us that we know that "we have passed from death unto life because we love the brethren." "By this we know that we love the children of God (the brethren) when we love God and keep His commandments, this the love of God that we keep His commandments." Our position is that we cannot maintain and have God's love in our heart unless we keep God's commandments. So we have that point settled.

The Lord's Prayer. He admits that there were only two points on which we differ, triune immersion and the Lord's Supper. Now, we will see. His preachers preach against the Lord's Prayer, because they teach the church was built on Pentecost. They can't pray, "Thy kingdom come, " and so they preach against it. My opponent comes up here now and says the Lord's Prayer is all right. Only two things on which we differ.

The law of trespass is all right. The great commission is all right. Baptism for the remission of sins. He has been reading from Brother Moore and Miller that it takes faith, repentance, baptism to which a sinner must comply in order to obtain the forgiveness of our sins. So he believe that we must confess our sins and be baptized in order to receive the forgiveness of our sins. Very well. Our position is being sustained step by step. We will now talk some points about his arguments last night.

He says one church, there was only one church in the New Testament, and therefore we only have one church now. Well, I never said God had more than on general church. You understand, God has but one general church, and the Church of the Brethren is a part of the church. New Testament was applicable to every nation. I want to ask him how he is going to get it into every nation. I don't think his people have a church in Australia. I want him to tell us how he is going to plant one in Argentina, South America, and how he is going to plant on in Mexico, if he doesn't do it through human instrumentality. If Jesus in person could build one church, couldn't He, working through His people, build another church like it? Jesus built the first church in Palestine, and when He built the Church of the Brethren He built one just like it---the Church of the Brethren, which I have the honor to represent tonight.

He needs help. He went and asked some professors today about a little sentence about a basket of apples, plums and pears. I want him to tell us what these professors said about the basket of apples, and of pears, and of plums, whether it meant one basket, and if they said it was one basket, then I want him to get them to tell us how they would word it to mean three baskets.

"Antitype could not appear until the type had passed away," says Elder Riggle. The Jew' church or kingdom did not pass away until A. D. 70, and according to his theory there could not have been a church built on the day of Pentecost when he says the church was built. Then he says the Old Testament Church went down at the cross, we have still a gap of fifty days between the crucifixion and the day of Pentecost that God didn't have a church at all on the face of the earth. He can't get the cross and Pentecost together. How crooked and misleading his position.

"If Christ built another one, He would have two." Says Elder Riggle, "We read of churches in the New Testament, and that means more than one. " Certainly. They were churches that were built just alike with the same doctrine and practice. What my arguments proved last night. They proved just what I started out to prove by them, that the church of Christ was built in the days of the Savior. He has been contending all the while it was built on the day of Pentecost, then he came out and said now we know that there was a church in John the Baptist's time, and Christ's time, that he has thrown down his doctrine and teaching that there wasn't any church until Pentecost, so we are gaining step by step. "I am debating with a Disciples minister." The reason I am presenting these arguments is because he takes the same stand that the Disciples do, that the church was built on the day of Pentecost until last night he said there was a church in Christ the Savior's day. So we have gained that much. Because of the fact that he has taken the position that the Disciples do that is why I am debating with him just like I would with a Disciples minister. "I have arguments that I expect to debate with the Disciple, and I use them on him." Well, the reason I do it is because he takes a position just like the Disciples, that the church was built on the day of Pentecost. I expect to have a debate at Jasonville after this debate, and he can go down there and we will give him the balance. They he can go out and preach and say Brother Kesler set him right, the church wasn't built on Pentecost; it was built in the Savior's day. Very well. He now believe there was a kingdom in Christ's time.

"Church of the Brethren originated in the mind of eight persons." Suppose it did, these persons were moved and actuated by God's Holy Sprit. The Bible says, where two or three are gathered together in His name He would be in the midst of them. They couldn't find among the churches in that country any church that was carrying out the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. Then upon prayer and fasting God's Holy Spirit led them and prompted them to start this church. Wherever there is a body of God's children that body is a church of the Lord Jesus Christ, who is now working through His people. These consecrated, devoted men and women of God, led by the Spirit, started a church just like the on He built over in Palestine. Again, he says I admit Christ built the church. To be sure I do. God is not limited to time and place. Wherever there is a consecrated people that will obey God's Word, God is in the midst of them. I want to show you something about his logic. Last night he said, "If my arm is cut off, it is a sect"; "if a stick of wood is cut off, it is a sect," therefore, according to his logic, his arm is a stick of wood. Now, then, he has just been opposing triune immersion and the Lord's Supper. He is just about half way over on triune immersion, will take all of us trine immersionists without rebaptism, and I think he will come all the way over at the end of this discussion. Then we will take him down and baptize him right. Then he can come and eat the Lord's Supper with us, something he never did in his own church, and never will unless his church changes its practice; and then we will just take him down to Jasonville to moderate the meeting down there for us, and then we will take a great evangelistic trip, and I will preach the doctrinal sermons, and he can preach the emotional sermons, and then we will have the thing going some.

(Time.)

__________________

Elder Riggle's Fifteenth Speech
Wednesday Evening, September 22

Mr. Chairman, Brother Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen:---I am not here tonight to merely entertain you, but to present some facts and truths against the proposition that Elder Kesler has undertaken to defend.

He remarked that the church was built upon Christ the eternal Rock and Foundation. This has been my position all through this discussion; and right here is where his position fails him: There is but one true foundation. Certainly Christ is the foundation. "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." But you see, one foundation supposes but one building. When you lay a foundation for a house, how many structures do you erect upon it? You see, there was but one church built upon this foundation, but one church rests upon it. "Upon this rock I will build My church"---not churches. This leaves no room for Elder Kesler's sect. In his talk he tries to apply these texts to the Church of the Brethren, but they don't apply there. There is no relation between the two bodies.

Next he tells us that the Church of the Brethren obey all the commands of God according to the New Testament. This remains to be proved. Assumption alone is not enough. When he prove his statements to the satisfaction of this congregation then, and not until then, will his assertion stand.

He says the church was built by God. Certainly, this had been my contention right along. But God built but one church, so this leaves Elder Kesler's church out. His came seventeen centuries too late to be that church.

In his last speech he spent much time, and read many texts, to prove that we are begotten by the Word, and quickened by the Word. Under the former proposition, I spent and entire speech proving this very point in connection with the new birth, or regeneration. And we all read in 2 Cor. 3:6, "The Spirit giveth life;" and again in the Roman letter, "It is the Spirit that quickeneth." You see by this that the Lord saves and regenerates through two great agencies---the Word of God and the Sprit of God. This leaves the external rite of baptism, which he contends so much for, outside of the great word of human salvation. In this admission, Elder Kesler virtually comes over to my side of the question. You see, I have contended right along that the two agents through which regeneration is effected are the Word and Spirit, while he has argued that the literal rite of baptism (by which he means trine immersion) must enter into this work. Will he admit, then, that a person who has been "begotten by the Word" and "born of the Spirit" are saved? If so, he drops the bottom out of his whole contention. Just to refresh your minds, you will remember that I have asked him time and again to state himself whether he believes anyone can be saved without triune immersion. Up till this hour he has evaded my question. Talk about questions. I have given him a large number of them that bear direct on the point in debate, and he has evaded practically all of them. You remember, I read from their standard works where they positively teach that none but those who have received the rite of trine immersion are saved and in the Godhead.

He has said many good things tonight, read a great many Scriptures on temperance, faith, the golden rule, fruits of the Spirit, etc., things that everybody believes. Why, we have always taught and believe these things. Why does he spend so much of his time on points on which we are agreed? As I have frequently stated, the rules of this debate require him to treat only such points of doctrine and practice on which we differ. Why does he spend his time on such universally believed doctrines as repentance and faith? There is no issue here; so his time is misspent as far as this debate is concerned.

He spent considerable time on sanctification, holiness, perfection, etc. About every religious body on earth believes these things. They hold these truths in some manner, at least. The Elder in his talk made no issue on these points whatever. He just simply stated that the Church of the Brethren teach and believe these things. He is so evasive that if I did not have access to their standard works there would be no issue on these points. But here I want to make a point. The Church of the Brethren does not teach sanctification as set forth in the New Testament. They connect it with the rite of triune immersion. To show you what they teach, I will read from the "New Testament Doctrines," by J. H. Moore, page 83: "Men and women are to be purified, sanctified or made holy, by obeying the truth." (By reading the whole connection Elder Moore clearly shows that by "obeying the truth" he means triune immersion.) "Those who accept Christ in faith and comply with the conditions connected with conversion, regeneration and the new birth, are dedicated to the Lord's service---consecrated---and therefore sanctified." You will here notice that sanctification with them and regeneration is the same thing, takes place at the same time. On page 80 of the same book, speaking of regeneration, Elder Moore says, "This, of course, means baptism." Again on page 83, the Elder says, "But we are not here teaching the so-called doctrine of sinless perfection."

Their teaching, then, on this point is that sanctification and regeneration are synonymous, and that all there is to it is a mere consecration or setting apart, and all this takes place at the time the rite of triune immersion is administered. The Elder's sanctification might have passed pretty well in Old Testament times, where it simply meant a setting apart for sacred purposes, as the vessels of the temple, the priest's garments, etc. Sanctification under the Gospel means more than this. It is the inward purging of the soul from inherent depravity. In Heb. 9:14 the apostle, after showing that the sanctification of the old covenant (like Elder Kesler's sanctification through baptism only cleansed by the purifying of the flesh---a mere external affair---says of sanctification under the new covenant: "How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?"

I will now show that the teaching and practice of my opponent's church on this particular point differs widely from the teaching and practice of the primitive church. I will give some clear New Testament examples. The apostles, before the great day of Pentecost, had been baptized, and this evidently took place at least three years before the reception of the Holy Ghost. Before this they were in Christ, their names were written in heaven, and of them Jesus said, "They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world." But they were not sanctified. In John 17:17, Jesus prayed for their sanctification. He instructed them to go to Jerusalem and tarry there until they receive this experience. It is said they "were continually in the temple blessing and praising God." Does this sound like a meeting of sinners in an unregenerate condition? I think not. But as recorded in Acts 2:2-4, when the day of Pentecost was come, they received the baptism of the Holy Ghost and were sanctified. We are told in Rom. 15:16 that we are sanctified by the Holy Ghost. This clear example in the experience of the first apostles of Christ proves beyond question that sanctification in the baptism of the Holy Ghost is received subsequent to regeneration. You see the disciples were baptized in water and regenerated a long time before they received the Holy Ghost and were sanctified.

Next, the Samaritans, as recorded in Acts 8. Philip went down and preached Christ unto them. Through His ministry and labor a large number of them were converted, "And there was great join in that city." During this meeting it is further said, in verse 12, "That when they believe Philip preaching the things concerning the Kingdom of God, they were baptized both men and women." Simon the sorcerer was also baptized, but it didn't save him. This is one case where baptism did not wash away sins; for afterward this man was found to be in a state of wickedness, and his heart was not right with God. In those days they did not have telephones, and the telegraph, nor street cars and railroads. It required a considerable time for the news of Philip's revival in Samaria to reach Jerusalem. It may have been a month or more. No one can tell just how long. But at last, when the church at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the Word of God, "The sent unto them Peter and John: who when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) Then laid they their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Ghost."

Now, here are the facts. Under the labors of Philip, the Samaritans were converted and baptized. At a later date, and subsequent to this, they received the Holy Ghost and were sanctified, under the labors of Peter and John. From that it will be seen that the teaching and practice of Elder Kesler's church on this point is at variance with the New Testament examples.

In this connection I will again refer to Acts 10, the case of Cornelius. Before he was baptized in water, he was both converted and sanctified. While Peter was yet preaching, the Holy Ghost fell on all them that heard the words, that is, they were sanctified. It was after this that they were baptized in water. Here again the teaching of the Elder's church is out of line with that of the New Testament.

He refers to his chart and states that I have come over to his side of the question on baptism for the remission of sins. This is not correct, as he well knows. I do not oppose the Scriptures that the chart contains, but simply the interpretation my opponent places upon these Scriptures. I have maintained all along that baptism only washes away sins ceremonially, or in figure; and Elder Kurtz, of the Brethren Church, supports my position.

Again, he said, "God has but one general church." Certainly. Then what is the need of his? If he believe this, why is he standing here contending for another? Does he mean to tell this intelligent congregation that the Church of the Brethren is only one of the local congregations of his general or universal church? This would place him in a worse predicament than ever.

He wonders how the church in Australia and Mexico can be the same as that in America. Great question. I ask him, is the Church of the Brethren the same in all countries? When they go to other countries, do they organize a distinct, separate body, under a different government and creed than the one in America? Is their church in Europe, Asia, and Africa, not the same institution as that in America? The New Testament Church is the same in all nations in all parts of the world. It is the same every where in its organization, government, visibility, name and discipline, and this is true throughout all ages.

He read in the New Testament where we have the term "churches" in the plural form, and tried to leave the impression that these were distinct sectarian bodies. I have abundantly proved during this debate that when the plural form is found in the New Testament it always refers to the local congregations of God's people who hold membership in the one universal church.

He again stated that the Jewish Church did not end until A. D. 70, when the temple and city were destroyed by the Roman armies. While this has no direct bearing on the proposition, and proves nothing in his favor, he has raised an issue here and insists upon it, so I will give it some attention. In his last speech he told you that I had changed my position as to the time when the Church of God was built. In this he misrepresents, as this audience well knows, and the book will show. Last night I made the point that the old covenant church was a type of the new. The old covenant contained the shadows and figures of the new; and the first covenant and church were inclusive, and stood and fell together. Literal Israel constituted the Old Testament Church. They as a notion were God's chosen people; had the law, tabernacle, and the sacrifices and blood of atonement of that dispensation.

The Gentile nations were rejected and had no part in that typical church, only as a few came in as proselytes. We read in Rom. 1 how God cast them off, and the apostle tells us elsewhere in the same letter that they were without God, and without hope in the world. The Gentiles, in contradistinction to the Jews, were cosmopolite---that's, the citizens of many nations. The typical covenant and church were still standing when Christ appeared to set up the kingdom of heaven. He recognized it by himself obeying the law and its observances. He also taught others to obey it. He confined his preaching and labors to the Jewish nation. "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel." When he sent forth His first apostles He instructed them not to go in the way of the Gentiles, nor in any city of the Samaritans, "but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." You see, that while the old covenant church was standing, the new church and kingdom, introduced by Christ was strictly Jewish. From Eph. 2:15 and Col. 2:14-16, with many other clear texts of Scripture, we learn that the old covenant ended at the cross. Its Sabbath, Passover, sacrifices, and blood of atonement, in fact all its types and shadows, met their antitype in Christ. All pointed to Him and were fulfilled in Him. The cross was the great dividing line between the two dispensations and churches. All Bible scholars know this, and I am surprised that a man of Elder Kesler's caliber will attempt to deny it. At the death of Christ the temple lost its sacredness, and Israel as a notion were no longer recognized as God's true church or people. The new covenant already introduced was now sealed and ratified by the blood of Christ, and came into force.

Here is where the Elder made his blunder. He said our position and that of the Disciples sect was the same, but he is mistaken. They make everything turn on Pentecost; but in all our teaching and literature we make clear the fact, just as I have in this debate, that the new covenant church and kingdom were introduced before Christ's death. It was prophesied, however, that the new covenant church, when fully established, would not be confined to one nation---Israel---but would include all nations. Isaiah said, "All nations shall flow into it." And again, the multitudes of the Gentiles were to come to the brightness of His rising. In the covenant made with Abraham it was promised that the spiritual seed---the New Testament Church---would include all nations. How could this be fulfilled until after Christ died? How could this come to pass until the typical church---literal Israel---had passed out? This explains Jesus' words: "I will build My church." And don't forget that this was spoken in the closing year of Christ's earthly ministry.

In fulfillment of these prophesies, it was not until after the resurrection that Christ gave the great commission, "Go, make disciples of all nations." Matt. 28:19. "Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature." Mark 16:15. After the Holy Ghost descended on Pentecost, and the New Testament church was fully organized as a distinct institution from Judaism, we hear Peter in the memorable sermon announce the wonderful fact that "The promise is unto you and your children (the Jews), and to all that are afar off (the Gentile nations)." These words of the apostle perfectly harmonize with what Jesus, after His resurrection, had told them. Acts 1:8: "But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto Me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of the earth." Thus, on the very day of its complete establishment, the door of the church was opened to the Gentiles. I don't say that they at once came in, but this was their privilege; and when they did come in they came in through the same door with the Jews, and both lost their identity in Christ, "In whom there is neither Jew nor Gentile." Again I ask, how could this fully come to pass until the national church---Israel after the flesh---ceased to be God's chosen people? Right here Jesus Christ and Elder Kesler stand in open disagreement. Which will you accept? I am inclined to believe that Jesus had the truth of the matter. In this I have presented an argument so well supported with incontrovertible facts and truths that Elder Kesler, with all his quibbling, can never shake.

Again, he evaded the issue last night, and tried to excuse his new sect by stating that it was not wrong to build distinct churches in different countries. To this I reply, there is no Scriptural authority for so doing. The Church of God is the same in its organization, government, head, membership, fellowship, and bond of union the world over.

I will now proceed with my regular line of negative arguments.

Sixth. The Church of the Brethren cannot be the body of Christ, hence not identical with the Church of the New Testament. The New Testament Church is the body of Christ. Co. 1:18: "And He is the head of the body---the church." Col. 1:24: "Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for His body's sake, which is the church." Eph. 1:22, 23: "And hath put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be the head over all things to the church, which is His body." Comments are unnecessary. These texts are decisive. The church is the body of Christ. Now the point. The Church of the Brethren CANNOT be this body: (1) Because this body included all the saved, which the Church of the Brethren includes but a small number of real Christians. (2) Will he say that the Church of the Brethren is the body of Christ? If so, where was the body of Christ for seventeen centuries before his sect arose? (3) The New Testament teaches that Christ's spiritual body was in the earth in the apostle's time. So his new sect is too late to be Christ's body; therefore, there is no identity. (4) The New Testament Church is "one body." No truth is more clearly taught in the Scriptures than this. In Eph. 4, Paul argues that as truly as there is but one God, one Lord, and one Spirit, there is but "one body." I boldly make the statement, without fear of successful contradiction, that the New Testament Scriptures recognize but one body---church. Since the elder's church came seventeen centuries later than New Testament times, it is not this body, cannot be; therefore, has no recognition in the Scriptures.

(Time.)

__________________

Elder Kesler's Sixteenth Speech
Wednesday Evening, September 22

Gentlemen, Moderators, Brethren and Friends:---I appear before you to continue the discussion of the subject before us. I want right now to call your attention to a note from my friend's last speech last evening that I failed to notice in my first speech tonight. It was that the Church of the Brethren will not receive anyone to membership or to communion unless they are baptized by triune immersion. I want to give him a plain question. Did the New Testament Church receive and practice more than one form of baptism? Now, if he says no, then he must admit that the Church of the Brethren is right, and if he says yes, then I want him to tell us if they had triune immersion in the apostolic church. If not, what kind did they have? There is only two kinds of immersion---single and triune. If he answers the question and says the apostolic or New Testament Church did not practice more than one baptism, then the Church of the Brethren is right. If he says they received and practiced two, then I want him to tell us if triune immersion was practice in the New Testament Church.

Another thought he presented in regard to my position. I had to prove it by the Word of God. That is just what I am doing right along, that the Brethren are obeying the commands of the Lord Jesus Christ. He said there were but two points but what he agreed with us. I don't see why a man contradicts himself in this way. I believe he ought not to change his statements so often. He says it is the Spirit that quickens men, while I showed you that it is the Word of God that quickens men He refers to John 6:63 that it is the Sprit that quickeneth. This Scripture doesn't mean the Holy Spirit. Let him go back and see if the spirit is capitalized, thus indication that it is the Holy Spirit. If not, then his contention fails. He says that "Elder Kesler and his church teaches that no one---mark this---cam be saved without triune immersion." He hasn't heard me make any statement like that, and if he has ever seen it in any of the Brethren's writings, I would like to have him read it to us tomorrow evening. If he can't find it, he ought to take this charge back before the same audience he has made it to. If I am not presenting things on which we differ, why does he get up here and oppose the position that I am taking? He tries to lead your minds from the thought and gets you to thinking I am just fooling away my time up here. If I am not presenting things upon which we differ, what is he doing up here? Preaching? My position is that sanctification and holiness, and the other divine graces of this kind, are obtained and maintained by obedience to God's Word. That is the position we occupy, the position we stated in our argument, and proved it. Now, then, on the subject of baptism being essential to salvation, we are not to that but we will have to meet a point he made here, and I am glad to show you that we can meet it successfully. "When Simon was baptized by Philip in Samaria, he was one fellow that didn't get salvation by baptism," he says. He said, "It too quite a long time for word to get up to Jerusalem, perhaps it took a month," plenty of time for Simon to apostatize, to fall away from the faith. Let us see. Let us get the narrative. "Then Simon believed, and when he was baptized he continued with Philip beholding the miracles and signs which were done." The Holy Spirit says Simon himself believe. Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved," and the Holy Spirit says, "Simon believe and was baptized." My friend get up here and emphatically denies the positive and emphatic statement of God's Word, given by the mouth of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Word by God's Holy Spirit. When Simon saw that through the laying on of hands the Holy Spirit was given, he offered them money, saying, Give me also this power. Turned Judas you see. Thought he could make some money out of it. That evil thought which he did not have until after he was baptized caused his downfall. Peter said unto him, "Thy money perish with thee," because thou has thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money. Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God." "Repent, therefore, of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee." That wicked thought you have harbored since you were baptized, you pray God that you may get rid of the evil thought, and then the man was brought to see his mistake and he began to say "Pray ye to the Lord for me, that none of these things that y have spoken come upon me." So my friend's contention here is absolutely not founded upon God's Word when he says Simon did not get salvation and remission of sins just as the others did. Simon was saved just like the rest, but fell away because he harbored that evil thought. He now retraces his step in regard to the setting up, the building of the church. Last night he said there was a church in John the Baptist's time and in the Savior's time, and now he retraces his step and thinks he is mistaken after all.

"If the Church of the Brethren is the same in Europe as it is in America," and he thinks I will not say they are, then he gets up here and says they are the same. "The Church of the Brethren in America and Europe is the same," to which I say, amen. The Church of the Brethren in America, Australia, India, China, and every other nation on the face of the earth where they have churches is the same. Then he says "the New Testament Church is the same in all nations," and therefore by his own logic the Church of the Brethren is the New Testament Church, and he can never overthrow the argument. He is just simply tied up. He has to go back now and prove the major or minor premises is not true. The major is that the Church of the New Testament is the same in all nations. Then he says the Church of the Brethren is the same in all nations where they have churches, therefore the Church of the Brethren is the New Testament Church. There is no escaping it. There is no logic on the face of the earth that will let him get around that he has placed in my hand. That settles if from the logical standpoint.

The Old Testament church is a type of the New Testament, and the Old Testament Church was started out pretty gloriously and grandly just like the New Testament Church did, but after a while this Old Testament Church fell into decay---apostatized---but God's people under Josiah found the book of the law which had been lost for a number of years, they had hardly kept up a knowledge of God's law, but when they got to cleaning up the temple they found the book of the law and set up the worship of God again according to the law; and so it was in the time of the reformation when the Church of the Brethren came upon the scene. True Christianity had been almost lost from the fact of the earth and the Lord Jesus Christ, through these faithful men and women over in Germany, built and established a church like the one he had established and built in Palestine, and, praise God, it is standing today, and I have the honor to represent it. He says "that while this Old Testament Church was standing, that there couldn't be any other church built or established. There couldn't be but one kingdom or one church in the same country at the same time. He takes the position that Great Britain took in the year 1775, but you know that Britain didn't have it right. Britain said, "You can't have government of your own in the colonies while we have one over there, you can't have two governments existing at the same time," but when such men as Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington come to the front they said we will have a government of our own, and when the great speaker of the congress of the burgesses, Patrick Henry, made his great speech, "Give us liberty, or give us death," they went to work and built a government in the colonies, governed by the Articles of Confederation, although they were under the British kingdom. My friend says that Jesus Christ could not build another church while the old Jewish church was standing. If Jesus built one church, couldn't he build another while that was standing? Most assuredly. My friend admitted that in his speech, but now he wants me to prove it again. When a man admits and denies, admits and denies like this man is doing, I don't know how to take him. "The Old Testament Church ended at the cross spiritually." That is all right so far as that matter is concerned. God couldn't recognize the Old Testament Church after the cross. The Jewish church had even in the days of Christ dropped away and declined so that they were no more the Church of God, so that spiritually the old kingdom did pass away, but nationally, as I told you, it did not pass away until 70 A. D. There are still fifty days between the cross and the day of Pentecost, during which God had no church on earth if my friend's contention be correct.

"I will build My church." I gave you our position on that last night, and you know he is utterly unable to meet it. Why does he want me to come our and rehash, and rehash it with him all the time? You want something new. You will get tired if we just keep rehashing things over. Christ built the church, and he admitted it last night, but now he comes around and denies it.

Argument 5. Position 4. It has the Bible name, evangelical faith (it is the household of faith) and repentance, and a baptism that places us into the family of God. We acknowledge no head but Christ. Eph. 4:15; Col. 1:18: "And He is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the first born from the dead; that in all things He might have the pre-eminence." The Bible our only rule of government. Matt. 18:15-21; Acts 11:21-26; 6:11-3; 15:1-32; 16:4. We advocate obedience to all God's commands. Matt. 4:4; 28:20; John. 14:15, and Acts 3:20. Acts 15:1, 2, where we have a record of the first conference the church ever held. We are maintaining the identity step by step. Our church government and name is just lid that in apostolic times. The had a church conference to settle matters that could not be settled in local congregations. That is the way the Church of the Brethren do. We have our annual conference to unity us in our methods of work and Christian endeavor to carry out the principles of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, not to make laws, but to lay down methods by which we may work together in harmony and unity as God's people should.

Matt 4:4:"But He answered and said, it is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."

Matt. 28:20: "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." John 14:15: "If ye love Me, deep My commandments." We teach the people to obey all things that Jesus Christ has commanded.

Then, again, we have the name. Isa. 62:2: "And the Gentiles shall see Thy righteousness, and all kings Thy glory: and Thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of the Lord shall name." You remember how my friend referred us to this Scripture, but he can't show you where the Lord ever gave his name. Matt. 23:8: "But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren." Directly by the mouth of the Lord Himself, "And all ye are brethren." Now, then he will come up and say that refers to them individually. If he is a grammarian he will not do that. If he is a grammarian he will say that it applied to them collectively. We will wait and see what he is going to do about that. Heb. 2:11: "For both He that sanctifieth and he who is sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren." If he is not, should we be ashamed to call them brethren? Should we be ashamed of a name the Lord is not ashamed of? The apostolic church recognized and used the name. John 21:23: "Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die; but if I will that He tarry till I come, what is that to thee?" They didn't say it went abroad among the Church of God, but among the Brethren. Acts 2:29: " Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that He is born, dead and buried, and His sepulcher is with us unto this day." He says the Church of God is the name, but he can't get it nearer than twenty years after Pentecost. Let us see what name they had on Pentecost, when he says the church was built. "Men and brethren, let me freely speak." The apostle used the name of the church the Lord Himself gave. The disciples used it. Acts 11:29: "Then the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judea." Not to the Church of God, but to the brethren. Acts 15:1: "And certain men which came down from Judea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved." Again, in the first conference that was ever convened by the New Testament Church we see they used the same name. Acts 15:22, 23: "Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely Judas, surnamed Barnabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren: And they wrote letters by them after this manner; the apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch, and Syria, and Cilicia." Here we have the name that our Lord Jesus Christ gave. The apostles recognized it, and it was used in the apostolic church, of New Testament Church. After they had talked the matter over, they did just like all other churches in the land today. I would like to have him tell us what name he puts on the church documents when they hold their camp meetings, or any kind of church work, or councils; what name he puts on their business documents. Does he do just like every other church in the land when they have a conference or a council? What name does he put on that paper? Doesn't he put the name of the church on it? Most assuredly. If you are the M. E. Church, the Baptist Church, the Presbyterian Church, you are not ashamed of your name. You will put it on and not be ashamed of it. So in the apostolic times in the first conference they had, they decided the matter, and they put the name "Brethren" on it, for the Word of God says so. "Then pleased it the apostles and elders with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas, surnamed Barnabas, and Silas, chief men among the 'Brethren.'" And so they used that name "Brethren" on the first church document the church ever had. The apostles, elders and the whole church used it. The Bible says they used that name. Brethren was the name that was used by the apostles, and was placed on the first church document the church ever produced. The whole church used it. Were they wrong? Jesus gave it. He is no ashamed of it. The apostle tells us the whole New Testament Church used it, the Church of the Brethren uses it and wears it.

Their faith is evangelical. Faith changes the mind. Heb. 11:6: "But without faith it is impossible to please Him; for he that cometh to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him." Gal. 5:6: "For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love." Rom. 10:17: Faith the ground of hope. Heb. 11:1: Faith the ground of justification. Rom. 2:13: "Therefore, being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." Faith the condition of pardon. Rom. 10:9: "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." Mark 16:16: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." Acts 16:31: "And He said, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved, thou and they house." Faith demonstrated. Rom. 6:17: "But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you." Jas. 2:18: "Yea, a many may say, thou hast faith, and I have works: shew Me they faith without they works, and I will shew thee My faith by My words." Heart faith. Rom. 19:9: "For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness."

Repentance changes the life. Acts 3:9: "Repent ye therefore and be converted that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord." Acts 2:38: "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

Argument 7. Baptism changes the relation. Rom 6:3-6: "Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into His death? Therefore we are buried with Him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of His death, we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection: Knowing this that our old man is crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin."

(Time.)

__________________

Elder Riggle's Sixteenth Speech
Wednesday Evening, September 22

Mr. Chairman, Brother Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen:---I will take up a number of the thoughts presented during the last speech of my opponent.

He asked whether the New Testament Church practiced more than one form of baptism. Emphatically no. Again he asked, was this triune immersion? No, indeed. I have already clearly proved that it was not. During the last three speeches of my affirmative argument of the former proposition, I gave thirteen clear, concise arguments, based upon logical facts and the Holy Scriptures, proving that single immersion was the primitive practice. My friend was not able to even shake, much less overthrow the arguments I presented, and I am sure he never will.

He finally admitted that one might be saved without trine immersion. I am glad that he finally was forced to make that admission. It is what I have been working for ever sins I began this discussion, to bring him out on that point. Before this debate began, I wrote to the Brethren Publishing House for their standard authoritative works, setting forth the teaching of the church on baptism and their other distinctive doctrines. They referred me to the "New Testament Doctrines," by J. H. Moore; and "The Doctrine of the Brethren Defended," by R. H. Miller, also Elder Kurtz' work, "An Outline of the Fundamental Doctrines of Faith." These I purchased and have in my possession. In the first two it is positively stated, as I have already read to you, that by trine immersion people are received into the Trinity; that the first dip places us into the Father, the second into the Son, and the third into the Holy Spirit. They teach that this is the only means of entering Christ; that until people are thus baptized in water they are not saved, are not children of God, not in the kingdom, and outside of the church. Now, this is the teaching of the Brethren Church, and Elder Kesler cannot deny it. I have made the point that if this teaching be true, then all others but trine immersionists are lost and doomed to eternal hell. The minute he admits that without trine immersion a person may be saved, he denies the doctrine and practice of the church he claims to represent. Right here the Elder goes down. He has as good as admitted that there is a possibility of a person being saved without submitting to the rite as the Church of the Brethren administer it. Then, I ask, why does he say baptism is absolutely necessary to salvation? I forced him to make some kind of a statement because I clearly proved that Cornelius was both saved and sanctified, received the baptism of the Holy Spirit, before the rite of water baptism was administered. Friends, I believe that there are myriads of souls now rejoicing in the Paradise of God who never submitted to the rite of triune immersion, as required by the Church of the Brethren.

He says the Simon the Sorcerer was genuinely converted under the labors of Philip, but that he afterward backslid, and was probably reclaimed when Peter and John came down to Samaria. While this is a minor point, and has no real bearing on the point at issue, I will, however, give it a passing note. It seems Elder Kesler cannot understand spiritual things. The Bible teaches both an intellectual faith and a genuine heart belief. He read the Scripture where Simon believed; but we read in another text that "the devil also believes and trembles." Does he argue from this that the devil is converted? I think not. The majority of people today believe in a mere intellectual way that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, but does that save them? No, indeed. I tell you people must believe with their hearts. "If thou shalt confess with they mouth, and believe in thine heart, thou shalt be saved." Before Philip would baptize the Ethiopian eunuch he demanded, "If thou believest with all they heart, thou mayest." True, Simon told Philip that he believed, and upon the profession of his faith, Philip baptized him. But when Peter and John found him, they said, "Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God." "Thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity." Did Peter and John require him to be baptized in order to be brought in relationship with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? No. They told him to pray that the wickedness of his heart might be forgiven, just the same as I would not instruct any sinner who needs salvation. Peter said, "Repent and be converted that your sins may be blotted out." This brings us into possession of salvation, and then only are we proper candidates to present ourselves as eligible for baptism.

The church the same in all nations. Well, now, the Elder talks about logic. I am somewhat acquainted with logic. If there is such a thing as illogical logic, then the Elder has the argument. For example, he said, with quite an air of assumption, that because the Church of the Brethren is the same in all nations, just like the Church of God, that they are the same. By this he assumes that he has proven that his sect is identical with the Church of the New Testament. His point is no point at all and his argument is as weak as water. Let us test his logic (?) The Mormons are the same in all nations; and the New Testament Church is the same in all nations; therefore the Mormons and the New Testament Church are identical. The Catholics are the same wherever you will find them in all nations of the earth, and the Church of the New Testament is the same in all nations; therefore the Catholic Church and the New Testament Church are the same. This is the force of his argument, and it proves as much for the Mormons and Catholics as it does for him. The fact is, it proves nothing for any of them. It is just talk to fill up time.

The point I made was this: The New Testament Church is the same in all the world throughout all ages; therefore there is absolutely no need and no Scriptural authority for the founding of another distinct body, a "new religious sect" as Elder Moore calls the Church of the Brethren. Pardon me for pressing this point. Since the church Christ built was to continue throughout all ages, why this new sect? The former got along nicely in the days of the apostles long centuries before there was a Church of the Brethren. What then is the need today of this new sect that has no foundation or authority in the Holy Scriptures for its existence? I maintain that the Church of God existed as a perfectly organized institution in the days of the apostles, and through its instrumentality the work of God spread wonderfully throughout the then known world, and this all took place seventeen hundred years before this new sect even originated. Now, friends, I deduct this logical conclusion that by abiding in this one church only, we have the same organization, government and success as followed the church in primitive times. Why, then, will not the honest people in the Elder's sect discard their earth-born institution and take their stand for the Church of the New Testament?

Even if I should grant (which I don't by any means) that the church was fully built before Pentecost, would that prove that the Elder's sect, which was built in the year 1708, is identical with the Church of the New Testament? I think not.

He again brings up the language of Christ: "I will build My church." You see this stands in his way and always will. It mocks all his efforts, and proves that the real building of the church was future of the time when Jesus said this. He will never get away from that language.

He said the Church of the Brethren is the household of faith. Then all the rest of us who do not hold membership in this "new religious sect" are outside of the household of faith. Where was the household of faith during the seventeen centuries after Christ built His church,or until the organizing of the German Baptist of Church of the Brethren?

Again, he said, Christ is the head of his church. Certainly. But He is the head of the New Testament Church. "The head of the body, the church." Since one head supports but one body, and one body supposes but one head, we must logically conclude that Christ is not the head of this new religious sect which came into existence seventeen centuries after the Church of God was built.

He further says that he believe in repentance, faith, temperance, the golden rule, the Lord's Prayer, dealing with those who trespass, etc.; but the Mormons also believe all of these things; so does every other religious body as far as I know. Because he believe in these does not make him identical with the Church of the New Testament any more than the Mormons. He must prove his identity in origin and name. This he simply cannot do, and with his failure, his proposition and arguments fall.

Now, then, he spent some time on the name. His proof text is Matt. 23:8: "One is your Master, even Christ, and all ye are brethren." Was Jesus here speaking with reference to this new religious sect that was to be organized seventeen centuries later? Was He speaking of this organization that came into existence on the River Eder in Germany? Of course not. He was speaking to His disciples. They were members of the church that was then in existence, and which would be perfectly organized on Pentecost. The term brethren does not apply to any particular sects of people. It is no more a church name than "friends." Jesus said, "Ye are My friends if ye do whatsoever I command you." These terms apply to saved people on earth, as well as the redeemed hosts in heaven. It includes the whole family of God. Were the Brethren to whom Jesus spoke members of the Elder's sect? I think not. There is as much grounds for the title, "Church of the Friends," as for the name Church of the Brethren.

Again the disciples were called Christians. When Paul stood before Agrippa, the king said, "Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian." Peter says, "If any man suffer as a Christian." Upon the same grounds which the Elder uses for argument, we could call the New Testament Church the Church of the Christians, or the Christian Church. Again, God's people are called disciples. We have this term in the New Testament about as frequently as that of brethren. To follow out the Elder's logic, the church could be called the Church of the Disciples, or the Disciple Church. The same could be said of pilgrims. The Church of the Pilgrims, or the Pilgrim Church. Then more frequently, probable ten times more, than any other name that is applied to the people of God, is the term saints. But is the church called the Church of the Saints, or the Saints Church? God bless you, no. These terms are not used to give the name of the church. They all have their signification. Brethren---to show our relationship to God and each other. Disciples---to show that we are but pupils, learners in the school of Christ. Christians---to show that we are to put on exhibition the life and character of Jesus Christ. Friends---to show that while once we were enemies, we have been now reconciled and are the friends of Christ. Saints---to show that we are holy both in life and experience. And Pilgrims---to show that this is not our eternal home.

Does the Elder mean to say that every man who believe in trine immersion is in reality entitled to the name Brethren? Let him say so if he will. There is another body of these people called the Progressive Brethren, and still another called the Old Order Brethren. And then, the conservative branch styled the Church of the Brethren. Which one of these factions has the correct name? Will Elder Kesler please tell us. The fact is, the term brethren as used in the Scriptures applies to all of the Lord's people. I am happy to say that through salvation I have been made a child of God and am one of the brethren. But I am not a member of the organization my friend represents.

The Elder's sect sometime ago changed their name. They used to be called by another name. Elder Moore himself, in the "Critical Encyclopedia of Biblical Knowledge," in writing the history of their church, calls them "TONKERS or German Baptists." This is what they used to be called. Sometime ago they cast off this title which they now style an "obsolete name" and adopted Church of the Brethren. I take positive issue with him when he, by such flimsy argument, endeavors to identify his sect with the new covenant church in its title or name.

The name brethren is all, but it does not apply to a particular body of people. It applies to all the children of God. All members of the Church of God are brethren, and all saved people in the Methodist and Evangelical bodies are also brethren; but none of us holds membership in this body called the Church of the Brethren. Right here his identity in name falls flat, and the Elder will never be able to sustain it.

In Isa. 62:2 it is said that the church should be called by a new name, which the mouth of the Lord shall name. Again in Dan. 9:19 it was prophesied that "Thy city---church---and Thy people are called by Thy name." In fulfillment , as we read in John. 17:6, 11, 12, that Christ named the church after His Father. In perfect accord with this thought, the apostle says in Eph. 3:15, "For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, of (Greek form) whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named." What is the Father's name after which we are called? Every school child know that it is God. How appropriate, then, the title of the church as found in the New Testament---"The Church of God." Under the former proposition, I presented an argument on this point and gave twelve texts to prove that this is the Scriptural name for the church. It is the only name that perfectly fills the bill, and both honors God as our Father, and Christ as the husband of the church. For any wife to give due reverence to her husband, she must bear his name. The church being the bride, the Lamb's wife, must bear her husband's name. This again proves that her true title is the Church of God. This fact completely overthrows the second point in the Elder's proposition---identity in name.

Seventh. My seventh negative argument against the position my opponent holds is based upon the unity of the church. The Church of God is represented as a house. "The house of God." Has Christ two houses? The New Testament Church is denominated"the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." Christ is the builder of His own house, and is shall stand forever. I ask, since the Lord needs but one house in which to dwell during the Christian dispensation, and the one He Himself founded, He "builded together for His habitation through the Spirit," we are forced to conclude that the one Elder Kesler represents cannot be His house. How, then, can the Lord dwell in two houses at the same time? The fact is, He moved into the New Testament house of God seventeen centuries before the Elder's was built.

Again, God's church is called the family of God. It is one family in heaven and in earth. Now to the point. If the church Elder Kesler represents is identical with that of the New Testament, then the Lord had no church or family before that institution arose. Will he insist that his sect is the family of God? If so, thousands of millions of God's children are left out in the cold. Since the Church of the Brethren cannot be God's family, it is not identical with the new covenant church.

The church is the bride of Christ. Christ has but one bride, hence but one church. I ask, will the Elder insist that Christ has more wives than one? He only allows us to have one. This is the New Testament standard. The Word of God is positively against this divorce and remarriage business. Christ himself has set us a good example. Of His wife He says, "My dove, My undefiled is BUT ONE. She is the only one of her mother." Note the fact. One wife means one church. Will the Elder insist that his sect is the bride, the Lamb's wife? Let him state himself on this point if he will. If it is not, then it is not identical with the New Testament Church. I like facts. Here is a fact. Christ had a bride seventeen centuries before the church my friend represents was ever heard of. There is no identity.

In my closing remarks last night I was dwelling on the point that there is no identity in the character of the members of the two bodies. I was about to read from Elder Kurtz' book but had not the time. I will now read. Page 35: "The church is a hospital for sinners, a training school in godliness, whose members are not yet perfect." "If the latter is the right view, there is no more reason to condemn and criticize the church because there are sinners in it." Of course the writer here refers to their own organization. The Church of the Brethren, then, is a sort of a "hospital" for "SINNERS." "There are sinners in it." So says Kurtz. This, then, adds another positive proof that the Elder's sect has no identity with the New Testament Church. Of that church Christ says, "I am the door, and by Me if any man enter in, he shall be saved." What could be clearer? All the members of the New Testament Church are "saved." Jesus said so. This is why it is said in Acts 2:47 that the Lord only added to His church "those who were being saved." The two churches cannot be the same. They differ in every essential point.

Eighth. My eighth argument is based upon the fact that the two bodies are not identical as to discipline. The discipline of the church Christ built is the New Testament. In proof I give 2 Tim. 3:16, 17: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." Correction or instruction in righteousness is rendered in other translations "DISCIPLINE in righteousness." The New Testament is a perfect discipline. It governed the church in primitive times and is sufficient for its government today. Any more than this is too much. Anything less is too little. But the Church of the Brethren hold conferences and enact rules to govern their people, and then bind them with a threat that if no observed they may be dealt with as "unruly members." Their leading writers admit that from time to time these conferences change the teaching and practice of their church. This I clearly proved under the former proposition by reading from their standard works and their official church paper. Facts prove that they have a discipline beside the New Testament.

Ninth. My ninth argument is: There is no need of the organization named the Church of the Brethren. This argument is but a summary of a number already presented. If the Elder's church was necessary for the onward progress of Christianity in the world's evangelization, surely Christ would have given us some record of it in His word. No such record can be found. The Elder cannot produce a single text in all the New Testament that points to the establishing of his sect, or gives any authority for its existence. Then we must logically conclude that it is and institution standing in the world without Scriptural authority. In the days of the apostles they got along very well without this late institution. The church that Christ founded was perfect in government and organization long centuries before this new body was ever heard of. I ask, Why did not those eight people in Germany lay aside all human rules and creeds of men, and abide only in the body of Christ, the divine church? Why did they organize a new sect? The answer is clear. They did not discern the body of Christ, the true church. If they had, they would not have organized this new institution, or division. Oh the fallacy of the argument Elder Kesler has been offering, and the sandy foundation which he occupies.

Christ said He would build His own church---one church---and He never promised to build another. This fact, as already stated, proves that the Elder's church stands with out a foundation in the Word of God. He may stand up here and argue and argue, but he never, by facts and truths, can establish any identity between the Church of the Brethren and that of the New Testament. (Time.)

The Riggle - Kesler Debate
[ Selected ]

Elder Kesler's Seventeenth Speech
Thursday Evening, September 23

Gentlemen, Moderators, Brethren and Friends:---I am glad to appear before you again this evening to continue a discussion of the questions that have been engaging our attention, and I shall first proceed where I left off in my line of argument last evening. I had just taken my seventh argument on position 4---Is baptism for the remission of sins?

1. (a) We bury the old man of sin in baptism. Rom. 6:3-6: "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into His death? Therefore we are buried with Him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this that our old man is crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin." In this Scripture we understand that baptism is a burial, and in baptism the old man of sin is buried so that the position is that the new man does not arise to newness of life until the old man of sin is buried in baptism, whereas my worthy opponent's position is that the new man is resurrected to Spiritual life before burial.

(b) We rise to walk in new life in baptism. Rom. 6:4: "Therefore we are buried with Him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." Col. 2:12: "Buried with Him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with Him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised Him from the dead." From these Scriptures we understand that the resurrection takes place when we come from the baptismal burial, that the new life can't take place until after baptism, as my worthy friend has contended.

(c) We put on Christ in baptism. 1 Cor. 12:13: "For in one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. (b) Gal. 3:27: "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." Matt. 28:19: "Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." So that in baptism we get into the Trinity, as my opponent says in his book, Christian Baptism, Lord's Supper and Feet-washing, page 121. Just what the Scriptures teach and what the brethren maintain an hold, therefore, we are identical with the New Testament Church. My friend tells us it is right in his book, page 121, that "baptism is a public induction into the Trinity." We do not get into the Trinity until we are baptized, and that is the position of the Church of the Brethren, therefore, we are in identity with the New Testament Church, as proven by the writing of the opponent in his book. We are baptized "into" the Spirit, not "by" the Spirit.

My eighth argument under this position is we receive remission in baptism, and are also adopted into the family of God.

(a) The original Church of Christ was composed of penitent believers. Acts 19:4: "Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance saying unto the people, that they should believe on Him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus." Acts 2:41, 47: "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. Praising God. and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved." From this we find that the original Church of Christ was composed of baptized penitent believers. That is the kind of persons that are baptized into the Church of the Brethren, those who have repented of their sins and have faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, we believe just like the apostolic church did, showing out identity with the New Testament Church.

(b) Baptism puts us into Christ, the head, and into His church, the body. Gal. 3:27: "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." Rom. 6:3, 4" Know ye not that as many of you as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into His death? Therefore we are buried with Him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." So we find that in the New Testament Church that baptism put them into Christ, the head, and also into the church, His body. That is the position of the Church of the Brethren, and part of our doctrine.

(c) Baptism was for remission. Mark 1:4, "John did baptize in the wilderness and preached the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins." Luke 3:3: "And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins." Luke 3:3. "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Matt. 26:28, is identical with this, that the blood of Jesus Christ was shed "for the remission of sins." The Church of the Brethren on this point is that Jesus Christ shed His blood in order that the sins of the people might be remitted. Just as the book says, "for" the remission of sins. And so we interpret Acts 2:48 "for" the remission of sins. My opponent comes up here and says that Christ's blood was she "for " the remission of sins, but when it comes to baptism, a phrase identically alike, he says that it is because of the remission of sins, or because the sins have been remitted already. Such interpretation of the Bible we seriously object to, so I have given you these Scriptures that baptism as well as the blood of Christ is "for" the remission of sins. You will understand that we do not teach baptism literally washes away sins, but it is God's means by which we receive the forgiveness of sins, in obedience to God's commandments, and thus show God can transmit remission through a literal act---baptism---as well as through literal substance---blood; whereas my opponent tells us that we must first be saved from sin and then be baptized. "If we walk in the light (the sinner doesn't do that), we have fellowship one with another (the sinner doesn't do that), and the blood of Christ cleanses us from all sin." My friend's teaching that the blood is applied to the unregenerate child of the devil is unscriptural and erroneous. Note 1. Baptism is a condition of pardon to all of whom it is required. This is or doctrine and teaching. I want to read to you something in Brother Moore's book. My friend has been reading from Brother Moore and other brethren, and I want to show that the position I am taking is in harmony with the teaching of the Church of the Brethren. Page 35, New Testament Doctrines:"Baptism is a New Testament institution for all penitent believers seeking salvation. It is an act of obedience through which one enters Christ, for Paul says that "so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into His death" (Rom. 6:3). This makes it clear that the penitent believer gets into Christ by being baptized into Him. The same principle is affirmed in Gal. 3:27, where we read: "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." From this we may learn that baptism is the visible initiatory rite of the church. It is not the sign of the initiatory but the initiation ceremony itself. It is not the outward sign of an inward initiation, but the visible act of the initiation. In fact, it is the outward part of the initiation process. In this process there is an outward as well as an inward part, and baptism has been made the outward part. 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 made 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 faith or repentance. We have no more right to eliminate baptism than we have to exclude any other part of the divine process. Just a word of comment on this matter. You remember that Brother Moore takes his position just as the Bible says, we are baptized into Christ, then he says baptism"is not an outward sign that the inward change of being born again has already taken place." You don't want to get the idea that just taking a man down to the water and baptizing will take him into Christ and the kingdom of God, but we teach just as Brother Moore teaches, that through faith, repentance, confession and baptism we are inducted into Christ, the church, or the family of God. Baptism is not and outward sign that the inward change of being born again has already taken place, but it is the external part of the act. The internal part that cannot be done by man, is done by the Spirit. And so in baptism, it is the outward act of initiation with the work of God's Spirit in conjunction. I am going to substantiate my teaching here by Brother Riggle. When I read this I want you to remember all of the speeches that my opponent has made against the position of the Church of the Brethren on the design of baptism. He began this on the affirmative side, and tried to make it look as ugly and ridiculous as he could, and since I have been on the affirmative he has been trying to make it look ridiculous. I want to read to you what my worthy respondent says on this very identical subject and I want to keep this thought in mind when your hear him talk tonight and when you read the book. When talking a man may by a slip of the tongue, inadvertently, say something that doesn't exactly express what he means to say. That is natural, but when a man sins down to write a book he thinks of what he is writing, and the result is his book will have his true statements which he wishes to go out to the world, he is writing the true sentiments of his heart. Listen what Elder Riggle says on page 120, Christian Baptism, Feet-washing and the Lord's Supper, on the very subject I am talking about: "To be apostolic, then, we must attach the same importance to this institution and must preach to the people that they are positively commanded to be baptized and that to disobey means condemnation." Now the Church of the Brethren never did preach it stronger than that. I never did hear the Brethren preach it stronger than that. Elder Riggle says to be apostolic we must attach the same importance to this institution and must preach to the people. That doesn't mean those that are regenerated by faith and repentance. People mean multitude, it means every sinner in this congregation and every sinner in God's great universe. We must preach to the people that they are positively commanded to be baptized and that to disobey means condemnation. I want you to think about this statement when he gets up to make a talk about this matter of the design of baptism.

(d) Through faith, repentance and baptism they obtained a knowledge of salvation and pardon, and were added to the church in apostolic times. I wanted to present a little argument from that quotation of Elder Riggle's, that to be apostolic we must preach to the people that they are commanded to be baptized and that to disobey means condemnation. The Brethren so preach, therefore the Brethren are apostolic in their teaching on the design of baptism. Now we proceed.

Luke 1:76, 77: "And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare His ways. To give knowledge of salvation unto His people by remission of sins." Now, John couldn't remit sins any more than you or I can, but through obedience to God's word, as preached by John, they received remission of their sins, and salvation through baptism for the remission of sins is the fact that this knowledge gives. Acts 2:41: "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls." 47th verse: "Praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved."

Argument 9. Apostolic precedent establishes baptism as a condition of pardon and church membership. The Pentecostians, Acts 2:38" "The Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Faith, repentance, confession and baptism. The Samaritans, Acts 8:12: "But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women."

The eunuch. Acts 8:36-39:"And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, see, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all then hear, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him."

Saul of Tarsus. Acts 9:17, 18: "And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. And immediately there fell from his eyes as if it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose and was baptized."

Cornelius. Acts 10:44-48: "While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them that heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, 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. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days." Acts 11:12-14: "And the Spirit bade me go with them, nothing doubting. Moreover these six brethren accompanied me, and we entered into the man's house. And he showed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send me to Joppa and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter. Who shall tell thee word whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved."

Lydia. Acts 16:14, 15: "And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us, whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things that were spoken of Paul. And when she was baptized and her household, she besought us, saying, if ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and abide there, and she constrained us."

Jailer. Acts 16:30-34: "And brought then out and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. And they spake unto him the word of the Lord and to all that were in the house. And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway."

Crispus and other Corinthians. Acts 18:7, 8: "And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing, believed, and were baptized."

Stephanan. 1 Cor. 1:14-16: "I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. And I baptized also the house of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other."

Now the argument that we are presenting here is like this. We have the precedent of the apostles and out of the nine recorded instances in the Scriptures where men and women were converted and added to the church in apostolic times, it is established for all time and eternity just how men and women get into the church and get salvation, and you will see by looking up the history that they were commanded to repent once, and repentance was implied in the other eight instances. They were commanded to believe four times, and faith was implied five times. In every instance they were commanded to be baptized. Now then we sum up the history and the argument thus: What was demanded of these people who wanted salvation? Were they commanded to do anything, and if they were commanded to do something, the next question is what were they commanded to do? Then did they do what they were commanded? And if you find they did do something, what did they do in order to get salvation? And if you find they got salvation by doing as commanded, then has God changed the plan? And if you find that God has not changed the plan, what must a sinner do now to be saved?

Now, I want to notice a few thought from my worthy opponent's speech last night. "The New Testament Church did not receive nor practice more than one baptism." The Church of the Brethren does not receive nor practice but one baptism, therefore the Church of the Brethren is the New Testament Church. "The New Testament did not receive nor practice but one baptism." Elder Riggle for that. The Church of God, which he represents, receives two baptisms, trine and single, therefore the Church of God, which he represents, is not the New Testament Church."I admit," he says, "one may be saved without triune immersion." Certainly. He was right, I said that. I can say anything I want to in this discussion, and it all goes down just like I said it. Certainly, we don't believe that a little infant will go down to hell without trine baptism, that the idiot goes down to hell without triune baptism, neither those that God's providence prevents from being baptized. We don't believe that they go down to hell. Baptism is for those of whom it is required. That is our position as previously stated.

He says, "Was Simon told to pray for anything?" I showed you that Simon was told to pray God that he might be forgiven of the evil thought he got after he was baptized. My friend gets up and says that Simon was "yet" in the gall and bitterness of iniquity. Let us see about this. I presume he has been preaching the little word"Yet" into that verse all this time. The little word "yet" he read into the book is not there. Simon was saved like the others, and the wicked thought got into his heart and he thought he could get money out of it. Don't let any person read the word "Yet" into the Bible when it is not there.

He complained about my logic. I was his own logic. He gave it to me and I used it, and now he turns down his own logic. It is his own logic, it is not mine. You don't catch me in that kind of logic. He had to admit that the church was built before Pentecost. He finally admitted it.

He says: "The Church of the New Testament was the same in all the world." I told you that the Church of the Brethren was the same in all the world, thus showing that the Church of the Brethren is the New Testament Church according to his own statement.

"John's disciples," he says, "were members of the church." That is what we have been contending for, but I presume he will tell you again there wasn't any church before the day of Pentecost.

"Church of the Friends," and "Church of the Christians." They could not be taken as legal names. The Church of God was never placed on a church document in the New Testament Church. God's children were called saints. That's all right, but it was never written on the church documents. "Brethren doesn't mean one little body," he says. "All ye are brethren," according to his own statement, then it means all the body. It can't mean anything else. That is the only conclusion you can draw. Very well, German Baptist. He wants to know why we changed our name. He wanted to know whether we were right in the beginning. They called themselves Brethren. At one time they called it German Baptist Brethren, but a few years ago we cut the German Baptist out and we are only Brethren---the Church of the Brethren. "Has Christ tow houses?" he asks. Certainly, you read in the Bible about the churches of Christ. They all belong to the one body. When Christ built the church he made the foundation big enough for all ages and all times. The position of the Brethren is the New Testament position.

"The church is an institution for sinners." The New Testament Church, says he, has no unsaved people in it." Well, what about Judas who sinned after he was baptized? and Simon and Hymeneus?

Branches. "Every branch in Me that beareth not fruit He taketh away."

(Time.)

____________________________

Elder Riggle's Seventeenth Speech
Thursday Evening, September 23

Mr. Chairman, Brother Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen:---With pleasure I again appear before you on the negative of the proposition. I will begin by reviewing a few of my opponent's remarks.

He asks, "Where was the church during the fifty days intervening between Christ's death and Pentecost. I answer, just where it was before His death; in existence, but not organized in its perfected state.

He says I have crossed myself and several times changed positions. This is not true, as this congregation know and the book will show. Not once during this debate have I changed my position on a single point, and I am satisfied that he knows this. All such talk is for effect. I hope to fill the earth with the printed copies of this discussion, and I am sure it will speak for itself.

He complains of my jumping around the last two nights. I had to. You see I am on the negative of this proposition, and I am following him, and am close on his tracks, too; but I find to follow him, it requires much jumping from place to place. While I was on the affirmative it was different. I laid down a clear line of argument that he has never been able to fully answer, because it is hard for a man to oppose the truth.

He remarked that I am coming his way. In the fear of God I must say that after listening to the flimsy argument he has presented, I am tonight farther from his position the ever in my life. He has utterly failed to show any identity between his sect and the New Testament Church. Of course, there is a reason. No such identity exists.

His proof of identity is the weakest to which I have ever listened. It is identically the same as the Mormon Elder presented some fourteen years ago in the Ebeling-Riggle Debate. In that debate the Mormon Elder affirmed the following proposition: "Resolved, that the organization named the Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints is identical with the church that Christ built, and its teachings and practices are in accordance with the Bible." Elder Kesler has been following the Mormon's method of reasoning almost to the letter. Probably he copied from him, since he has been reading so much lately out of that book. I will now read you the Mormon's manner of argument, and in doing so, you will see that Elder Kesler has been following close in his tracks. On page 412 of the Ebeling-Riggle Debate, Mr. Ebeling begins: "We are in harmony with the Bible on faith." He then spent considerable time showing that the New Testament Church taught faith. He then stated that the Mormon Church teaches faith also. So the conclusion was that since the Mormons teach faith, that makes them identical with the New Testament Church. Again, says Ebeling, "We are in harmony with the Bible on repentance." He then enlarges on this point and read many texts to prove that the New Testament Church taught repentance. He followed this with the positive statement that the Mormon Church teaches repentance, and for this he argued that the Mormon Church is identical with the New Testament Church. Next baptism, page 413. He read many Scriptures to show that baptism is a New Testament ordinance, and since the Mormons administer baptism, that establishes their identity with the New Testament Church. Again, page 414. The New Testament Church taught the new birth. He spent enough time reading Scripture on this point to cover almost six pages of the book. The he argued that since the Mormons teach the new birth, that establishes their identity with the primitive church. Page 418. The New Testament Church taught and practiced the healing of the sick. Here again he spent much time reading Scriptures. Now, since the Mormons pray for the sick, they are the New Testament Church. Page 419. The apostolic church practiced the laying on of hands, and so do the Mormons; therefore, they must be identical. After this he took up the resurrection of the dead, the general judgment, the fact that men must be called of God to preach the gospel, and church organization. On all these points this Mormon preacher spent much time reading text after text. Points on which the religious world almost universally is agreed; but because the Mormons believe them, he contended that this established their identity with the New Testament Church. You see Elder Kesler has been following along the very same line of the Mormon Elder.

He gets up here and spend most of his time reading texts on just such points of teaching that almost al Christian people believe and accept. The fact is, I have taught these same truths for many years before I knew there was such a man as B. E. Kesler. I am sure that you can all see the fallacy of his argument. The very line of thought he has been presenting for the last two nights to establish his identity with the Church of the New Testament, proves just as much for his Mormon brother. But in the light of facts and truth, both he and his Mormon brother go down together.

Now, I want to give you a fair sample of his logic: 1. A hose has for legs, and a cow has for legs; therefore, a cow is a horse. 2. A sheep has four legs, and a table has four legs; therefore, a table is a sheep. 3. A man has a head, and a snake also has a head; therefore, a snake is a man. Does that prove identity? You remember he said this: "Cut off a stick of wood from a tree, and you have a sect." I answer, the same kind of logic would prove that all sects are sticks of wood.

You remember he has been replying to some of my arguments by using syllogism; but the kind of syllogisms he has been using have not weight whatever and prove nothing. From Webster's New International Dictionary, 1912 edition, we have the following on syllogisms: "The formal validity of a syllogism is entirely distinct from its truth, which depend upon the truth of its premises." Again, from Brooks and Hubbards' Composition and Rhetoric I read: "Three errors of syllogism: (1) If the terms are not used with the same meaning throughout, the conclusion is valueless. (2) If the major premise does not make a statement about every member of the class denoted by the middle term, the conclusion may not be valid even though the premises are true. (3) The validity of the conclusion, if impaired by either premise, is false."

Based on these facts, I am going to give you some erroneous syllogisms that are exactly parallel with those he has been presenting, as well as the general logic of his arguments. 1. The government should pay for the education of its people. Travel is a form of education. Therefore, the government should pay the traveling expenses of its people. 2. All fish can swim. Charles can swim. Therefore, Charles is a fish. 3. All horses have four legs. A table has four legs. Therefore , a table is a horse. 4. All men are animals. A horse is an animal. Therefore, a hose is a man. 5 All railroad locomotives can run rapidly. A gray hound can run rapidly. Therefore, a gray hound is a railroad locomotive. 6. Every lie is a yarn. Yarn is made of wool. Therefore, a lie is made of wool.

Now, friends, I have not presented these to make you laugh, but to show you the utter fallacy of his so-called logic and arguments. On just such illogical, flimsy grounds he raise to establish identity. As you all know, he has utterly failed, and how could he help it? Truth has but one side, and he is on the other side.

Just look at the fallacy of his reasoning. He says the church is the same everywhere; therefore, his is the church. I have shown that this kind of reasoning proves as much for the Mormons and Catholics as it does for him. I am surprised that a man of his standing would present such silly talk for argument; but I have heard it said that a drowning man will grasp at a straw. I have simply buried him beneath an avalanche of facts and eternal truths; and as he sinks out of sight he looks up and imagines he sees one little hole out through which he can crawl and make his escape. It is this: "Our church is the same everywhere, therefore, it is the New Testament Church." But this proves just as much for his Mormon brother. So they go down together.

The whole fabric of his reasoning is erroneous. His premises are wrong, his foundation is a pile of sand, and his structure must fall. In the light of the facts I have presented, his reasoning and talk fades into oblivion. It might do for unenlightened men and women, but this intelligent audience knows better. No wonder he makes sport for the people and they laugh at him. I appeal to facts, and upon them predicate my arguments. These will stand. Oh, I wish that I can fill the earth with the printed copies of this debate.

Of course, some of the things he teaches we all believe and teach, but we believed and taught them before we every heard there was such a man as Elder Kesler. We believe and teach them, not because he teaches them, but because the bible teaches them. Then he gets up here and sports himself by saying, "Elder Riggle is coming my way." With us much grace I can say Elder Kesler is coming my way.

Again, he says their annual conference passes rules to enforce uniformity among their people in dress and worship. But right here the Bible is silent. I only lays down general principles on dress. In the New Testament are no rules whether a man should wear a mustache or not; whether the collar of his coat should be standing up or lying down; whether the sisters shall wear hats on their head or bonnets and hoods. All the Bible says is "modest apparel, that which becometh women professing godliness."

But there conference rules do not always work everywhere. For example: In the town of Oakland, Pennsylvania, where I resided before moving to Indiana, we had the three classes of Brethren. There were a few of the Old Order Brethren, a congregation of the Conservative or Church of the Brethren, which Elder Kesler represents, and also a congregation of the Progressive Brethren. The all held to the same root, and dated their beginning from the River Eder; yet they had nothing much to do with each other when it came to matters of religion. Of the Conservative Brethren, Elder L. R. Holsinger, who is a writer for the Gospel Messenger, was their pastor. In this congregation they had an organ and choir, and the sisters wore hats with feathers and flowers, and I state to you the truth when I say that this was the most stylish congregation in the town. They only wore the prayer veil when they held their annual communion service. I don't mention these things to reflect upon these people, but simply to show you that their strict conference rules do not always work.

Just a thought more on the name. In my closing speech last night I clearly proved that he has no identity with the New Testament Church in name. He cannot find "Church of the Brethren" in the Bible. You see the term brethren does not apply to one small sect of people, but to all the saved everywhere in all ages. A number of distinct bodies have as much authority to say theirs is the name as his. United Brethren, Radical Brethren, Plymouth Brethren, Old Order Brethren and Progressive Brethren. Right on this point he fails. Brethren is not the church name as given in the New Testament. I have already read to you from Dan. 9:19, where it was prophesied that "thy city (church) was to be named after God. Hence, its title would be the Church of God. This is not only so as a family, but as the bride, the Lamb's wife.

You remember my opponent said that the first congregation that was named the Church of God was at Corinth, some twenty years after the church had been established at Jerusalem. By this he tried to leave the impression that the church at Jerusalem was not called or know by that title. I well now prove that it was. 1 Thess. 2:14, I read: "For ye, brethren, became followers of the Churches of God which in Judea are in Christ Jesus." Here Paul tells us that all the congregations in Judea went under the title "Churches of God." This, of course, included the one at Jerusalem, and proves conclusively that every congregation planted was called the Church of God.

Just another brief reference to the chart. I said as far as the chart was concerned and the Scriptures he gave, there were only two points on which I took issue with him: Triune baptism and the full meal supper. The Scriptures he gave on baptism and the veil, I heartily accept, and the Church of God observes this as set forth in the New Testament. But here is the point. Elder Kesler and his church place certain peculiar constructions upon these texts, and when it comes to his interpretation of them we differ.

He spent about all of his time in the last speech on the design of baptism, something that we have already spent much time discussing. I am sure the ground has been fully covered, and to go back over these things again is simply a rehash and must be wearisome to the people. I have already clearly answered and refuted all the argument he has presented, and I see no necessity of spending more time on this point. However, as I am on the negative, I presume I will have to follow him.

Among the things he said are these: Baptism changes our relation, in it we put on Christ, receive remission of sins, and are baptized into the Trinity. He spent much time reading texts of Scripture, a few of which bear on the point, and a number which do not. Let the congregation keep in mind that in every instance when he mentions baptism he means triune immersion. Nothing else is baptism with him. But finally tonight he dropped the bottom out of all his arguments by admitting that baptism does not literally or really save, that the blood alone can cleanse from sin. Good. This has been my contention all through this debate. In all the texts he has read, you will notice that he applies the term baptize to the literal rite of water baptism. It seems he cannot see or comprehend anything but water. He seems to know little, if anything about spirit baptism. I have, in a very clear and conclusive manner, several times during this discussion proved that it is the Spirit that inducts us into Christ.

I have made the point that if it is through the literal rite of triune immersion that people are saved, and in this manner brought into the Godhead, then all those who have not submitted to this external ordinance as practiced by this sect are outside of the Trinity and lost. You see the preacher can baptize a person into the literal element---water---but the Holy Spirit alone can baptize us into the spirit element---Christ Jesus. I will once more refer to Cornelius. Before he was baptized in water, he had received the Holy Spirit. This completely overthrows Elder Kesler's position

He read from my book on Christian Baptism, page 120. In this he misrepresents and entirely evades the point I there make. I will read it: "To be apostolic, then, we must attach the same importance to this institution and must preach to the people that they are positively commanded to be baptized and that to disobey means condemnation." My book clearly teaches that people must be saved before baptism. In this quotation, as the connection will show, I have no reference to sinners, but to saved people. If, after we are saved, we willfully refuse to go on and be baptized, we disobey and are brought under condemnation. This is not only true of baptism, but of the Lord's Supper, and every other commandment that the Lord has given for us to observe. Here is the difference between Elder Kesler's position and that set forth in my book. He teaches that baptism must always come before people are saved, while I teach in my book, as well as during this discussion, that only those who are already saved are eligible to this ordinance.

Tenth. Before I sit down I will present one new argument on this point, and then let the matter rest as far as the design of baptism is concerned.

Baptism is no prerequisite to salvation. Baptism is not mentioned in the teachings of Christ and the apostles as a prerequisite to present salvation from sin. Christ said, "Repent and believe the gospel." "Whosoever believeth in Him (Christ) should not perish but have everlasting life." He that believeth in Him is not condemned." Faith brings salvation. Here is a point worthy of note: If in Acts 2:38 Peter taught that actual remission of sins was conditioned upon baptism, then he certainly repeated this teaching everywhere he went. If I today preach to a company of inquiring penitents in the city of Philadelphia in answer to the question, "What must I do to be saved?" am I not bound to tell them all that is necessary for them to do in order to be saved? Then, suppose that on tomorrow in the city of Pittsburgh I preach to another assembly in answer to the same inquiry. Am I not bound to tell them the same truths? Certainly. I could not be a true minister and do otherwise. Where, I ask, did Peter ever after Pentecost tell inquiring souls that they must be baptized before they could be forgiven? He did not mention baptism as a condition of salvation either in his sermon as recorded in Acts 3:19, or later at the house of Cornelius. Acts 10:34-43: In the first he said, "Repent ye, therefore, and be converted, that you sins may be blotted out." In the last, he instructed them thus: "Whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of sins." Who will doubt that Peter told them all that was necessary to know in order to obtain salvation? Yet he did not mention baptism.

An argument built on the exact wording of Acts 2:38, to prove that baptism is absolutely essential to remission of sins, is not very decisive. "Repent and be baptized * * * for (eis---unto) the remission of sins." Compare this with Matt. 3:11: "I indeed baptize you with water unto (eis) repentance." In both texts we have the same original word. The language, or mode of expression, in both texts is precisely the same. But who believe that John baptized the people in order to repentance, or that they might repent. If we take Matt. 3:11, apart from the rest of the New Testament teaching, it certainly furnishes as strong proof for baptism in order to repentance as Acts 2:38 furnishes proof for baptism in order to the remission of sins; but other Scriptures clearly prove that John required repentance before baptism: therefore, it would be unsafe to build a theory on the peculiar structure of a singe text, though its wording seems to convey the contrary idea. The same is true of Acts 2:38. All the New Testament teaching concurs in the truth that repentance and faith are the conditions of salvation and that all who believe enjoy the remission of past sins. Baptism is for true believers, and true believer are saved. The truth is, John baptized on profession of faith in the remission of sins through the Lord Jesus Christ.

(Time.)

__________________________