the church of God (evening light): The Riggle

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 ONE

The Riggle - Kesler Debate

NOTE FROM JERRY: This debate is recorded in a 450 page book! I believe the debate contains a confirmation of what the New Testament teaches. However, there are "two sides" to the debate...and because a debate, there's MUCH REPETITION... both positive and negative. I confess that I'm partial to one side. The "other side" is so boring to me that I can hardly read and was even more boring while typing. Smile, I guess "the boring side" enhances the truth/makes it stand out more vivid. Now, I won't say that the side I prefer is not without flaws. When human minds get involved, there's sure to be some "flaws". I do want to express that I have respect for the "other side"---I'm sure Elder Kesler was giving his best!!

Well, that's my view---needless at say, you are very welcome to yours!

If you decided to read part or the "whole" that I have posted, I'd surely like to have your opinion of the debate...regardless whether you agree or disagree with my opinion. Personally, I believe the debate is worth considering, but due to "its nature" and length, I'm not sure if there'd be enough interest to warrant the time required to get the rest of it posted. I welcome your encouragement to continue preparing the rest of the debate for posting.

One last note: All 100 pages are included here...later I'll divide up into shorter web pages for convenience...

My e-mail address is: omifren@zoominternet.net
(copy and paste as necessary when e-mailing)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Riggle - Kesler Debate...

A Public Discussion
between
Elder H.M. Riggle, of Akron, IN
(Church of God)
and
Elder B. E. Kesler, of Puxico, MO
(Church of the Brethren)

Subjects Covered:
The Church, It's origin, organization, visibility, name, etc.;
The present divided state of Christianity;
The great doctrine of unity;
Sects and their relation to the church;
The design of Baptism;
The two resurrections and the Millennium reign;
Single and triune immersion;
What constitutes The Lord's Supper;
The prayer veil or head covering.

Held at
North Webster, IN, Sept. 15th-26th 1915.

Introduction

Jesus Christ was not only the greatest Teacher and Reasoner of His day, but the greatest the world has ever seen. When but a boy at the age of twelve we find Him in the temple sitting in the midst of the doctors and lawyers "hearing them and asking them questions." During His personal ministry, whether in the temple, by the seaside, or on the public highway, He was almost constantly in contact with the warring parties of Pharisees, Sadducees, Lawyers and Doctors, and many were the sharp discussions that He held with the leaders of the Jewish religion at that time. Whether in the affirmative or negative, His addresses were masterpieces of invincible logic, and on more than one occasion He put to silence the opposition.

There are undoubtedly sufficient evidences to warrant the saying that the apostles followed their Master's example. In the life and ministry of Paul is demonstrated a series of sharp contentions with the enemies of truth. "With the grace and polish of a trained dialectician, he was at home in debate, whether reasoning in the school of Tyrannous, answering the proud philosophers of Athens, combating the devotees of Diana in Ephesus, or contending with the chief of the Jews in Rome; and his speeches are models of systematic argument and impassioned appeal."

Many of the discussions with Jews and heathens have come down to us in written form, several of them dating back to the second century. The truth in all ages has flourished in the soil of controversy. It is error and not truth that suffers from investigation.

The discussion recorded in these pages will be found very interesting to the people of this age. The subjects are of vital interest. As one of the moderators expressed it, "This debate will undoubtedly go down in history as one of the greatest of a religious character that have ever been held."

It was brought about as follows: In the Spring of 1915, while conducting a series of Evangelistic meetings at North Webster, IN, I was approached by Elder F. O. Richcreek, pastor of the Church of the Brethren near that place, asking me whether I would meet a representative man of their church in a public discussion covering the differences between the two bodies. After a short conversation, I consented to do so, and prepared a number of propositions. These were not acceptable to the Brethren Church. Finally Elder B. E. Kesler of Puxico, MO was selected to represent the Church of the Brethren, and after considerable correspondence the propositions as found in this book were agreed upon.

May the readers indulge the same interest and pleasure in the perusal of these pages as did the disputants during the session.

In Christian Love,

Elder H. M. Riggle
Akron, IN 1915

RULES GOVERNING THE DEBATE

First. The session shall continue twelve nights, two hours each night. The disputants shall alternate in thirty-minute speeches, the affirmative leading.

Second. Each party shall set forth in a specific way all the doctrines of his church wherein they differ from that of his respondent.

Third. The Bible shall be the standard of evidence. All other evidence to be received upon its merits.

Fourth. Both disputants agree to treat each other in a spirit of Christian courtesy.

Fifth. It is further agree that this debate shall be governed by Hedges' Rules of Controversy.

[Signed]

Elder B. E. Kesler.

NOTES:

This debate was held in a large Chautauqua tent at North Webster, IN, September 15-26, 1915.

The average attendance was about twelve hundred people each night.

Elder Riggle selected as his Moderator Elder A. B. Palmer of Bangor, Michigan.

Elder Kesler selected as his Moderator Elder L. M. Neher of Warsaw, IN.

Rev. J. M. Kistler (Evangelical) sat as Chairman the first two evenings.

Mr. A. B. Warner (Methodist) of North Webster, IN, sat as Chairman during the third and fourth evening.

Mr. R. B. Allison (Evangelical) of North Webster, IN, sat as Chairman during the remainder of the debate.

_________

The speeches as they appear in this book are a true copy of the original as taken by three stenographers.

Both Elder Kesler and Elder Riggle carefully went over the manuscript, and made such minor changes in wording and grammatical construction as they thought best, but in no sense did they change or alter the original thought expressed.

Stenographers Report:

This will certify that the copy and transcript as taken from my original notes, with the exceptions of a few minor changes in grammatical construction, without in the least changing the original thought expressed, is a true copy of the speeches as delivered.

[Signed]

Miss Alice Moerke,
Mrs. Fred PLetcher,
Miss Zelda Riggle.

PROPOSITION I

The Church of God, of which I, H. M Riggle, am a member, and which I represent, is identical with the New Testament Church in origin, name, doctrine, and practice.

H. M. Riggle affirms,
B. E. Kesler denies.

Elder Riggle's First Speech
Wednesday Evening, September 15

__________

Honorable Mr. Chairman, Brother Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen: It is a great pleasure for me to appear before this intelligent audience to earnestly contend for and to present to you what I firmly believe to be the truth. It is no less a pleasure to meet, in this discussion, my esteemed friend Elder Kesler. He has been represented to me as a man who above all others is able to defend his church, their doctrine and practice. Therefore, if it should develop that his position fails him and falls to the ground it will not be because of any weakness in the man, but in the cause which he represents.

I wish to state, in the very beginning, that I hold toward Elder Kesler and the members of his church the tenderest feelings of Christian love and friendship, and I hope to be able to extend to them that courtesy and respect that becomes the people of God. It is not individuals I oppose, but certain doctrines and practices which I firmly believe to be unscriptural and erroneous.

Before I enter upon this investigation, I will lay down a rule by which I expect to be governed throughout the entire debate. It is this: Facts and truths are eternal principles. You cannot destroy a fact, neither can you destroy a truth. It may be possible for men, by their human reasoning and sophistry, to cover up and hide from the people the real truth, but this cannot erase it. It still remains the truth. It will stand forever. Again: Facts and truths never contradict. They never cross. A fact cannot contradict a fact. Truth CANNOT contradict a truth. All truth runs parallel. Any position or doctrine that is sustained by a single fact or truth is sustained by every other fact and truth, in the whole realm of fact and truth, that has any bearing on the subject. Any doctrine or position that is refuted or contradicted by a single fact or truth, is refuted and contradicted by every other fact and truth that relates to the subject. If it should develop during this investigation that I can sustain the position I occupy---the origin, name, doctrine and practice of the church I represent, with a single fact or truth, then remember that every other fact and truth that has any bearing upon the subject in debate sustains my position. And if I shall bring to bear against the position of my respondent a single fact or truth, then all other facts and truths contradict his position.

You have heard the proposition as read by the Chairman: The Church of God of which I am a member and which I represent is identical---the same, differing in no essential point---with the New Testament Church, in origin, which means source and foundation, name---that by which a thing is called, its title, doctrine and practice. Most gladly do I stand in defense of this proposition.

By the New Testament Church is meant the church under the new covenant, as distinguished from the church under the old covenant. The Old Testament Church was sometimes termed Moses' house, as in Heb. 3:2-5. "And Moses was faithful in all his house." Israel, or the literal seed of Abraham, composed the Old Testament Church. The people became members of this church by natural fleshly birth. Whereas the New Testament Church is said to be Christ's house, as we read in Heb. 3:6. "But Christ as a Son over his own house, whose house are we." The spiritual seed of Abraham, those who are saved by faith in Jesus Christ, constitute the New Testament Church. These are all "born from above." The former was a literal house, composed of literal seed. The latter is a spiritual house or household, composed of spiritual seed. Thus, the Old Testament Church and the New Testament Church are distinct.

In the New Testament, the term church is used both in a universal and local sense. In the universal sense, it is denominated "The general assemble and church of the first born which are written heave." It is also spoken of as "the whole family in heaven and in earth," "the body of Christ." That part of the church which is confined to this earth is geographically distributed in different parts of the world, and where a number of saved people assemble together to worship God in harmony with the New Testament teaching, they constitute a local church or assembly. Accordingly we read of the church at Jerusalem, the church at Antioch, the church at Ephesus, the churches of Galatia, and "the churches of God in Judea which are in Christ Jesus." These were not distinct sectarian bodies, under different creeds and governments, but were simply the congregations of God in different places holding membership in the one divine and universal church. These local bodies, scattered throughout the world, held the same faith and doctrine, the same name and organization, and each was a part of the body of Christ---the church. The same is true today. We speak of the church at Chicago, the church at Philadelphia, the churches in and around Akron, IN. etc., in the same manner. These are the local assemblies of God's people. They are all identical in name, faith, membership and organization, holding membership only in the one divine ecclesia.

My FIRST point on this proposition is origin. It devolves upon me to prove that the church which I have the honor to represent is identical with that of the New Testament in origin. I call attention to the language of Jesus as recorded Matt. 16:18. "And I say also unto thee, that thou are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Note the language "I WILL BUILD." The New Testament Church is divine. Its builder and founder is Christ. Jesus' language on this point is too clear to be misunderstood. In Heb. 8:3, this church is denominated "the true tabernacle which the Lord pitched, and not man." Again in Heb.9:11, it is referred to as "a more perfect tabernacle not made with hands." Again, in Heb. 11:10 it is said to be "a city that hath foundations, WHOSE BUILDER AND MAKER IS GOD." In Dan. 2:34, this divine institution was prophesied of as "a stone cut out without hands." That is, it never came in human hands. And in Dan. 2:44, it was foretold as a kingdom "set up by the God of heaven, which shall never be destroyed." In Rev. 3:12, this great ecclesia is presented as a spiritual Jerusalem "which cometh down from God out of Heaven." In Acts 20:38, Paul calls it "the Church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood." From all these Scriptures we can gather but one truth: the New Testament Church is not a human institution, but is wholly divine. Its building or founding was never left to fallible men, but belonged to the great Architect, Jesus Christ the Lord. Upon this truth I plant my feet. Upon this impregnable rock I stand. This has stood the storms of ages, and for twenty long centuries has withstood all the attacks of men. Therefore, I am certain my worthy respondent will not be able to shake the position which I occupy. The church IS DIVINE. It is a glorious institution, built by the Son of God, purchased with his own precious blood.

This church Christ built, he denominates "my church." It belongs exclusively to him. It is spoken of as "God's building," "the house of God," "His dwelling place on earth," "God's family," "the body of Christ," "His body which is the church," "the bride, the Lamb's wife" and "the Church of God, which he purchased with his own blood." All these expressions show that the church which Christ built and purchased is His own. He has no other. Her creed and discipline is the New Testament. Her living head is Christ; for "He is the head of the body, the church." Col. 1:18. Her foundation is divine. "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid which is Jesus Christ." 1 Cor. 3:11. My first argument, then based upon these positive facts and truths, establishes the divinity of the church.

Second. I will now consider its unity. Note the language Christ used: "My CHURCH." One church. In Jn 10:16, it is spoken of as one fold. "Other sheep I have (the Gentiles), which are not of this fold (the Jews); them also must I bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd." This is more properly rendered in the American Standard Version "one flock." Again, one body. Rom. 12:4, 5. "For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office; so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another." Here Paul uses the human body to represent the church. In our physical body there are many different members, and these have not the same office or work to perform, yet all together constitute one body. Just so with the church. We being many are one body in Christ. Throughout the New Testament but one body is recognized. Then there can be but one true church. The church is also presented under the figure of a house. 1 Tim 3:15. "That thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." The Lord has but one house. The New Testament mentions but one. Since this house is the church, there is but one logical conclusion: Christ has but one true church. The New Testament Church is God's family. Eph. 3:15. "I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, from whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named." The Lord has but one family, hence but one church. The church is the bride, the Lamb's wife. Accordingly, we read in S. Sol. 6:9, "My dove, my undefiled is but one; She is the ONLY ONE of her mother." Now, then, from these clear texts we can deduct but one logical conclusion: Christ has but one church. All the New Testament writings clearly sustain this fact. This being true, we are forced to conclude that all others are rival churches. Here is the ground I occupy. Holding membership in this divine church and in no other, I properly represent the New Testament Church.

Third. The time of her organization. In A. D. 32 Jesus said, "I will build my church." Matt. 16:18. In A. D. 33 we read that "the Lord added to the church daily such as should be--or were being--saved." Acts 2:47. On Pentecost, it was said, "the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls." So you see that this was the time when its complete organization took place, and believers began to be added as members of the church. This was the time when the Holy Spirit, through whom the Lord works in His church throughout this dispensation, came. It is true that the church began with the labors of John the Baptist, and continued under Christ's personal ministry, but there was a lapping over of dispensations. You see the Old Testament church continued until the death of Christ. The old was in force and standing at the very time that the new was introduced. The moment Christ said on the cross, "it is finished," the way was opened for the new. However, before this the material was being gathered. But the coming of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost perfected the organization of the church as a distinct institution from the Jewish religion; and on the very day of its organization, three thousand souls were added to its membership. This was through salvation or spiritual birth. By reference to 1 Cor. 12, it will be seen that it is the Holy Spirit who distributes the gifts in the church, forms it in due order, and furnishes it with organs. Now here is a logical conclusion. Since the New Testament Church was fully built on Pentecost, it follows that all institutions that have arisen since that time cannot be the true church. Here is a fact. Since the true New Testament Church is divine, and was built by Christ, then all institutions claiming to be churches that have been built by men are not the true church of God.

Fourth. This divine church will stand forever. Jesus said, "The gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Then it is in existence today. This church has come down through all the ages, having bathed its robes in the blood of fifty-five million martyrs; and today it stands as solid and symmetrical as it did the day on which it was organized. It will stand forever. After this world has been wrapped in sheets of judgment fires, when the sun and moon will no longer shine, the earth shall have passed away, and all the institutions of men will have fallen, the New Testament Church will continue to stand and shine forth in the glory of the Father, while cycles of eternity's ages roll on. In the beginning, it was one divine church. During the apostasy, in a scattered condition. And in this evening time, just before Christ's second advent, in a gathered state, the bride prepared and being made ready for the coming of the bridegroom.

Fifth. She is the body of Christ. Col. 1:18. "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 head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him that filleth all in all." Language could not be framed to more clearly teach and forcefully express the fact that the church is the body of Christ. As to who compose this body, you will find the answer in 1 Cor. 12:27, "Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular." But who was Paul speaking of? The answer will be found in 1 Cor. 1:1, 2, "Paul called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ, through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother, unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called Saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord." This clearly defines just who constitute the New Testament Church. Saints everywhere. The term saints applies to all the converted, to all God's people, whether in heaven or on earth. These are also termed Christians, disciples, brethren, etc. Here we have a fact stated. The body of Christ, the church, is composed of only saved people, those who follow the Lord in harmony with the truth. Mark well the fact, YOU CANNOT BE A CHRISTIAN OUTSIDE OF THE BODY OF CHRIST. This body includes all the saved in heaven and earth. It is the only true universal church. Some good people belong to other bodies as well as this, but you see that if they are saved they hold membership in this one divine church. Those who are really converted in the denomination which Elder Kesler represents are also members of the body of Christ or the New Testament Church. But only such in his institution who are saved are members in this body. From this I deduct a logical fact. Any institution that does not include in its membership all Christians is not the New Testament Church, CANNOT BE. This clearly presents the issue between Elder Kesler and myself, between the German Baptist or Church of the Brethren denomination and the true New Testament Church of God. I represent this divine ecclesia, the New Testament Church, and belong to no other. By virtue of salvation and spiritual birth I have been added by the Lord to this divine church, and never joined another. In 1 Cor. 12:18 we read, "but now hath God set the members everyone of them in the body as it pleaseth him."

Now I wish to read from a tract published by the Brethren Publishing House, of Elgin, IL, which Elder Kesler represents. This tract is entitled "Which is the right church?" "In regard to this sect (meaning the New Testament Church), it was the only true church of Christ, the only right church on earth at that time, the only church that God acknowledged, and looked upon with approbation. * * * Our second remark is, that we are living under the same dispensation that Paul was, and God has never authorize the existence of any other sect than that to which Paul belonged; there is no divine, NO BIBLE AUTHORITY FOR ANY OTHER CHURCH." I have read this...for their own writings to show that they are forced to admit that the New Testament Church of God is the only right one, the only one that the Lord acknowledged. Since, as they say, there is no divine, no Bible authority for any other church, then there is no excuse for the organization called the Church of the Brethren. I am happy to stand before you as a member of, and a humble representative of the only church God acknowledges, the only one mentioned in the New Testament Scriptures. The five arguments presented, so well sustained with Scriptural facts and truths, as well as the above frank admission from the writings of the church Elder Kesler represents, is, I believe, a sufficient apology for the position I occupy. I believe I have clearly sustained the first part of my proposition, that the church of which I am a member and which I represent is identical with the New Testament Church in ORIGIN.

(Time.)

_______________

Elder Kesler's First Speech
Wednesday Evening, September 15

Gentleman, Moderators, Brethren and Friends: I may say with my worthy opponent that it affords me pleasure to meet with you this evening. I wish to congratulate you on your pleasant surroundings, and your interest in our present meeting, and in the great questions that shall engage our attention during this discussion. Debates have come, do come, and will continue to come, and that they do good is evident by their continual coming. They originate with religious people who would not foster them unless believed to promote the truth. In respect to the speakers, little needs to be said. You will learn to know us as we proceed. As to the good you will get out of our discussions, that will depend upon your attention and willingness to know and do the truth. As to the nature of the argument---I want to present to you, my dear friends, a fact, and that is that argument to be of force must have some prophetic, historic, or direct relation to the question in debate, else it becomes mere talk without effect, except to show the lack of argument. If the argument be prophetic, its application must be so obvious as not to leave room for doubt; that is, if the Scripture references that are brought to bear do not point so directly, and their application to the question is not so obvious as to leave room for a doubt, they have no force in sustaining the argument in question. Second, if it be of a historic nature, the statements must be so clear and pointed as not to be misunderstood; that is, if it is a historic question relating to the question in debate, the statements must be so clear, so plain, and so pointed as not to be misunderstood. If direct, it must assert or deny the leading thought contained in the proposition.

I next call your attention to definition. I notice my worthy opponent did not fully define his position. Church of God---a name assumed by a modern body of religious people, otherwise designated as Saints, which my worth opponent has represented in this talk. Identical, the same, not different. Church of the New Testament; the New Testament Church the church built by Christ; the Church of God. Origin, the first existence or beginning, the source, the birth, the commencement. Name, the title by which any person or thing is known, understood or spoken of. Doctrine, that which is taught, what is held as true and supported by a teacher, a school, or a sect. Practice--frequently repeated or customary action, succession of factions of a similar kind. Such are the definitions of his proposition. I want to refer to my notes that I have taken from his first speech. He tells us: I am the first, the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, when it comes to debating. I have brethren in the church that I esteem to be head and shoulders above me, but whenever my brethren call on me for my humble assistance, I respond. Now as to Elder Riggle, who represents the Church of God, you all know him to be a man of ability among his people. I am not sure but he is as able a man as they will be able to find, and if his proposition fails, as it surely will, it is not because he isn't a man of ability.

Facts---Eternal things. We have no objection to them. I want to say to you, my dear friends, tonight that I would not be before you in this discussion if I did not honestly believe that the proposition that my worthy opponent represents in this discussion is erroneous, is wrong, and out of harmony with the Scriptures.

New Testament Church was defined. He says where a body assembles to worship God, this is the Church of God. Well, I am glad he made that statement. I understand from the teachings of these people, what little I have read, that they oppose organization, and I want him to tell us now if that local body is organized; and if it is proper to organize that body, how his local body is organized, if organized at all. I have to kind of feel my way. I want to say to you that Elder Riggle is the second member of this church whom I have had the privilege to meet. I met one lady in Arkansas who says she is a member of the Saints Church...or the Church of God, so I will have to kind of feel my way until he shows me his position so I will know where he stands. Origin of the church. Matt. 16:18 he quotes where Jesus says, "On this rock I will build my church." Heb. 8:3, about a temple which the Lord pitched, and not man. He gave some other Scriptures bearing on the same subject that I did not get. Dan. 2:34, a stone was cut out without hands. Dan. 2:44, a kingdom shall be set up which shall never be destroyed. Rev. 3:12, a pillar in the temple of my God. In Acts 20:38 he shows how we are made overseers. He also gave other references which I did not get. My dear friends, with all due respect for my worthy opponent, I believe exactly what these Scriptures teach, and I want to ask him if he believes that I am representing the true Church of God because of that fact? Do you get the point? He had made an argument to prove that his church is identical with the New Testament Church. He has referred to the Scriptures, I believe. I will repeat, I believe exactly what these Scriptures teach, and I want to ask that if because of that he admits that I am representing the New Testament Church, and if he won't admit it because I am endorsing his argument, I want him to tell us how he expects us to believe that he is representing the New Testament Church.

The unity of the church---John 10:16, he speaks of one fold and one shepherd. "And other sheep I have which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd," "For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office: so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another." Eph. 3:15, "Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named." Solomon speaks of "Christ the one church." He read out of that little tract published by our publishing house. That is exactly what Elder Riggle believes. He believes just what that little tract says. I believe what that tract says, and I believe just what these Scriptures about the unity of the church say. Now I want him to say that the church I am representing is the true church of Christ, and if he will not admit because I believe in the unity of the church, that the church I represent is the New Testament Church, I want him to tell us how he expects us to believe that he represents the New Testament Church on the same argument. He will turn down my church because I believe what these Scriptures teach, then how in the name of reason does he expect us to maintain and believe by the same scriptural teaching that his church is the New Testament Church.

Date of the origin of the church is A. D. 32. The church was organized on the day of Pentecost. The church began in John the Baptist's time, and the Holy Ghost organized the church on the day of Pentecost, and any church or organization that has been organized since that time is not the Church of God. These points will be covered in my regular line of argument.

It is a divine church, and it stands today. This church is the body of Christ. I would like to ask you Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians and Christian people if you don't believe that statement. Do you believe that the church is the body of Christ? Is there any Christian in this congregation that does not believe that? I want to ask Elder Riggle if we all belong to the church of Christ because we believe that just as he does? He hasn't presented sufficient argument. He will deny that that does apply to everyone of us just the same as it does to him. He asserts that "his is the Church of God," "that his is the New Testament Church." I will wait to see what he will call the rest of us after a while.

He referred again to a certain Scripture in Col. 1:18, that Christ is the head of the body, the church. He wants you to believe that he is the church of Christ because he believes that. In Eph. 1:22-23, it says that Christ is the head of the church. All Christian people believe that. Because he believes that Christ is the head of the church, he wants us to believe that his is the Church of God.

Saved and sanctified. I believe God's people are sanctified. If I were to ask you whether you believed God's people are saved, you would all say you do, but he wants us to believe that the Church of God is the New Testament Church because he believes that. He hasn't presented sufficient argument that his is the Church of God. He referred to that tract, but I won't say any more about it now.

I have some line of argument that I want to present. The first argument I am presenting against the position and the teaching of my worthy opponent in this discussion is that from the Scriptural standpoint he hasn't any name at all. He wants you to believe that because he has adopted, or assumed, or called himself the Church of God, because of the fact that he calls himself and his people the Church of God, he wants us to believe that it is the New Testament Church. I want to say that according to the Scriptures he hasn't any name at all. From a legal standpoint anything may be assumed as a name. Now, we have the M. E. Church. The law recognizes that as a name; we have the Presbyterian Church, and the law recognizes that as a name of a religious people. We have the Baptist Church, and the law recognizes that as a name. But these people wouldn't undertake to show you that you can find these names in the Scriptures, so it makes no difference what you call yourself, the law recognizes that as a legal name.

The Church of the First Born. Rom. 16:16, "The Churches of Christ." 1 Cor. 1:12, Church of God. Any of these may be assumed by any religious body of people and it will be recognized by the law. But from a Scriptural standpoint it is not a name at all. From a Scriptural standpoint neither of these is a name. Church of the first born, churches of Christ, church of God. Phrases are not names at all. We have before us a family name---the daughter of Elder Riggle. I wanted to get an opportunity to ask the young lady what her name is, but I am sure that phrase is not her name. The daughter of Elder Riggle is her family name, but we do not call her by that name. But he wants you to believe that the Church of God is the name. It doesn't give the name at all, no more than Elder Riggle's daughter gives you the name of Elder Riggle's daughter, and that doesn't give you her name at all. I am sure Elder Riggle will not be able to meet this issue.

The preposition "of" in such phrases denotes ownership and authorship or origin, and so the phrase "church of God," instead of being any proof that it is the name of the church, simply shows that he is the author of it, and doesn't show that it is the name. The law will recognize it as a name, but from a Scriptural standpoint it is not a name at all. It just simply shows that God is the author of it. The phrases "of first born," "of Christ," "of God," and "of Riggle" are genitives indicating possession, and are not names at all. See Harvey's English Gram., p. 194; Green's Eng. Anal. p. 143; Hyde's Eng. Gram., pp. 42, 44, and any other author who treats such phrases. D. S. Warner admits this. Church of God, p. 21. So the church of God is no more the name of the church from a Scriptural standpoint than the daughter of Elder Riggle is the name of his daughter, from which it is proven that while the law will recognize his assumed name, yet from the Bible standpoint he has no name at all. Elder Riggle admits this in the Ebeling-Riggle debate, page 336: "If I love salvation tonight, if I tonight should commit sin, I forfeit my membership in God's church and am no longer a member." He argues that church of God just simply means God's church, without giving the name of it. He has a legal, not a Bible name. They do business in that name, and in that name they held property, and they sign that name to church papers and documents. That name distinguishes them from all other organizations. He will not admit that we belong to the organization that he does, that we have any legal or moral right to his church property, or that he belongs to the organization I do, or has any legal or moral right to our church property. While that name distinguishes them from all others, it does not prove that they have a Bible name, or that they are the only church, and all others "sects." But he wants us to believe that the name he has assumed is the Church of the New Testament. Any religious people in the land could make the same argument. The Baptists might make the same argument; the Methodists might make the same argument; every church might make the very same argument, but he wants to turn down our arguments because he believes that he is representing the New Testament Church. While they may distinguish themselves from all others, it does not prove that they have a Bible name, and that they are the only church. For him to denounce all others as sects does not cut them off from their "inheritance with the saints in light," neither does it add one star to the crown of him who does it.

In 1 Cor. 1:2 it speaks of the Church of God, which is about twenty years after he says the church was built or organized on the day of Pentecost. That is the first time, or the nearest time, he can get back to for the name. They were a little bit too late in naming the organization, if his church should be right. That the name he is representing, or trying to represent, shows that he is a little bit too late naming it, as he says it was built on the day of Pentecost. We expect to question this later on. Suppose I quote these Scriptures he referred to, and say I belonged to the Church of God, and belonged to no other, would he believe it? Surely not. But that is what he wants us to believe these Scriptures teach for him. We believe these Scriptures just as he does. Then if we believe his is the Church of God because he says so, he must believe as much for us. The man must be hard up for argument that has to go around in a circle like this to assume that he has the right name. Says he has the right name, therefore his is the only church, and his is the only church because he has assumed (as he thinks) the right name for it. Satan might call himself Christ, but that wouldn't change his Satanic nature.

My next argument against his proposition is that his church has no better organization than any other Protestant body. The reformed church began in about the year 1530, when Zwingli and Luther separated from the Church of Rome. These were the two reformers, and they debated their differences, 1527-1529, and finally started two separate churches, Mr. Luther the Lutheran Church, and Mr. Zwingli what developed into the Reformed Church. Mr. Winebrenner seceded from the Reformed Church. I mention these to show you the close relation of the father and the son, or the mother and the daughter. First, they had baptism, a single backward action, feet-washing, Lord's Supper, salvation was condidional, elders and deacons of the church. You will find this in the Ebeling-Riggle discussion, pages 444-445. Illustrated book of all religions, pages 76, 444-445.

D. S. Warner was a Winebrennerian. He built Elder Riggle's church in the year 1877. They upheld baptism by the single backward act, feet-washing, and Lord's Supper, salvation is conditional, elders and deacons of the church, sanctification and holiness. In the Eberling-Riggle debate, pages 399-401, it tells that Elder Riggle's sect was started in the year 1877.

(Time.)

______________

Elder Riggle's Second Speech
Wednesday Evening, September 15

Mr. Chairman, Brother Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen:--- I am certainly delighted to appear before you again in defense of the Proposition I am sustaining. I will first notice a few of the remarks made by Elder Kesler in the speech to which you have just listened. Referring to the church I represent, he says, "They oppose organization." In this he has been misinformed. I am glad to say the the New Testament Church of God is the most beautiful and symmetrical, the most perfect and complete organization that the world has ever seen. Jesus Christ, who is the originator of this church, BUILT it. Through the instrumentality of the Holy Spirit, he organizes the church by forming it in due order and furnishing it with organs---officers. This covers all there is contained in the word organize. "We are builded together for a habitation of God through the Spirit." This spiritual house is said to be "fitly framed together." And as to its officers, we read in Acts 20:38, "Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers." Thus men are called and qualified for the work of the ministry through the instrumentality of the Holy Spirit. These fill the offices of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers; that is, their gifts differ and each ministers according to ability "which God giveth." These minister in spiritual things, that is, feed the Church of God. Then there is another class of officers in the church, mentioned in the New Testament, who minister in the temporal affairs of the church, or look after the financial end of things in the local assemblies. These are called deacons. Now, when all these have proved themselves worthy of their calling to satisfaction of the congregation and ministry, they are ordained by the laying on of hands, just as the New Testament teaches. In this manner the local assemblies are divinely organized. We have the same organization as will be found in the New Testament and possessed by the primitive church.

He admits in his last speech that there is but one true church. The admission is utterly fatal to his position. I am glad he admitted that there is but one Bible church. This leaves no excuse for the body he represents. He speaks of the Methodists, Presbyterians, Evangelicals, and some other bodies. I will make the statement right here that every true Christian who holds membership in these various bodies are also members of the body of Christ, the Church. We are glad to recognize them as our brethren, and extend to such the hand of true Christian fellowship. As stated in my opening speech, every member in the Church of the Brethren who has salvation also belongs to the Lord's spiritual body. It cannot be otherwise. Right here I make the point that this spiritual body to which all saved people belong is the only one that I represent, the only one in which I hold membership.

He spent considerable time on the name. I will take that up in the regular order of my arguments. Again, says Elder Kesler, referring to myself, "Elder Riggle will not admit that I am a member of the Church of God" I answer, if he is a converted man, really saved of God, then he is not only a member of the Church of the Brethren denomination, but also of the Church of God.

He said D. S. Warner built the Church of God in 1877. His bare statement is all you have for that. This is not the case. The church I represent was never built by D. S. Warner, or any other man. Jesus is its founder. D. S. Warner never claimed to build a church. He with others discerned the Lord's body and decided to abide in it alone.

I will now continue my regular line of argument.

Sixth. I will clearly show the difference between the New Testament Church which I represent and the one Elder Kesler represents. I will quote from "The Popular and Critical Bible Encyclopedia and Scriptural Dictionary," edited by Rt. Rev. Samuel Fallows, A.M., D.D., LL.Dl, article entitled, "Dunker; or German Baptist Church," by J. H. Moore, of the Brethren Publishing House, editor of the Gospel Messenger. Elder Moore says authoritatively of his own denomination, which Elder Kesler represents: "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. A desire to follow more closely in the footsteps of the Master, and the conviction that this was impossible in any of the religious bodies of the time, led this company to take this step. Alexander Mack, one of the eight, was the first minister chose by this band...Dec. 25, 1725, the first Brethren Church was organized in America, the first members were received by baptism, and the first love feast was celebrated. This was at Germantown, Pa. 'They hold that faith, repentance, and baptism are essential to salvation.' They believe that trine immersion is the apostolic method of baptism, and receive none as members without baptizing them in this way."

I have quoted authoritatively from Elder Moore, who is a leading spirit in Elder Kesler's church, a noted man among them. Here the issue between us is clearly drawn. I represent the New Testament Church, while he represents a body of people called by Moore "Dunker, or German Baptist," recently named the Church of the Brethren. I will now present some irreconcilable differences between the two bodies. Let the congregation judge which is right and which is wrong. Let facts and truths founded upon the testimony of God's word settle this in your minds. Since the Bible is to be the standard of evidence in this debate, I appeal to it alone.

(1) Date of organization. The New Testament Church of God was fully organized, that is, her organization was perfected on Pentecost in A. D. 33. This took place in Jerusalem, whereas the Church of the Brethren was organized in the year 1708, or 1675 years too late to be the Church of God. The church I represent existed more than 1600 years before there was a body or institution known as the Church of the Brethren. On this point there is no identity between the two bodies.

(2) The one is divine, the other is human. The New Testament Church was built by Christ, whereas the church of the Brethren was founded by men. (Here Mr. Riggle hung up a large chart. On one end was portrayed a beautiful temple, erected upon a large rock, with Christ its door of entrance. Over above this temple were the words, "The New Testament Church---The Church of God. Spiritual, Eternal." On the other end of the chart was a large plain meeting-house with Trine Immersion as its door. This building rested upon a pile of sand. Over above the structure were these words, "German Baptist or Church of the Brethren." A heavy line in the middle of the chart separated the two.)

(3) Place of organization. The New Testament Church was organized at Jerusalem in A. D. 33, and divinely so. I refer to Isa. 2:2: "And it shall come to pass in the last days that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and He will teach us His ways, and we will walk in His paths; for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem." Here is a clear prophecy relative to the establishment of the New Testament Church. Jerusalem was the divinely appointed place where this great work of the church in the world's evangelization was to begin. Jesus confirmed this fact, as we see by reading Luke 24:47-49: "That repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name among all nations, BEGINNING at Jerusalem. And ye shall be witnesses of these things. And, behold I send the promise of my Father upon you: But tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem until ye be endued with power from on high." Again, 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." These texts clearly point to Jerusalem as the divinely appointed place for the perfect establishment of the Christian Church, and the beginning of its great work for the salvation of a lost world. But the Church of the Brethren had its beginning on the bank of the Eder, near Schwarzenau, Germany. So there is no identity between the two bodies.

(4) Manner of organization. Concerning the New Testament Church, we read of one hundred and twenty being gathered together in the temple at Jerusalem. This was by divine command and in divine order. It was God's appointed time as prefigured in the law and commanded by Christ---Pentecost. The Holy Spirit came upon them in a wonderful manner, and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost. The gifts of the Spirit were distributed, and the people heard them speak the wonderful works of God. On that memorable day Peter preached the powerful sermon recorded in Acts 2, which resulted in the conversion of three thousand souls, who by virtue of their experience were added to the number of believers. From this time on the Lord added daily to the church those who were being saved, Acts 2:47. Whereas the German Baptist, or Church of the Brethren, had its beginning in eight persons being assembled on the bank of the Eder, Germany, where they baptized each other by triune dipping. Finding, as they thought, that is was impossible to follow the Master more closely in the religious bodies of their time, this little company took the step to organize what Elder Moore is pleased to call "a NEW religious sect." You see there is no identity between the church I represent and the German Baptist, which my respondent represents.

(5) In its universality. Elder Kesler has already frankly admitted that the New Testament Church is the body of Christ. Note well this point. Then it is nothing more and nothing less. This is what the New Testament clearly teaches. Since this spiritual body alone is the church, there is no place left for Elder Kesler's church. The church is compared to a vine and its branches. When Jesus selected the vine, He certainly presented to us a beautiful picture of the church. All the saved are its branches. Since the body which my respondent represents (admitted by Elder Moore to be a sect) is not this true vine, it cannot be the church. There is no identity.

Seventh. All Christians belong to the New Testament Church. As stated in my opening address, all who are members of the Church of the Brethren, and have been born of the Spirit of God, really hold membership in two churches. All saved people everywhere are members of the Lord's church. As members of His church they have a right to partake at the Lord's table. The Lord's Supper was instituted not for a certain sect or distinct body of people, but for every Christian. Here I wish to introduce the difference between the position I occupy and that of Elder Kesler on the subject of open and closed communion. Note well this point, and I repeat it here for emphasis. Since all true Christians hold membership in the Lord's church, they have a perfect right to come to the Lord's table and partake of the ordinances of His house. Why should any member of a family be debarred from the table? Have they not all equal right? Just so with the family of God. When we observe the sacred ordinances we invite all saved people to participate, because these are not sectarian ordinances, but observances for the whole church. Elder Kesler's church holds closed communion. They debar all members of other churches from participating with them. As they observe it, the ordinances of the Lord are reduced to strictly sectarian rites.

Let me here state a positive fact, and I do not fear successful contradiction. Since the body of people Elder Kesler represents does not include every Christian, it cannot be the New Testament Church. It cannot be Christ's body. I again state the fact that you cannot be a Christian outside of the body of Christ, the New Testament Church. Now, then, when we hold membership in no other body than this, we hold membership in the church, and in no sect. Sect is a Latin term from secure. It means to cut off, to separate, a division. Now, in the light of this fact, remember that the Brethren in their literature admit that they are a sect; but they excuse themselves by saying that the New Testament Church is a sect. In their writings they term it "that old sect." Jesus Christ never founded a sect. The church He built is the whole, "the WHOLE family." All the sects of Christendom have arisen since Christ built His church. They originated with men; it came from heaven. I reject all sects as unnecessary, and abide only in the church in the whole, and in no cut-off part.

Eighth. The church I represent is identical with the New Testament Church in membership. I call attention to 1 Col. 12:18: "But now HATH GOD set the members every one of them in the body as it hath pleased Him." But through what instrumentality does the Lord effect this? Answer: "BY ONE SPIRIT are we all baptized into one body." 1 Cor. 12:13. Adding members to the church, then, is the work of the Lord through the Spirit. I will next read Acts 2:47, from the American Standard Version: "And THE LORD ADDED to them day by day those that were saved." Again, Jn. 10:9, "Jesus said, I am the door; by Me if any man enter in he shall be saved." These texts are so clear that it would seem they cannot be misunderstood. God alone can take members into the church; whereas in the Church of the Brethren the preacher takes you in, and that by trine immersion. In the church I represent "Christ opens and no man can shut. He shuts and no man opens." But the Church of the Brethren have a door that men open and shut, and that door is an external rite or ordinance administered by man, trine immersion. This leaves all but trine immersionists on the outside. Moore says we "receive none as members without baptizing them in this way." This draws a sharp line between my position and the Elder's. It shows that he is not orthodox in his teaching and practice. If trine immersion is the door into the New Testament Church, then all Church of God people, Evangelicals, Methodists, and in fact all others who have not received this rite, are left out in the cold. I am not so narrow as this, for I firmly believe that there are millions of people saved in Paradise tonight who never received trine immersion. Elder Kesler dare not admit this. The moment he does he will drop the bottom out of his doctrine and deny the practice of his church. To be frank, they actually teach that trine immersion is essential to salvation and church membership, and I am sure that he will not deny it. I want to make it clear to this congregation of people that in order to become a member of the German Baptist society you must submit to the rite of trine dipping. How different with the New Testament Church. Salvation is the means of induction. The instant a person has received the remission of sins he is made a member of the Church of God. To illustrate: suppose a heathen man in the center of Africa should receive a copy of the New Testament, and have sufficient knowledge to read it, and as a result would be made conscious of his sinful and lost condition. As a result of this spiritual awakening he falls upon his knees with a broken and contrite spirit and a thorough repentance toward God; then by faith in Jesus Christ and his atoning blood he grasps the promise of everlasting life. That man is now saved through repentance and faith. His name is recorded in the Lamb's book of life in heaven, and I am happy to say he is a member of the Church of God---born into it. Has this made him a member of the Brethren Church? No, indeed. There is a reason. The Brethren Church is not the New Testament Church. Allow me to impress this fact: SALVATION CONSTITUTES US MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH I REPRESENT, but not of Elder Kesler's sect.

Ninth. The New Testament Church is a holy institution. In proof of this I will read Eph. 5:25-27: "Husbands love your wives even as Christ also loved the church, and gave Himself for it; that He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that He might present it to Himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing but that it should be holy and without blemish." Again, I refer to Jn. 1:9: "By Me if any man enter in HE SHALL BE SAVED." These texts clearly teach that since Christ is the only door into the church, the only means of entering in, all its members are saved. There are no sinners in the Church of God. It is a church "without a spot or wrinkle, holy and without blemish." We cease to be members of the church when we commit sin. In proof of this I will give Jn. 15:2: "Every brace in Me that bearest not fruit He taketh away." And again, Ex. 32:33, "Whosoever has sinned against me, him will I blot out of My book." You see at the time people are saved their names are recorded in the Lord's book, and from this last text we learn that the moment such sin against the Lord their names are blotted out. This is the class book of the church, and adds another proof to the fact already stated that the Lord alone takes in and puts out the members. In the Eleventh of Romans Paul speaks of the wild olive tree and the good olive tree. No man on earth has power to transplant people from the kingdom of Satan into the kingdom of God; or in other words, to take them out of the wild tree and induct them into Christ. The Church of God on earth is the visible manifestation of His spiritual kingdom. The Lord alone can put us into the kingdom. Col. 1:13: "Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of His dear Son." In this sense the Kingdom and church are identical. This is conclusive proof that the church must be pure to have God's approval. How different with the Church of the Brethren. Sinners hold membership in it. In fact, the majority of them do not claim to live above sin. I will now read from a book published by the Brethren Publishing House, entitled "An Outline of the Fundamental Doctrines of Faith," by Daniel Webster Kurtz. "The church is a hospital for sinners, a training school in Godliness, whose members are not yet perfect. *** There is no more reason to condemn and criticise the church because there are sinners in it." (Page 35.) You see Elder Kesler and his people have not been able to fully discern the body of Christ, the New Testament Church. This presents the difference between us on the church question.

(Time.)

_______________

Elder Kesler's Second Speech
Wednesday Evening, September 15

Gentlemen, Moderators, Brethren and Friends:---I am glad to be before you again to continue the line of thought in the discussion in which we are engaged. Elder Riggle states that they do not oppose organization, and that I am misinformed. I asked him to tell us plainly how the Church of God is organized, and how the local bodies are organized, but he failed to do that. He says the New Testament Church is the finest organization in the world, and therefore the church represented by Elder Riggle is identical with the New Testament Church. Don't you think that I could get up here with all good grace and say to every Christian in the land that the church that Christ built is the Church of the New Testament? He hasn't proved a thing but what is for the rest of us as well as for himself. He proves just as much for you and for me, just as much as he does for himself in every position he takes. He says I admit that there is only one church, and that is divine. I haven't stated my position on that point so far as I know. He will not admit my church as the Church of God because I believe these Scriptures. D. S. Warner did not build his church. That is assertion. I have the statement in the Ebeling-Riggle debate, which I haven't time to read now, that Mr. Warner did, in the year 1877, start a new reformation or sect, or what you want to call it, and Elder Riggle is representing that church. This will be developed further as we go along. It is a little bit amusing to me tonight that Elder Riggle so completely turned over on the negative side, taking my proposition that I am to talk about six days from this. I thought he was here to tell us of his church, and to show us that it is identical with the New Testament, and instead he spends about half of his last speech to show us that the church that I represent is not identical with the New Testament. He goes right on the negative side. Again, he introduces about three lines of thought entirely out of line with his general argument. I don't know just how to follow him. I must take a straight line and straight course, but I can't just jump to defend my proposition and talk a little about one thing and about another. I can't follow a man with arguments like that. My church is about sixteen hundred and so many years too young to be the Church of Christ. Elder Riggle's church is 1844 years too young, a little bit younger than mine. (Laughter.) I don't want any demonstrations on the part of the Church of the Brethren. The Lord never undertook to take the world by storm. Some people seem to think noise is religion, but I do not.

"The Lord added to the church." The Lord adds to the Church of the Brethren, it is therefore the Church of the New Testament? The Lord adds to Elder Riggle's church, and that it is identical with the New Testament. I think that every church in the land would say the Lord adds to the church. According to Elder Riggle's argument, any church is identical with the New Testament, which he doesn't for a moment admit, yet he wants us to take that argument that his church is identical with the New Testament, but he wouldn't be willing to admit because of this that the Church of the Brethren is identical with the New Testament Church.

He says all saved people belong to the church, and that I represent two churches. I am glad that he has charity enough to say that I belong to the Church of God, then he won't need to deny when I get to my proposition that I am identical with the Church of God. Now, we don't want to forget that he admits that I am representing two churches, one the Church of the Brethren, and the other the Church of God. Of course I can't argue the proposition now. Since my church does not contain all the saved people in the world, therefore he wants to reason that mine is not the Church of God, but he has already admitted that I am representing the Church of God. "The church that Christ built contains every saved man or woman in the world," and because he makes that assertion he wants us to believe because of the assertion that his church is identical with the Church of the New Testament. He makes the assertion and wants us to accept the assertion for argument. Any man can sustain a proposition by making an assertion if mere assertion is argument. "God set the members in the body." My dear friends, that Scripture is perverted when he makes the word "body" represent the Church of the New Testament. I think he admitted in his speech that this refers to the natural body, that God has placed the members in it as it has pleased Him---the hands, the feet, the eyes and ears, and all the members of the body. He has set them in the body as it has pleased Him, but my friend applies this to the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ. Yet the Apostle Paul applies this only to the human body." I want him to tell us therefore what the Spirit baptizes "with" or "in." "The church is a holy and glorious church." Every Christian on the face of the earth believes that. But just because he believes it he wants us to believe that his church is identical with the New Testament Church. Just because we believe just what he believes about it he wants us to believe that his is identical with the New Testament Church, a thing that he isn't willing to admit for you and me. It is just as strong in favor of our position as he can possibly make it for his.

"No man can add to the church," that to be developed in an argument, after which he read from Dr. D. W. Kurtz's book. Now, I don't want to turn down anything Dr. Kurtz says, and whatever he says I will stand by, and nothing will prejudice the church in this direction. I just want to show to you that his church has not better origin than any other Protestant body. That was my second argument, and he had to go down to the year 1877, and you remember he read from our own authors where they assembled together and decided to come out boldly before the world and let the whole world know where the church began, but here is a man who is apparently ashamed to come out before the world and tell them just where and when his present organization began. I show you by Mr. Ebeling, from the Ebling-Riggle debate, where it began, and in that debate Elder Riggle didn't deny it, and I want him to come out and tell us like a man if this is not a fact, just when and where, the time and the place. He goes back to Winebrenner, and Winebrenner to Zwingli, and Zwingli to Rome. I am reading now from a little tract, "The Church of God and Sects Contrasted," by H. M. Riggle. The Bible is to be the standard of evidence, and all other evidence is to be accepted upon its merits. I will just give it to you at what you think it is worth. In the Protestant reformation Luther withdrew from Catholicism, after Luther came Zwingli, and down to Winebrenner, and after Winebrenner, Warner, and we can trace these back to the old nest of Rome.

"The true Church of God was never destroyed." He must admit the Church of God existed under some other name than the one his people have assumed or borrowed. I have just a few questions that I want to present to Elder Riggle, to be returned at the opening speech tomorrow evening.

1. By what name, and by what body of Christians, were God's people known 100 A. D. to 1877 A. D.?

2. Can God's true church exist and wear any other than a Bible name?

3. (a) If all sects call themselves the Church of God, will that save them? (b) Or if they organize themselves, will that damn them?

4. If necessary to organize the whole body, why not the smaller divisions of it?

5. If man, aided by the Spirit, cannot build a spiritual institution with literal material, how can the Spirit, unaided by man, build a literal institution with spiritual material?

6. By what name do you designate the various bodies of religious people that differ from the Church of God?

7. When did the various sects of the world "cut off," separate from the Church of God?

8. Since the doctrine held by them distinguishes others as "sects" why do not the doctrines of the Church of God distinguish it as a sect?

9. (a) Give one verse that says the alien sinner is begotten by the Spirit?
(b) Quickened into spiritual life by the Spirit?

10. How do alien sinners get possession of the indwelling Spirit?

11. (a) On what condition do alien sinners get into the church? (b) Into Christ?

12. Define heart, and tell how Spirit operates on it.

13. Define regeneration, and new birth, and tell how each is effected.

14. (a) Does the act that inducts into the invisible phase of the church also induct into the visible phase of it? (b) If not, what act does?

These questions I give Elder Riggle, and I would like to have them handed back to me at the opening speech tomorrow evening, answered or unanswered, if he chooses.

"God's church is eternal." Does that prove that his is the Church of God? Does that show that God's church never ceased to exist? Does that prove that Elder Riggle is representing that church? Every argument he makes proves just as much for us as it does for him, yet he wants to make us believe that he is representing the only church. He wants to prove the things he asserts, especially to a fellow which is from Missouri. He says God's people are scattered among the sects. Ebeling-Riggle debate, page 378: "Suppose I place myself back thirty or forty years ago before people had full light that the body of Christ was the church, and that for want of better light twenty-five of these individuals joined the organization know as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of latter-Day Saints, twenty-five joined the Dunkard institution, twenty-five the Quaker, and twenty-five the Salvation Army. Now, they were led in there though a wrong understanding of Scripture. If they had full light and understanding they would have known that the very moment they were converted they were members of the church. People can no more join the church than my children can join my family---they are born in it. Now, if these people retain their salvation and abide in the Lord, they still retain their membership in God's Church, although they belong to four different organizations which are contrary to God's Church." "Suppose I place myself back thirty or forty years,"---that was about Warner's time,---so he is right that his church originated with Mr. Warner. "God's people are scattered in all the sects." "It doesn't make any difference what sect we belong to just so we are God's children." Suppose we go to England or France and by naturalization become citizens of these countries, and we should still claim rights and protection as American citizens, just look at the absurdity of his position. Just think about people going to the old country and taking up citizenship and still claim rights of American citizens. There is no such thing possible. He thus teaches you can serve two masters: one the God of the true church, the other the God of "sects." He told you I am representing two churches; one belonged to the devil and the other belongs to God. I will read from a little tract, and you can take it for what it is worth: "Then no sect is His church, for they were all built by man. Since they are not Christ's they belong to the devil, for there is no neutral ground." (Church of God and Sects Contrasted, by H. M. Riggle, page 4.) Yet all Methodists, Presbyterians, Baptists, and Evangelicals belong to this institution controlled by the devil, yet he tells us that they are God's people in that institution. Just think, an institution belonging to the devil, and God's people in that institution. The idea is too preposterous and ridiculous to believe. "We lose our membership in the true Chruch of God when we sin." It is a sin for you and me to belong to a sect, so if we belong to a sect, according to his argument we cannot belong to the Chruch of God. He said I represented two churches---the Church of God and the Church of the Brethren, so according to his argument I am a sinner because of the fact that I have joined a sect, and you are a sinner because you have joined a sect, and yet you lose your membership in the Chruch of God as soon as you sin. Why such contradictions? I don't know how to understand the man. Yet he says the Church of God lives in the sects, and the Chruch of God had no existence until about thirty or forty years age, he said. His church is a sect in the same sense other Protestant bodies are. I am reading now from a little tract, "Questions and Answers on the Church," by D. S. Warner, the founder and builder of his church. "What is a sect?" I want you to think about his church, his people, while I read some of Mr. Warner's words as follows: What is a sect? Webster's New International Dictionary defines the word as follows: "In religion, the believers in a particular creed, or upholders of a particular practice, especially now a party dissenting from an established church." Pages 5, 6.

Mr. Warner came out of the Winebrennerian church, showing that the church that he built is just as much a sect as any other on the face of the earth. They have teachings and practices that separate them from any church just the same as anybody else that belongs to a sect. Mr. Warner belonged to the Winebrennerian church, and represented that church, and he left that church in 1877. Just as he separated from others in virtue of some special doctrine, that constituted him a sect. Elder Riggle's church is a sect just as much as other sects. A person becomes a member of it by complying with its terms of membership just the same as he does to get into any other society. He wants you to believe that his is identical with the New Testament Church, and all the rest of us are wrong. It proves just as much for you and for me as it does for him. His proposition is failing link by link and step by step. He hasn't brought up a single argument in favor of his church that you or I couldn't bring up in favor of ours. Hence, his is a sect in the same sense that others are.

The church that he represents "Is the finest organization in the world." If so, it is a sect, a church distinct from all other organizations, no more divine than they, and has as much of the human, and we can trace it through Warner, Winbrenner, Zwingli, right into the bosom of Rome, the mother of harlots. The Church of God is the body of Christ. What church would object being called the body of Christ? That is a legal name, and not a Bible name. He didn't touch on this argument, yet he wants us to believe that he is identical with the Church of the New Testament. He wants us to believe that his is the body of Christ. He is certainly in the boat with all the rest. I have a tract, "Church of God," from which I would read on page 4 if I had time. I present again that Jesus is not the builder of Elder Riggle's church. The lord adds members to the church. All true Christians admit that. God never added anyone except through human agency.

(Time.)

______________

Elder Riggle's Third Speech
Thursday Evening, September 16

Mr. Chairman, Brother Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen:---I come before you again in defense of the proposition I am affirming. I have some more facts and truths to present to you. thus far I have introduced nine arguments, as follows: (1) The New Testament Church is divine. (2) It is one church. (3) Its organization was perfected on Pentecost. (4) This divine church will stand forever. (5) She is the body of Christ. (6) There is no identity between this new Testament Church which I represent and the German Baptist represented by Elder Kesler. (7) All Christians belong to the New Testament Church. (8) The church I represent is identical with the new Testament Church in membership. And (9) the New Testament Church is a holy institution, with no sinners holding membership in its fold.

These arguments I have clearly sustained with thirty-one decisive texts of Scripture. Elder Kesler has not denied these. In fact, he has not undertaken to ever refute my arguments. He says he admits them. Good. But his talk runs something like this: He says, because Elder Riggle believes these truths, and he believes them too, does not make me any more a representative of the true church than he. That is true. To simply believe these things will not make anyone identical in faith, doctrine, and practice with the new Testament Church. Mere belief is not sufficient, and right here is Elder Kesler's trouble. He does not practice what he believes. If he would, he would not come here representing another body, an institution that has no identity with the New Testament Church. I practice what I believe. I firmly believe the New Testament to teach but one true church, the Church of God---the body of Christ. Believing this to be the truth, I hold membership in this one body, and in no other.

Some twenty-three years ago, in the lumber woods in the state of Washington, I yielded my heart to God and was saved. I had been seeking the Lord for some time, but on this memorable night something occurred that struck the arrows of conviction just a little deeper into my soul. I was surrounded by a wicked gang of lumbermen. They were playing cards and cursing God. I withdrew from the crowd and knelt beside my cot, and with a broken and contrite heart repented of all my past life of sin. With tears of sorrow I pleaded for forgiveness, and then by faith grasped the promise of everlasting life. Instantly my burden of sin was gone, and the peace of God came into my soul. The Spirit of the Lord witnessed to me that I was a child of God. My name was then recorded in the Lamb's book of life, and I was made a member of the body of Christ, the Church. There was no minister present, nor probably any Christians within several miles of the place, yet by virtue of salvation the Lord added me to the divine ecclesia. "By one Spirit" I was baptized into the one body. From that day to this I have never joined myself to any other institution. I have connected myself with no other body than that to which the Lord added me the night of my conversion. Here I firmly plant my feet upon the impregnable rock of truth, holding membership alone in the body of Christ and defy opposition.

In my last speech I presented a logical argument to prove that the church which I represent is identical with the New Testament Church in membership. I gave a number of Scriptures to support this. Among these is 1 Cor. 12:18. On this text Elder Kesler remarked that the "body" here referred to is not the church, but the human physical body. To this I reply: A careful reading of the entire chapter should convince any intelligent mind that Paul only uses the human body as a figure to illustrate the church. The central thought in the mind of the inspired writer was to show us the beautiful organization of the church which is so wonderfully accomplished through the agency of the Holy Spirit. And just as truly as God has set the members in our physical body He sets the members , every one of them, in His spiritual body, the church. And to prove beyond question that it is the church that is referred to, I call attention to verse 28: "And God hath set some in the church," etc. It follows then that not a single soul can be inducted into the body of Christ by any rite or ceremony administered by one man upon another. Right here is where Elder Kesler is out of line with the New Testament teaching. Again, I gave 1 Cor. 12:13 to prove that in adding members to the church, God accomplishes this through the agency of the Holy Spirit. "BY ONE SPIRIT are we all baptized into one body." On this point Elder Kesler inquires: "Will Mr. Riggle please tell us into what element the Spirit baptizes people?" The answer is found in the text itself: "INTO ONE BODY." This one body is identical with Christ. So it is the Spirit that baptizes people into Christ, and not the preacher by an external ceremony, as Elder Kesler teaches and practices. You see his practice stands in square contradiction to the Word of God. He as a man by a literal rite can immerse people into a literal element---water---but the Spirit of God alone can immerse people into Christ.

I also gave, in support of my position, Jn 10:9, and Acts 2:47, which texts clearly prove that the Lord and not the preacher adds the members to the church. It is through Christ we enter the sacred fold. By this argument I clearly establish the fact that in church membership we stand identical with the New Testament teaching. During my entire ministry of more than twenty-two years, I have never once offered to open the doors and take in members, because I recognize the fact that this work belongs to God alone. Allow me the indulgence of repeating a fact already stated. Salvation makes us members of the New Testament Church, but it makes no one a member of Elder Kesler's church. Here is the difference between us.

But what is his reply to all this? "D. S. Warner built a church in 1877, and Elder Riggle belongs to it. I deny it. His bare assumption is all the evidence he gives, except to quote from a Mormon elder. I stand before you tonight with a positive denial of this charge, and I demand my respondent to bring the proof and produce the evidence. I request him to examine all our literature, periodicals, books and tracts, published by the Church of God, or produce a verbal statement made by any authoritative minister or representative of the church I represent for a single statement that D. S. Warner built the church we represent. Brother Kesler, I ask you for the proof. Bare assumptions and unsupported statements will not go in this debate. You have met the wrong man. We demand the evidence. Produce any history if you can to prove your statements. If you cannot, you should back down like a man, and acknowledge that you misrepresented.

The only evidence my respondent gave was a quotation from Mr. F. J. Ebeling, a Mormon elder with whom I held a debate some fourteen years ago. This Mormon at that time made the charge, which I clearly disproved. But Elder Kesler in this debate goes to the Mormons for his proof. He has evidently been reading that debate quite extensively the last few days, and has his head quite filled with Mormon doctrine. Being well acquainted with the arguments in that debate, I notice a great similarity between the Mormon's talk and that of Elder Kesler. Mr. Ebeling was also given to much talk without facts to sustain his statements. Let me say once for all that I do not belong to any church founded by D. S. Warner, and without proof I kindly ask Elder Kesler to take back the statement. D. S. Warner never claimed to build a church, and I do not hold membership in any such body.

My respondent holds the same attitude toward me that Tertullus did toward the Apostle Paul. He reminds me of that orator. I read from the American Standard Version, Acts 24:5: "For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of insurrections among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ring-leader of the sect of the Nazarenes." You see Paul represented the same New Testament Church that I have the honor of representing. But Tertullus (just like Elder Kesler accuses me) accused Paul of being a ring-leader or head man of the sect of the Nazarenes. The elder says I am a leading man of the sect founded by D. S. Warner. I answer him in the same language in which Paul replied to Tertullus (verses 13, 14): "Neither can they prove the things whereof they now accuse me. But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call a sect so serve I the God of our father, believing all things which are according to the law, and which are written in the prophets." Paul denied the charge, and Tertullus could not prove it. In the same spirit and manner I deny Elder Kesler's charge and boldly state that he cannot prove the things whereof he accuses me. But, like Brother Paul, I confess that after the way which he is please to call a sect so worship I the God of our fathers.

He says that for doctrines I look to Warner, but his bare statement is all the proof he gives. I deny this. It is facts we want. Mere empty statements without proof will not be accepted here. (Here, Mr. Riggle picked up the New Testament, and holding it in his hand, said: This is the standard of doctrine and practice in the church which I represent. We appeal to it alone.)

Again, says my respondent, "the doctrine of the Church of God distinguishes it as a sect." I answer, the doctrine of the Church of God is contained in the New Testament Scriptures. This was also the doctrine of the church in primitive times. If this doctrine distinguishes the people who teach and practice it as a sect, then on this ground the primitive church would be a sect. Here his logic fails. The same truth that constituted the discipline of the church in her pristine glory is her creed and discipline today.

He read some disconnected statements from my tracts, where I state that sects, schisms and divisions among God's people are wrong and in themselves sinful. From this he tried to leave the impression that I teach that all who have been erroneously led to join these schismatic bodies are sinful, wicked and of the devil. I teach no such thing. In none of my writings can he find a statement where I so hold and teach. I think I have already made clear my position on this point: that it is not individuals we oppose, but certain systems of religion that are unscriptural. I readily grant that many honest people have been led to join these different sectarian bodies, supposing them to be the church. I further grant and teach that there are saved people who hold membership in these various bodies; and further, we most gladly extend to all such our Christian love and fellowship. But I am going to prove to you, and that shortly, that Elder Kesler does not hold this position. If he does he will deny the doctrine of his church. The fact is, he dare not acknowledge that people who belong to other churches besides his are saved. I want you to get this point, and I want to press it with all my God-given powers. Only those who hold in doctrine and practice as he does will he acknowledge as being Christians. I will give the proof of these statements in my regular line of argument. He twitted me because of what I wrote concerning sects being in their nature, evil. I will now read from a tract, "Which is the Right Church?" published by Elder Kesler's publishing house, page 1: "Heresies (sects), which is classed among the blackest of crimes, ascribed to fallen humanity, and it is enumerated by the apostles among the works of the flesh." Gal. 5:20. You see he uses the same language against sects that will be found in my writings. There is an old adage, "People who live in glass houses should not throw stones."

My respondent says that I admitted that he represents two churches. The note will show that my statement was this: : If Elder Kesler is truly converted, he holds membership in the New Testament Church; and by the rite of triune baptism he is a member of another body---the Brethren Sect." You will notice I preface this statement with an "IF".

In his closing speech last night he handed me a number of questions. I presume he thought he would divert my attention from my general line of argument. This is a trick commonly known to debaters. I don't purpose to be thus turned aside from the course I have laid out to pursue. I am not ready to be trapped at his pleasure. He has tackled the wrong man for that. I will continue my line of arguments without his dictation. I carefully read the questions and find that a number of them are irrelevant to the subject in debate. Some of them have been answered in the arguments already presented, and those that have not been answered that are worth answering I promise to clearly answer in my regular line of thought as I proceed.

Last night in my closing address I was presenting my ninth argument that the Church of the New Testament is made up of only such as are saved, while that of my respondent is a hospital for sinners, and that there are sinners in it, as they admit in their writings. I want to make clear the difference between us. He accuses me of coming over on the negative side, but one of the rules of this debate requires me to state the distinct points of doctrine and practice in which I differ from that of my respondent. This is exactly what I am doing. The evidences are so weighty against his position that my manner of procedure are greatly troubling him. (Here Mr. Riggle with a pointer referred to the chart.) You see there is no identity between the two churches over which this debate is held. The one is divine, the other human. The one was built by Christ, the other by men. This in Jerusalem, and the other in Germany. This is the body of Christ, and the other cannot be. The body of Christ was in the earth more than a thousand years before this new sect arose. God through the Spirit takes members into the church, while the preacher by the external rite of triune baptism takes them into the Brethren sect. Of the former, Christ is the door. "I AM THE DOOR." Of the other, triune immersion is the door. In the former, all members have equal privileges, have a right to participate in all the ordinances of the Lord's house to which they belong. In the other, they hold closed communion, a strictly sectarian observance, and debar from the Lord's table all who do not perfectly agree with them in doctrine and practice. In this I clearly establish the fact that the church which I represent is Scriptural, while the body my respondent represents is unscriptural.

Tenth. My tenth argument is based on the fact that Christ is the head of but one body. Col 1:18: "And he is the head of the body, the church." Not the head of different bodies and distinct churches, but the head of one body. Again I call attention to Rom. 12:4, 5: "For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office; so we being many, are one body in Christ, and everyone members one of another." I will next read Eph. 4:4: "There is one body, and one spirit. One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all." To emphasize this truth, I will still read another text, 1 Cor. 12:12-13: "For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized INTO ON BODY * * * and have been all made to drink into one Spirit." Again, in Col 3:15, it is said that we are "called into one body." Note well this language: There is but ONE BODY; that is, there is but one true church. There is no appeal from the fact. Elder Kesler can never refute it.

From the above Scriptures I deduct this logical conclusion: Since Christ is the head of this one body (and one head supposes but one body), he is the living head of His church. The Church of the Brethren not being this body, Christ is not its head. The Brethren are separated into three bodies: Old Order Brethren, Conservative Brethren and Progressive Brethren. Three bodies of Brethren, and each distinct from the other. How different this sounds from the Scriptures which teach but one body. No wonder Elder Kesler objects to me drawing a line of contrast so close between the Lord's church and his. No wonder he tries to offset my logical and unanswerable arguments by saying "He has come over on the negative side of the question."

Before I leave this argument, I want to drop a few additional thoughts on membership. From their own teaching Elder Kesler's church cannot admit a single individual as a church member who has not received trine immersion. This is strictly sectarian and very narrow. I believe that there have been multitudes of people saved, some who receive one immersion, others who were sprinkled, and still others who received the rite of pouring, and some who were never baptized in water at all. While I do not wish for a moment to reflect upon the rite of Christian baptism, for I firmly believe in its observance in strict obedience to the New Testament teaching, yet I am sure it is taking a very narrow view of things to confine the salvation of the entire world to an external rite administered in a certain manner.

Eleventh. The New Testament Church is an organic structure, and that without man-organized sects.

As I have already stated, it is the most perfect and the only strictly Scriptural organization in the world today. Webster defines the word organize "to for in due order, to furnish with organs." The church as Christ left it perfectly fulfills this requirement and definition. The visible church on earth is largely composed of local congregations or assemblies. Wherever, under the ministry of the gospel, a number of people are saved, in obedience to the New Testament they assemble for worship. These constitute local assemblies. They are not distinct bodies under separate faiths, but just local congregations holding membership in the one universal church. In the New Testament these local bodies are termed "churches of God."

From among these believers the Lord, by His Spirit, calls and qualifies certain ones to fill the offices of elders and overseers, as we read in Acts 20:28: "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the Church of God which He hath purchased with His own blood." The term overseer or elder is generally used in the new Testament in an official sense, and covers the entire ministry. This ministry is classified in Eph. 4:11-12 as follows: "And he gave some, apostles; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ." The work of these ministers is to feed to the Church of God her spiritual food, or as Paul terms it, "to minister in spiritual things." Peter thus speaks of their work: "Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof." I will here again call attention to the fact as it properly comes under this argument, that there is another class of officers in the church whose work is to look after and minister in the temporal affairs of the congregation. These are called deacons. They should be men also filled with the Holy Ghost. Now these are ordained by the laying on of hands, just as the New Testament teaches, and a public recognition of their divine call and work is made. This is done by the presbytery or ministry. Every local body is organized by divine and Scriptural authority. There is no electing or voting into office as done in Elder Kesler's church.

Twelfth. The New Testament Church is visible. My respondent asks, "Does the rite which makes you a member of the invisible phase of the church also make you a member of the visible phase?" Certainly. There is but one church. This theology which teaches two churches, the one visible and the other invisible, the one militant and the other triumphant, is not Scriptural. The position Elder Kesler occupies on this point you will find expressed in Elder Kurtz's book, page 33. Remember Elder Kurz is a writer in the Church of the Brethren. "We must become clear on the difference between the visible and invisible churches." Now then, the following facts positively refute their contention: (1) The glorious temple---church---built by the invisible God is a visible church. Jesus declared it to be "the light of the world, a city set on a hill which cannot be hid." (2) It is visible in its membership. This is true both individually and collectively. In the individual life of every saved person, the fruits of righteousness are visibly manifest before the world. This is true both at home and abroad. And that which is true of every Christian is also true of the collective body of saints. (3) It is visible in its worship---preaching, praying, singing, praise, and testimony. (4) Visible in its work---laboring to save sinners. (5) Visible in its officers and organization. (6) Visible in the administration of its discipline. Right here I want to make the point that all this was true before modern sects arose. The fact is, sects have rendered this beautiful church invisible to the eyes of the people. Its body of union, which is the love of Christ, while in itself invisible is made manifest in the practical lives of true Christians.

Thirteenth. The New Testament Church is the Bride, the Lamb's wife. The Church of the Brethren which Elder Kesler is here to defend is not this bride. Christ had a bride more than sixteen centuries before the German Baptist sect arose. In all these arguments I have followed closely the rules of this discussion, and presented clearly the distinction between the church I represent and his. Let the truth decide which is right. There is positively no identity between the two bodies.

(Time.)

_______________

Elder Kesler's Third Speech
Thursday Evening, September 16

Gentleman, Moderators, Brethren and Friends:-- I arise before you this evening to take, I was about to say, the unpleasant task of having to take the negative side of the great speech to which you have just listened. Were it not for the fact, my dear friends, that it is so full of error I would hesitate doing the thing, but I am glad that I am here to appear before you in defense of what I believe to be the truth, and that the position that my worthy opponent is taking in this proposition is wrong according to the Scriptures of eternal truth. One of our rules says we are to discuss the points upon which we differ. My worthy opponent has been acquainted with our people for a number of years, and I apprehend he knew the difference in out teaching along some of the great questions that have been discussed in this discussion, and while he is the second one of his people I have ever met, of course, it is difficult for me to know just what his teachings were or are. A great deal of his teaching so far in this discussion has been along lines that there is a very small shade of difference, if any. It is a position that all Christian people will accept and endorse with but few exception, and it seems to me my worth opponent is consuming time that is hardly profitable in this respect. I can only take this position that when I come to those points on which we are agreed, I have the pleasure of saying we are agreed, and where there is an issue, I will be ready to take it up. I believe right now will be as good a time as any for the questions I asked him. I handed these questions to be handed back to me this evening.

1. By what name, and by what body of Christians, were God's people known 100 A. D. to 1877 A. D.?

You see, he has returned these questions without a single one answered on the sheet, and this one he hasn't attempted to answer, and I doubt very much if he will answer it during this discussion. I will not state just now why I wanted him to answer it, but this one question bears directly upon the issue. The church that Jesus Christ built never ceased to exist, and he is a member of that body, but for the life of him he is absolutely unable to find that institution from the year 100 A. D. down to the time of D. S. Warner. He can't find it. I ask again,

2. Can God's true church exist and wear any other than a Bible name?

Isn't that a fair question in this discussion? It seems to me it is. I believe in justice to this question he ought to come out frankly and squarely and say yes or no.

3. (a) If all sects call themselves the Church of God, will that save them?

I want to know how much importance they attach to the name he possesses. I want to know if merely calling themselves by the name he represents, a name that is not a Scriptural name, will save him? If he will prove that to you and to me, we will turn around and call ourselves the Church of God. If I call myself the Church of God and that will save me through all time and eternity, I believe you and every man under the sun would take that name. But he doesn't dare to prove it.

(b) Or if they organize themselves, will that damn them? If God's people see fit to organize themselves for general church work will that damn them? If necessary to organize the whole body, why not organize the local congregations so they can do better work? I believe he ought to answer that question. It will bear directly on the vital question before us.

4. If necessary to organize the whole body, why not the smaller divisions of it?

I believe he ought to answer this question. He tells you and me that he represents no local body. I find from a letterhead that he sends me that he's preaching for some congregations at Akron and different places, and he says that congregations are churches, and he is not representing any church. I would like to know what use those people have for him if he is not representing them before the world.

5. If man, aided by the Spirit, cannot build a spiritual institution with visible literal material, how can the Spirit, unaided by man, build a literal institution with spiritual material?

I believe he ought to come up here and answer these questions. I say that they are bearing directly upon the issues before us, but he simply and frankly admits that he cannot, or dare not, answer them.

6. By what name do you designate the various bodies of religious people that differ from the Church of God?

I wish he would come up hare and tell us just what he calls you. I want him to tell you other churches in this congregation what he calls you. I showed you last night he calls you and me, and all the people that differ from him, sects, and then he tells us that sects belong to the devil. I wish he would tell us plainly in this discussion. That is what makes it unpleasant because I have to take the affirmative question. He will not come out and state himself squarely. I wish he would come out and preach just like he preaches to a congregation when Elder Kesler is not before him.

7. When did the various sects of the world "cut off" from the Church of God?

I ask him when all the sects separated from the "Church of God."

8. Since the doctrines held by them distinguish others as "sects," why do not the doctrines of the Church of God distinguish it as a sect?

I showed you from Mr. Warner, the father of his church, and Webster that the doctrines held by a religious body distinguish them as sects, and then he comes up here and tells you that none of you belongs to the church tonight, that there are none of you that has the doctrine of the word of God in your system.

9. (a) Give one verse that says the alien sinner is begotten by the Spirit.

I believe he ought to answer that. That is a vital question in this discussion tonight. I want him to tell us whether the Spirit does that thing, or whether some other agency does. I ask him again to tell us. I would like to have him get up here and tell us publicly.

(b) Quickened into spiritual life by the Spirit?

10. How do alien sinners get possession of the indwelling Spirit?

I believe he ought to tell us how you get the Spirit to dwell in your hearts and recognize you as the children of God. He ought to answer these questions, because they bear directly upon the issues before us, but I apprehend that he will probably not answer them.

11.(a) On what condition do alien sinners get into the church? We will have something that will be developed later on this point.

(b) Into Christ.

12. Define heart, and tell how the Spirit operates on it.

He tells us that the operations of the Spirit of God is a wonderful thing, and now I wish he would come up and tell us just like he was preaching, what the heart is, and how the Spirit operates on it. I believe he ought to make it plain just how this thing is done so sinners can be edified, encouraged and instructed in the way of salvation.

13. Define regeneration, and new birth, and tell how each is effected.

I believe, while he is on the affirmative of this proposition, he should answer this question.

14. (a) Does the act that inducts into the invisible phase of the church also induct into the visible phase of it?

We will have something of that later on. He says I have not denied his position. I have not denied the teaching of the Scripture that he brought. He says I don't practice what I believe. Well, I thought he was a pretty wise man, but he is a little wiser than I thought he was. I wonder if he would accept my statement if I would tell him he doesn't practice what he believes. Well, I would ask why does he come here to represent the church built by D. S. Warner and Warner set up? I whish he would tell us where that church began. Our people are not ashamed to come up publicly and boldly and let the world know how our church started, but here is a people, because of the infancy of the church, because it goes right through the Winerennerian church, they are simply ashamed to get up here and tell us people how the thing started in modern times. I want to ask Brother Riggle where his church was before 1877, and what people represented that church. We hear about the Baptist Church , the Methodist Church, and other churches back through Civil and Revolutionary wars, but does any one know of any Church of God back in those times? I want him to tell us which of us people represented that Church of God. And he gets up here and denies that Mr. Warner started that church. In the Ebeling-Riggle debate, where Mr. Ebeling made that chart just like I did, he just simply made an assertion and denied the statement. I believe he ought to be honest enough and tell when the church came into the light. If she was in the darkness all these years and afterward found the light, I would like to have him tell us when she came out of the darkness, and if Mr. Warner did not bring her out. I want him to tell us when they "cast off the sects," and if it wasn't Daniel Warner that started it I will stand corrected.

1 Cor. 12:18: "But now hath God set the members every one in the body, as it hath pleased Him." Paul had the natural body in mind. Isn't it plain, just as plain as daylight, that it is the natural body? He sets the members in the physical body as it pleaseth Him. Verse 27: "Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular." But he doesn't say that God sets you into the body of the church. He sets the members in a natural body, and Paul states that clearly in the 18th verse. Twenty-eighth verse: "And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues." "By one Spirit are we all baptized into one body." 1 Cor. 12:13. Right here is where he baptized them into the body." Does he mean to say the Sprit immersed them into the body? "I am the door." "The Lord added to the church." Acts 2:47. "Salvation makes us members of the Church of God, but salvation does not make us members of the Church of the Brethren." I would like to ask him in the name of intelligence how he knows. He denies that Warner built the Church of God and asks for proof from any writer, from any speaker, or from any member of the Church of God that Daniel Warner built the church. They are not frank like our people and acknowledge the foundation of their church. I would like to know who started this present organization if Daniel Warner was not the beginner or starter of it. I wish he would show us who the starter of it is. If he will tell us here just the time, the place, and when and where they came out of the darkness of the sects, I will stand corrected.

"My argument" is similar to that of the Mormon. That is what hurts him so bad. I am glad to know that I got something from that Mormon. The Mormon was a little too sharp for him, and that is what hurts him. It is hurting all this time. In Acts 24:5 he speaks of a pestilent fellow. I reminded him of that fellow---a pestilent fellow. I believe I have been about as quiet as he was. I "charge him as being a ringleader of the sect, and that is a most horrid and awful thing for me to get up and charge him with being the ringleader of a sect." Hasn't he been charging me with that all the time? Why, I proved to you last night in that argument that his was a sect, but it is an awful thing for me to get up and say he is a ringleader of a sect. If I am saved I belong to the Church of God. I am saved, Brother Riggle, now will you acknowledge that I represent the Church of God? I want to know if he admits this now. He says preachers take the members into the Church of the Brethren. I wonder how he knows that. We have our formal way just as other churches do. You become members of his sect just like you do any other sect. Other churches have their formal way of recognizing the members, and I am inclined to believe he has some form or way of receiving members, and if he does, he is just like all the rest of us so far as that matter is concerned.

He says the Church of the Brethren is divided into three parts. I don't know of but one Church of the Brethren. I say that his position takes in all whom he denounces as sects. He got up and reached his arms and ready to take in every body of religious people in the world and take all into his communion and invite them to come over and commune with him, and he will get up on the next Sabbath day or when he writes a tract, he will call you all sects and say that sects belong to the devil, and invite devils to come and commune with him.

I had started on my fourth argument that Jesus is not the builder of the church that Elder Riggle represents. The Lord adds the members, but I just make this statement that God never added anyone to His church except through human agency. There is an issue. He just about ran out, now he will have something if he wants to take up an issue. If God is going to save the people without Elder Riggle's work and without the gospel of Jesus Christ, if God is going to add the members without human instrumentality and agency, why is Brother Riggle going out over the country preaching? Is it merely for a pastime? Last night he gave us an illustration of a poor heathen fellow who happened to get hold of a volume called the Bible. He repented of his sins and prayer to the Lord, and the Lord Jesus Christ forgave him and added him to the Church of Christ. If that be true, I believe that Elder Riggle would do better to spend his time publishing Bibles and sending them out. I believe the Bible will do the work better than he is doing it. God cannot add men to His church without human agency. Why are not the heathen added if this be the way? If God adds them to His church without human agency or instrumentality, why haven't they been added long ago? Because of the fact that the gospel of Christ, which is the power of God unto salvation, has not been carried to them. That is why God has to have the instrumentality of His people so we can work together with Him. I believe with all my heart and soul that I am working for the salvation of souls, and God can save men through my efforts, and as Paul says that it is God that "worketh in you both to will and to do of your good pleasure." God works through His people and His church and it takes human instrumentality to save the people. If it were not so I would be home tonight with my family. In John the Baptist's time, how did he save them in that day? John baptized with the baptism of repentance. John did "baptize in the wilderness and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sin." John "gave knowledge of salvation to the people by the remission of their sins." John couldn't forgive sin any more than you or I can. Peter said, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." God adds His people to the church, but He does it through human instrumentality and agency. If he accepts that, we are together, and if not, there is an issue. Does the Spirit baptize, take men and women into the visible body? In the Ebeling-Riggle debate, page 344: "Now the Church of God is composed of men and women, and we are all baptized into the one body." I want to know if the Spirit of God baptizes physical men and women into the body whether the Spirit does that work? And do these men and women literally get into the church? If so, how do they get in? In God's church he admits that we can be saved among the sects. He says they are of the devil, and yet he admits that we can get saved in the sects, in the sects which he calls the devil's church.

(Time.)

_______________

Elder Riggle's Fourth Speech
Thursday Evening, September 16

Mr. chairman, Brother Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen:---I have listened very attentively to the last address, and it has not perturbed me in the least. I occupy a position in this debate that cannot be shaken, and I am sure it is useless for Elder Kesler to undertake it. I want to impress upon all your minds that mere bluff and bluster will not go in this debate. It is facts that the people want. Thus far I have brought in defense of my position, line upon line, precept upon precept, and text after text. Such a bulwark of truth makes it difficult for any man to attack. He again enlarges on the matter of the questions that he handed me. As I told you, a number of them have no bearing on the point at issue, about half of them have already been answered in my regular line of argument, while the remaining ones will be fully covered before the close of this discussion. But right here let me ask: What authority has he to write out a long list of questions to suit his own pleasing, and then demand me to answer them? I would have as much right to do the same with him. I presume this congregation knows that I am on the affirmative of this question, and it is his place to reply to my arguments if he can.

Again, he brings us the subject of Warner building the church. While it is a repetition, I suppose I will have to state again that I hold no membership in a church founded or built by D. S. Warner. I deny that D. S. Warner ever claimed to build a church. He presses the point as to where the church has been all down through the ages. I have already stated that, but to suit him I will have to state it again. In the beginning of the Christian era it was the one divine church in unity, purity and power. During the great apostasy in a scattered condition throughout the various sects. In this evening time in a gathered condition, that is, gathered back into the same unity, faith, doctrine and practice, of primitive times. This is the church in the evening light, and I am happy to say that I am taking part in this great work.

1 Cor. 12:18 seems to make him lots of trouble. Again he has spent a considerable time on that text. In Eph. 5:25-32 is a parallel figure. Paul here uses the husband and wife to show the relation existing between Christ and His church. In doing so, however, he enlarges on the husband's and wife's relations and then makes the application: "This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church." Just so, in 1 Cor. 12...Paul was not there giving a lesson on Physiology, a mere delineation of the defferent members of our physical body, but his subject was spiritual gifts as distributed and exercised in the church. He teaches how beautifully, by the Holy Spirit, this spiritual body is organized, and to impress his point he uses the human body as an illustration. I hope I will not have to refer to this again. The 18th verse simply teaches that just as truly as God sets the physical members in our bodies, so in the body of Christ, the church, He also sets the members, EVERY ONE OF THEM, as it pleaseth Him.

Again, he asks, "How does Elder Riggle know that salvation does not make one a member of the Church of the Brethren?" I answer: If this were true, then all Christians would be members of the Elder's church; but multitudes of people have held membership in the Christian church who never even heard of this new sect the Elder is here representing.

He admits that he got much of his ammunition from the Mormon preacher. A frank admission indeed. Then he goes to the Mormons for his proof in this debate. His speeches do sound much like the speeches Elder Ebeling, the Mormon Elder, delivered. I am willing to let that rest however, and let the congregation judge as to the results.

He inquires: "How does elder Riggle know that the preacher takes the members into the Church of the Brethren?" I answer, their own written works say so. This point I will bring out clear further along.

Again, he frequently refers to "sects as of the devil," and applies this language to me; but in his bringing that up, he is endeavoring to leave the impression upon the public minds that in my writing I renounce everybody as of the devil who hold membership in sect bodies. In this he clearly misrepresents. By reading from one of their tracts, you remember I made the point that they also teach that heresy or sectism is an awful sin. But here is the point: I act like I believe it by renouncing all sects and standing clear of them, whereas Elder Kesler knows that they are wrong, and then still continues in them and tries to uphold one. I want everybody to know that I do teach that sects, schisms or division that rend the sacred body of Christ into various factions are in themselves wrong, and condemned in the New Testament Scriptures in the very strongest terms. But many good people through wrong teaching have been led to join these various bodies. They have done so with the purest and best motives, because they were so taught. These factional bodies have been held up before the people as the church, something necessary for all to join. This is how it has come about that the people of God became scattered into various sects. Now then, it is not these good people that we oppose, God forbid, but the institutions that are unscriptural into which they have been led. We urge all honest souls to renounce and come out of such institutions and abide only in the church.

Again, my respondent enlarges on God working through human instrumentality in bringing people into the church. I have already endeavored to make this clear to your minds. It is through the preaching of the gospel that people are saved. The apostle informs us "that it hath pleased God, through the foolishness of preaching, to save them that believe." But the point of difference between the Elder and myself is right here. I believe that man's part of the work is to preach the gospel and point out to men the way of salvation. When people accept such preaching and believe the gospel, through repentance and faith, they have access into the church or kingdom of Jesus Christ. Whereas Elder Kesler teaches that before such can be saved and added to the church they must first pass through the rite of triune baptism. This is what he means by human instrumentality. He places man as a sort of mediator, or one who stands between man's salvation and God. In other words, until the minister administers the rite of triune baptism he will not admit him as being in the kingdom or saved. You see according to his position no one can be saved until baptized by the preacher. O the inconsistency of such teaching. It makes the salvation of a lost world dependent upon a ceremonial rite administered by man. This explains why they hold closed communion. These people connect water with salvation. The fact is they teach that there is no other way of admittance into the kingdom, no other way to be saved; and always remember that when they mention baptism, they mean trine immersion. Having now noticed all worth mentioning in my friend's remarks, I will proceed with my regular arguments.

Fourteenth. Being the living head of His Church, Christ is its law-giver, and the government rests upon His shoulder.

He has given to the church an infallible creed and discipline that needs no changes, revisions, subtractions from, or additions to, throughout all ages. I hold a copy of this in my hand---The New Testament. Anything less than this is too little, and anything more than this is too large. There is not a creed or discipline on record that equals the New Testament. It is the law that the Lord has given to govern His church, and we need no other. But the Church of the Brethren hold annual conferences, pass resolutions, and enact laws and rules for their church to observe, and then enforce them as their creed and discipline. I know they claim to have no rules but the Bible, but their claim is not well sustained. Facts contradict this claim. I will now read some of the rules they passed during their last great conference held at Hershey, Pennsylvania. I read from the Gospel Messenger, July 24, 1915: "That the brethren wear plain clothing. That the coat with a standing collar be worn, especially by the ministers and deacons. That the brethren wear their hair and beard in a plain and sanitary manner. That the mustache alone is forbidden. That plain bonnets and hoods be the headdress, and the hair be worn in a becoming Christian manner. (This last rule applies to the women.) That the veil be worn in time of prayer and prophesying. The plain cap is regarded as meeting the requirements of Scriptural teaching on the subject. That no brother be installed into office as a minister or deacon who will not pledge himself to observe and teach the order of dress. That no brother or sister serve as a delegate to District or Annual Meeting, nor be appointed on committees to enforce discipline, who does not observe the order of dress. That those who do not fully conform to the methods herein set forth * * * be dealt with in love and forbearance and that every effort has been made, they, in an arbitrary spirit, refuse to conform to said methods * * * they may be dealt with as disorderly members."

I have quoted at length to show you that while they claim no discipline but the Bible, facts prove directly the opposite. Here are a number of rules passed by the last general conference of the Brethren Church which cannot be found in the Bible. Among these mentioned are the following: The brethren must wear a coat with a standing collar. Their hair must be parted in the middle, for this is what they mean by plain. The mustache alone is forbidden, and the sisters must wear bonnets and hoods for headdress. No one can serve as a delegate to a District or Annual Meeting who does not observe this order of dress. Please note the fact that this conference binds these rules upon the members of their church with the same binding power which Rome exercises over her subjects. "All who do not conform" to the above mentioned things, and refuse to do so, shall be dealt with "as disorderly members." Whoever read in the New Testament of the apostles or primitive ministers enforcing such man-made rules upon the church? This is adding to the Word of God and is forbidden. Whoever read of a principle of truth contained in the gospel that would forbid the wearing of a mustache, or required all the brethren to wear coats with standing collars? Does your salvation and mine, or our church membership depend on the collar of a coat, whether it stands up or lays down, whether the sisters wear bonnets, hats or hoods? All such rules of bondage enacted by conferences and enforced upon the members with the threat that if they disobey they will be dealt with as disorderly members, belong to the dark ages of sectish superstition, and are the product of earth-bound creeds. Such is Elder Kesler's position, the teaching and practice of the church he represents.

Again. In the Gospel Messenger, August 14, 1915 issue, will be found something concerning a purposed book of doctrines. It seems quite a number of ministers of the Brethren Church favored the publication of such a book. In the article for which I shall read, Elder D. L. Miller, a leading minister of the church, opposes the idea. Among the reasons he gives are the following: "If such a book had been authorized years ago, and grown into a creed, establishing the double mode of foot washing, directing that sisters should not break the bread of communion, that the kiss of peace should not be omitted between the supper and the communion, that no one should be received into the church unless baptized by an authorized administrator of our own church,---would we have had the freedom to change these practices for the better as we have? We might still have the obsolete church name "German Baptist Brethren" and many other practices that were not of the best. * * * The fact that conference changes her decision and the practice of the church from time to time." From this it will be seen that their conferences change the decisions and practices of their church from time to time. Who knows, then, what the doctrine and practice of the Church of the Brethren will be a few years in the future. You see instead of basing their practice on the Word of God, they depend upon the conference decisions, and these, Elder Miller tells us, are ever changing. How different with the Church of God. Its book of discipline---the New Testament---needs no revision and never changes. Throughout perpetual ages it is ever the same. The teaching and practice of the primitive Christians, as contained in the Word of God, is the same teaching and practice that we hold and observe today. Hence, we need to hold no conferences to enact laws and rules to govern the church. Such legislation is wholly unnecessary. The Scriptures contain all things necessary for doctrine and discipline. The Apostle makes this clear in 2 Tim. 3:16, 17. My respondent has had much to say about the name or title of the church. I promised to take that up in its regular order and place. I believe I have quite fully covered the field as to the origin of the church.

Fifteenth. The church which I represent is identical in name or title with the Church of the New Testament.

I will first present the teaching of the Church of the Brethren on this point of the name as found in "The New Testament Doctrines," by Elder J. H. Moore, page 96. "But, generally speaking, they do not seem to have adopted any specific name." "It would appear they simply left the name question to take care of itself." Here you will observe that Elder Moore claims that the New Testament Church has no name. Whoever heard of a church or organization without a name? One of the first things in the organization of an institution is the giving to it of an appropriate name. The name is one of the most important things in the constitution of any organization, and I boldly declare that this is true with respect to the New Testament Church. I will now call attention to 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."

In this we have a clear prediction of the establishment of the New Testament Church in which the Gentiles were to hold membership. Of it the prophet said, "Thou shalt be called by a new name." So Elder Moore's teaching is utterly refuted. The Christian church has a name. And this name was not some title that man was pleased to give her, but she was named "by the mouth of the Lord." Here again, the Bible crosses the teaching of our Dunkard friends. Again, Dan. 9:19: "Thy city and thy people are called by thy name." I will now read an argument on the name from my own book, "The Christian Church; its Rise and Progress." My respondent cannot object to me reading from my own writings.

These Scriptures were fulfilled when the Lord Jesus said, "I have manifested thy name unto the man which thou gavest me out of the world." "While I was with them in the world, I kept them in they name." Jn 17:6, 12.

While men foolishly affirm that there is nothing in a name, the Lord God attaches importance enough to the naming of His church to constitute it a matter of prophecy. He excluded all men's attempts at naming it by preannouncing that it should be "named by the mouth of the Lord." There are many reasons why the naming of the church is a matter of vital importance. One object, however, is sufficient to speak of here. Thus prayed the Man of Sorrows, "Holy Father, keep them in thy name which thou has given me that they may be one, even as we are." Verse 11 New Version. The word rendered "through" in the common Version is en in the Greek, and is the same word that is regularly translated in throughout the New Testament. Of the twelve translations that are before me all except the common Version render it, "Keep in they name." Christ fulfilled the prophecy by manifesting the name of God to be the basis of the church title, and prayed the Father to keep the disciples in His name, that they might be one, as He and the Father are one. Therefore, even in the name, perfect unity is provided for. The entire church is to be kept in the one name, as a means of its perfect oneness.

Though other names are not the chief cause of divisions, but more generally have come into use because the divisions have been fermented by some factious spirit or false doctrine, yet, nevertheless, party names have contributed their share to the making of sects. To say that rival names do not help to divide and to perpetuate division is to charge Christ with nonsense; for why did He pray the Father to keep the disciples in His name, in order that they should be one, if they would have been one just the same under various names? In other words, if oneness in name is not essential to oneness in faith, life and spirit, why did the Saviour pray for the former as a condition of the latter? In giving the one name for the church to be known by, He provides for her unity and condemns all division.

"Keep them in thy name." The holy apostles held this prayer of their Lord in profound respect. Let us see how they understood and carried it out. "Feed the Church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood." Acts 20:28. "The Church of God which is at Corinth." 1 Cor. 1:2 and 2 Cor. 1:1 "Give none offense, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the Church of God." 1 Cor. 10:32. "We have no such custom, neither the Churches of God." 1 Cor 11:16. "Despise ye the Church of God?" 1 Cor. 15:9. "Beyond measure I persecuted the Church of God, and wasted it." Gal. 1:13. "For ye, brethren, became followers of the Churches of God which in Judea are in Christ Jesus." 1 Thess. 2:14. "We ourselves glory in you in the churches of God." 2 Thess. 1:4. "If a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the Church of God?" 1 Tim 3:15. "That thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the Church of the Living God." 1 Tim 3:15.

The word "church" frequently occurs without the qualifying part of the name; because there being only one church, that is, of God, it was not necessary to designate it every time by its full name. But that men should not give some appellation of their own to the divine community, we find it twelve times denominated "the Church of God," according to the prayer of the Saviour that it should be kept in the name of God the Father. And lest men should ascribe this heavenly Jerusalem to some earthly god, it is once qualified in full---"The Church of the Living God." This excludes all dead fraternities of the dead gods of the nations.

The name chosen by divine wisdom beautifully acknowledges the various relations of the Church of God. To her it is said, "Thy maker is thy husband." Is it not proper and right that the heavenly bride should honor her husband by assuming his name? Again, the church is the family of God; she therefore naturally inherits the name of the Father. Because of both these relations, to assume any other name is to insult the jealous God, who will not give His glory to another. "For this cause, " says the apostle, "I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; of (from) whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named." Eph. 3:14, 15. We have seen that the name was given by the mouth of the Lord Jesus, but was derived from the Father. This latter fact is clearly seen in the above passage when correctly rendered; for the Greek preposition ez is defined the same as ek, and signifies from, out of. Hence it expresses the source of derivation of the name. It is rendered "from" in the Emphatic Diaglott: "For this cause I bend my knees to the Father, from whom the whole family in the heavens and on earth is named." Thus also seven out of the twelve versions render it. We should also observe that this title, "The Church of God," acknowledges God as its founder, builder and owner. It, therefore, not only lays an important foundation for the unity of all believers under the one and only Scriptural church cognomen, but also honors God as its author and possessor. Is There, then, no difference, in a name? Would a title that does not indicate whether the church originated from, and belongs to, God man or the devil, do equal honor to God with that which ascribes it wholly to Him?

The glorious institution that Jesus founded is a complete organization. Now, nothing could well take on regular organic form without designating its name. Therefore about the first clause of every constitution of earthly organizations, reads somewhat as follows: "This society (corporation or joint stock company, etc.) shall be known by the name of," etc. So when Jesus, the Son of God, founded His heavenly Jerusalem on earth, He put on record that this holy community should be kept in the name of the Father, and the apostles were inspired to word the name thus: "The ekklesia of God." In this one name her oneness is to be maintained. Whosoever, therefore, imposes or assumes any other church title is not only guilty of disobeying the earnest desire of Christ, but also guilty of creating or partaking of the enormous sin of schism. This is a matter of no small weight in the sight of God.

Elder Kesler has frequently made the statement that the Scriptural title, the Church of God, is no name, but I have read twelve positive texts that declare this to be the title of the church. As my time has not yet expired, I wish to impress a few additional thoughts already introduced to this subject of the name. My respondent referred to my daughter as the daughter of H. M. Riggle, and by this tried to convey the idea that the Bible title Church of God is not its name, but merely an expression signifying to whom it belongs. I fail to see the analogy. There are other Riggles besides my daughter, a number in the same family, besides a large relationship that numbers into the thousands. If my daughter was the only Riggle, then the daughter of H. M. Riggle would be sufficient, but to distinguish her from the many others of the same name it was necessary to call her by a given name, Zelda. Not so with the New Testament Church. There is but one. Of her, Christ said, "My dove, my undefiled, is but one. She is the only one of her Mother." Therefore, the one title---Church of God---is very appropriately her only Scriptural name.

Since we are the sons of God and He has said, "I will be a Father unto you," how appropriate is Paul's language in Eph. 3:14, 15 where he says that the whole family in heaven and earth is named from or after the Father. My opponent would have you believe that there is nothing in a name, but I appeal to the better judgment of the intelligent audience on this important point. When a woman enters the sacred bonds of wedlock, she drops her maiden name for that of her husband. After this, she is called by his name. Any true wife who desires to honor and respect her husband will bear his name. This is also true of Christ and the church. "Thy people shall be called by thy name," said the prophet. To honor Christ, our husband, the church must bear His name. To do otherwise is to dishonor the great head of the church. In Rom. 16 we read of the churches of Christ, and in Heb. 12 of the church of the first born. But Christ is God, "God manifest in the flesh." In Heb. 1:8 it is said, "Unto the Son He saith, Thy throne, O God , is forever and ever." Since Christ is God, and the church is His bride, her name can be none other than the Church of God. As individuals, and sometimes in a collective sense, God's people are called Christians, disciples, saints, brethren, friends, pilgrims, etc., yet as a church they are always called the Church of God. Now, to confirm my position, I will read from the tract entitled "Which is the Right Church," edited and published by the Brethren General Mission Board, Elgin, IL. And by the way, this is the publishing house of Elder Kesler's church. "We now inquire after the name of this sect or church." "So in regard to this old sect; we learn from their creed (the holy Scriptures) that they were collectively called the Church of God." "Individually, they were called Saints, Disciples of Christ, Brethren, Christians." But call them Dunkards, Campbellites, Baptists, Methodists, etc., they would be as silent as the grave. Ask one of this sect to what church he belonged, and he would say 'The Church of God.'" Good. And this is from the writings of Elder Kesler's church. The man who wrote this tract certainly differs from my respondent. Elder Kesler has been telling you that the Church of God is no name, while the above writer of his church frankly admits that this was the name in primitive times. Will he now get up and deny the teachings and writings of his own church which contradict him and sustain my position? I submit the first part of my proposition, that the church which I represent is identical with the New Testament Church in origin and in name.

(Time.)

_______________

Elder Kesler's Fourth Speech
Thursday Evening, September 16

Gentlemen, Moderators, Brethren and Friends:---I am glad to see that my worthy opponent is in such good spirits, has such zeal and energy. It makes it interesting to you people. He has promised to answer my questions. He has made very poor grades on the others I handed him. He wants to know what authority I have for asking questions. I am sorry that my worthy opponent is so reluctant to answer my questions. A man that is so intelligent, I am sorry he makes such poor grades on the questions I gave him. 1 Cor. 12:18: "But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body as it hath pleased Him." There are many such incidents that Paul used to show that there was some similarity between the natural body and the spiritual body of Christ, but in this particular instance that we are contending over, verse 18, that was the natural body and not the spiritual body or the church. He says sects do not refer to individuals. If it does not refer to individuals, it refers to the whole body which just simply shuts out all other churches, the Methodists, the Baptists, the Presbyterians, the Brethren, and every one but the one he is representing. If it does not refer to individuals there is only one thing left, and that is it refers to the whole body. It just simply cuts us all out. He would like to get me on the affirmative side. He cuts everybody out but the church he represents. Sects do not refer to individuals, but it refers to the whole body, and that is worse than if it referred to a few, so the whole body belongs to the devil. He now admits we are saved through human instrumentality, but he didn't agree until I forced him to it. I brought the Scriptures up to show you that this is so. That is our position and he doesn't make any issue here.

He referred to our annual meeting. I wish he would have read the Scriptures in that line, but it is not my business to get on the affirmative side of this. Why did he not give the Scriptures? Conference only makes rules to unify us in dealing with disorderly members. We have a perfect right to do this. He speaks of our conference changing in practice. Well, the New Testament Church changed on one point, it was on the point of circumcision. But the body my worthy opponent represents tonight does not maintain any sort of system in their government. Moore on the name. He is not debating with Brother Moore tonight. He hasn't answered my argument that I made to him last night. He doesn't have a Scriptural name. I proved it by the Bible, and I proved it by common and general uses, and he quotes about twelve Scriptures about the Church of God which doesn't imply the name, but it just simply implies God's church. I proved that the Church of God simply implies God's church, and that it doesn't apply to the name.

Now he says the Church of God means one body. The Churches of God then mean more than one body. If that is the name in apostolic time, Churches of God means a multiplied number of bodies of the Churches of God in the world. If the Church of God means the body, churches mean more than one body, and that implies a number of Churches of God in the world. he says the church is referred to quite frequently by this name. It is God's church just like he says, but when we get on our affirmative proposition, we will show you the name. He will not get up and tell us identically in the same form of speech the "daughter of Riggle" and say that is his daughter's name. Yet he wants to do it in getting a name for his church. He can't use that form of speech in any other way. He will not find any other and say that it implies a name and he wants to say that it must mean a name in order to accommodate his theory in the matter. Then he says "the wife will take the name of her husband." Christ is the husband of the church. Elder Riggle will not deny that Christ did have a number of names---Immanuel, the "bright and the morning star," etc. He should not select one of these many titles and say that is the one and the only name. He would have to show that the church has only one name. It is not my place to tell you that. I will tell you that when I get on the affirmative. I will proceed with the argument that Christ is not the builder of the church Elder Riggle represents. No man can put you out of the Church of God. Ebeling-Riggle debate, page 336, but man can put you out of Elder Riggles' church, therefore his is not the Church of God, or does he mean to say that he is powerless to use God's law as given in the 18th chapter of Matthew? If he can use that law of our Saviour and take the only New Testament law that Jesus gave so far as we have recorded to control things of this kind, then he can put members out of the body that he represents, and if he cannot do it, then he does not represent the New Testament Church, because Jesus gave that law to the church to get rid of disorderly members and those acting in a disorderly conduct. One of these positions he must take, and either one condemns him here. If he can, then his church is a sect just as much as other churches for that matter.

Again, "the Church of God is a spiritual institution"---Ebeling-Riggle debate, page 332. How literal, physical men and women can be added to a spiritual institution as he teaches it is done I can't understand. He says that the Church of God is a spiritual institution. I want to know how it is done. Since men cannot manufacture spiritual things (I am referring to his debate again) it shows that the sect that Mr. Warner built is not the Church of God.

3. Suppose the Church of God is a spiritual institution, does that prove that his is the church that Christ built more than any other church? Suppose that the church that Christ built is a spiritual institution, does that prove that it is his church any more than mine? Practically every position and every argument that he has presented last night and tonight is proving just as much for me and for you as it is for him, and because it proves that great question for us all then he gets up and tells us that he happens to have the name "Church of God," therefore his is the only church, and all the rest of you are sects. "The Church of God is a spiritual building and has a spiritual foundation." There is not a church in the land that would deny that, but is that the proof that his is the Church of God any more than mine? Just simply proves as much for me and any other church in the land. It does not show his identity. Why doesn't he prove his is a spiritual building, and has Christ for its foundation. Mere assertions cannot prove his position to us. Has he shown us one line of succession by ordination or otherwise that establishes his identity or that his comes from the church that Christ built? In this discussion has he shown one thing that proves his identity with the New Testament Church? Not one. In the line of succession, has he shown you where he got his ordination, and where the persons that ordained him got their ordination? If he traces it back, he knows it is going to run right back to the Winebrennerian Church and the Reformed Church. He can't show you any line of argument to which he has any connection with the New Testament Church.

My fifth argument is, it is not identical or Scriptural because of its unscriptural church government. God has given a perfect law. Read in the Eberling-Riggle debate, page 341. Since he is through with this part and going to start up doctrines and practices, he is done with the church government question. It is true that God has given us a perfect law, a law for His people, but Elder Riggle cannot enforce it in the Church of God. He is simply powerless to enforce God's law. There is no man that can "put you out" of Elder Riggle's church. You can go and be just as wicked as his Satanic majesty wants you to be, and they are utterly powerless. No man can put you out. They can't use God's laws, and you can be just as wicked, and there is no power in Elder Riggles' church that can prevent you from doing it, and that is where we object to his position. We use God's laws in maintaining the purity and the sanctity of the Church of the Living God, but he is powerless to use them, and if he does use them, he is just like the rest of the people. If he has such an organization that he can take up God's word and deal with disorderly members and get rid of those who don't behave themselves and act orderly he is just where every church in the land is. If he can't do it, his is not the church Jesus built, governs and controls.

New Testament and the Church of God. He opposes local organization. Perhaps I am mistaken in that statement. He doesn't oppose local organization. I asked him to explain about organization, and he has never yet told me. He doesn't represent them at all, and what business have they with him if he doesn't belong to them in some way. I want to know just what sort of government they have. He doesn't bring it out. I don't know how it is governed, and he doesn't tell me. I would like for him to tell us how they manage when members are in a society and do not behave themselves. If none of you ever committed a sin, then it is not the church our Saviour apprehended it would be in the world. He knew you needed a law to keep you under control. Elder Riggle or any other minister of the Church of God cannot use that power if any of the members in the congregation are disorderly. They have no authority to do anything to that man. If they do use that power, they are just like other churches are, and are not any more like the church that Jesus established in the world. They are just like other organizations if they can---just as human as the rest of us. They can't maintain the unity. 1 Cor. 1:10: "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment." They can't maintain that unity among them unless they have an organization, unless they have some sort of way, and if they have, then they are a sect just like the rest of us. Phil. 3:16: "Nevertheless whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing." Matt. 18:15, 18: "If thy brother trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone." They can do that, "And if he will not hear them, take with thee one or more, and if he will not hear them tell it to the church." Why tell it to the church? What has the church got to do with it? The church has to render the decision in the case. The Church of the Brethren can do like the New Testament tells us to do. The authority and power to execute the laws are given to the church. Elder Riggle cannot maintain orthodoxy and suppress heterodoxy, rid the church of evil doers, and if they can, they are just like other churches. Suppose some minister in Elder Riggle's church commenced preaching triune immersion, or sprinkling and pouring for baptism. What would they do with that fellow? If any of the ministers would preach something contrary to their doctrine, what would they do with him? If there isn't any authority, any power somewhere, how can they bring him down to the gospel teaching, and if they do that, that is just what the Church of the Brethren does, and hence there is nothing here to show his identity with the Church of the New Testament unless it shows the lack of identity with the New Testament Church. Just think about getting into a camp-meeting and all these bodies, Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, Campbellites, and all these churches and each one preaching his own doctrines and each calling themselves the Church of God, how the devil would laugh at the sight. Just simply calling ourselves the Church of God does not signify anything so long as our practices are different. I would like for Elder Riggle to tell us when Luther, Calvin, Menno, Smith, Spillsbury, Wesley, Fox and Mack, and all these great men separated from the Church of God. What body of people then represented the Church of God after they separated from it? Suppose all churches laid down all names. If we would all take the name that Elder Riggle has adopted, would that save us. If he says no to this question, there isn't anything in the name. Did any institution, society or body of people ever prosper without general or local organization? If necessary to organize the whole body, why refuse to organize the smaller local bodies so they can do better work? Think of a nation fully organized, but refusing organization to the states composing it, how enforce the laws in the local communities if not organized? If his church is organized, it is just like the balance of us so far as the matter is concerned. I have a few more questions I want to put in before I start another point. Elder Riggle doesn't like for me to ask questions, but I am like a school boy and have to ask questions to learn, and I think he ought to answer them.

1. How does the Spirit baptize, and what does He baptize "with" or "in"?

2. Name one in the New Testament Church who claimed salvation without baptism.

3. Name one who was held as a church member in the New Testament Church who was not baptized.

4. Name one who was said to be regenerated and born again without baptism.

5. How can one be "born of water" or have the "washing of water by the word" without baptism?

6. (a) Will alien sinners who refute baptism go to hell? (b) Will a child of God who refuses baptism go to hell?

7. What is baptism for?

8. How can one "put on Christ," or get into Christ, without baptism?

9. Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." Peter said, "Baptism doth also now say us." Did they tell the truth?

10. If baptism saved in the New Testament Church, what does it do now?

11. Were the 3000 on Pentecost "added to them" before or after baptism? Acts 2:41.

12. Are members added to the church you represent before or after baptism?

Now, I give these questions to Elder Riggle, and he can have until tomorrow evening to answer them. I hope he gets a better grade on them than he did on the other questions I gave him. I think he got about 10 per cent on the others.

Not identical because of its unscriptural organization. Mr. Warner never claimed authority to organize a church. Mr. Warner never started a new system of doctrine. I wish he would tell us where it was organized. I have plead with him to tell us where the church that he is representing now came out of the darkness of sects. Then, as I said, if Mr. Warner is not the starter, the beginner of the thing, and he will show when it came out of the sects of darkness and got rid of the devil thereby, I will stand corrected. I am placing the matter in the hands of Elder Riggle, and if he doesn't do it, I must believe I am right.

(Time.)

The Riggle - Kesler Debate
[ Selected ]

Elder Riggle's Fifth Speech
Friday Evening, September 17

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the church of God (evening light)

Friday, January 20, 2012

The Riggle - Kesler Debate PART ONE

No comments:

Post a Comment

About Me

Blog Archive