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 SIX

The Riggle - Kesler Debate

Elder Kesler's Twenty-First Speech
Saturday Evening, September 25

Gentlemen, Moderators, Brethren and Friends:---I arise before you to continue the discussion of the proposition that we have before you that the Church of the Brethren is identical with the New Testament Church in origin, name, doctrine and practice. We were discussing last night the form of baptism. We expect to continue that line of thought this evening.

I want to call your attention again to one very important matter in this discussion, you want to note the difference between our arguments. He reads Scriptures and then asserts without proof that they teach one act in baptism, and then he made this statement last night that he reads from the Bible and I go to history. I would be perfectly willing to count Scriptures with him at this present time and see just how the matter stands, and , furthermore, I think he is about the first one that brought outside evidence in the discussion, and I believe the report will show that he has read just about as much out of history as I have. So I don't want him to prejudice your mind when he tells you he reads out of the Bible and I out of history. All his arguments he made in his speech last evening could be easily disposed of if we had the time, but we don't have the time now. I am sure some of you thought he made some powerful arguments in his speech last evening. I want to say it was a powerful speech, but very little in it so far as argument is concerned, and the main issues that were raised in his speech will be brought out in the discussion that I expect now to present to you as we go along.

My fourth argument is drawn from the fact that Christ's law demands baptism in each singular name in the Trinity. Matt. 28:19 is the only place in which He tells us how to baptize so far as form of baptism is concerned. He has dwelt considerably upon one positive Scripture. Eph. 4:5: "One Lord, one faith and one baptism." But you will notice in that passage there is no law whatever telling us how to baptize. We must get the law from some place else. That Scripture only says that there is one baptism, and the Brethren have one baptism, and only one. So far as that passage is concerned it states just as much in our favor as it does in his. We must learn the form from another Scripture, and especially from the law that our Savior gave telling us how to baptize, and that is what we are discussion now. Matt. 28:10: "Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." That law demands baptism in each singular name of the Trinity. It is an elliptical sentence. Some of you know what this means, and perhaps some of you do not. Into the name being omitted before the Son and the Holy Spirit. I am ready to fortify my statement from Green's English Analysis, page 221, section 756: "When the members of a co-oridnate construction have a common part, that part, except where great emphasis is required, should be taken but once. This is properly contraction by ellipsis and not by change of construction, as in case of complex sentences. In this case we have only to supply the common part which is obviously kept in the mind (understood) in order to restore the full construction." I will read again from Harbvey's Grammar, page 178, "Ellipsis is the omission of one or more words of a sentence. The words omitted are said to be understood." Page 232: "Ellipsis is the omission of a word phrase or clause which is necessary to complete the sentence." Page 181, Rem. 1: "The words omitted are clearly implied and must be restored before the sentence can be analyzed or parsed. The words omitted are clearly implied, and must be restored before the sentence can be analyzed or parsed. So, then, we are contending, and I don't think it will be contested, that the little phrase"into the name" is omitted between Son and Holy Spirit, and when these are supplied it well read into the name of the Father and into the name of the Son and into the name of the Holy Spirit. So it is into these three names: "Father," "Son" and "Holy Spirit" are possessives in this sentence, denoting possession, expressed or understood. Hoenshell's Grammar, pages 154, 5. We will show you what we mean by this. Parker and Wilson store means one store. Parker's and Wilson's store means two stores. In the first we have the sign of possession in the last term only, and in the second we have the sign of possession after both of the nouns. That first may be transposed to the store of Parker and Wilson meaning one store, then in the second we can transpose it and I will read the store of Parker and of Wilson, two stores. We have it copied from the grammar right here in the book. The commission we are talking about reads, Into the name of the Father, and into the name of the Son, and into the name of the Holy Ghost. Now we have two forms in English that we can use. We take the commission. Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit would mean one name, and name of the Father and of the Son (just as the store of Parker and of Wilson) and of the Holy Spirit means three names. This thought is clearly brought out in English grammar, and every grammarian know it. My friend comes to you with an illustration. He preaches in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Sprit. He has the wrong construction. If he would put it in the usual way, preach in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit with the conjunction and preposition omitted then there would be some argument in his statement, but his construction would give three preachings---preach in the name of the Father and in the name of the Son and in the name of the Holy Ghost, there would be three names, and hence it would require three preachings. But even taking his own construction of his own statement, does he speak only one word when he preaches? It is like the word baptizo we are talking about. In the doxology we have, "Praise Father, Son and Holy Ghost," which means one name. We do note have the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, as we have in the commission, so when we praise them we just utter one word in God's praise according to his argument. You will see that there is nothing in his argument, and he is entirely on our side of the question. In Green's English Analysis, on pages 85 and 143, we want to show you that we are giving this straight. You will find it so in every analysis of the English language that treat these forms of expression. "Instead of the possessive form, the preposition 'of' with its objective is used." Ex. "The court of the King---the King's court." Page 143, we have about the same statement. Then we have one way of putting the sentence denoting possession in each of the names. The Father's name and the Son's (name and the Holy Spirit's (name), which transposed is the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, so that when we put it in its simplest form it would be the Father's name and the Son's name and the Holy Spirit's name, and transposed into the original form it would be the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. If you will notice in the grammar that when you have separate possession, the possessive sign is placed to each of the nouns, so when you transpose this commission you would have into the Father's and the Son's and the Holy Spirit's name showing separate possession and not joint possession. Green 120, 157, we want to read so you will get this thing just right: "If the object possessed belongs to tow nouns jointly and possessive sign should be applied to the last name only, as Parker and Wilson's store, but if we wish to express separate possession, the sign of possession should belong to them separately, just as in the second illustration, Parker's and Wilson's store. It is the store of Parker and of Wilson, meaning two stores. Name is the antecedent term of the relation expressed by "of" in each phrase. Again, "name" is the object of into in the first phrase and understood with "into" by which it is governed in the other phrases. As name is governed by "into" in each phrase, so "into" refers to baptizing as its antecedent term of relation. Whatever baptizing requires in the first phrase is additionally required in the other two phrases.

My worthy opponent gave you and illustration about some paper and carbon paper. Here is a little booklet containing a sheet of white paper, and of yellow paper, and of blue paper. You remember the illustration that he had with carbon between the sheets and his illustration was worked out in your presence. I want to work this illustration our. Professor McHatton, will you write your name on the white paper and on the yellow paper and on the blue paper? While he is doing that I will refer you to Elder Riggle's book to show you that my contention is not far-fetched and is not overdrawn; page 56 of Elder Riggle's book, I want to read to you to show you that my contention here is right: "It is asserted that the words, 'And baptizing them in the name of the Son and baptizing them in the name of the Holy Ghost,' should be supplied, but this is incorrect. The ellipsis to be supplied are, 'and (in the name) of the Son, and (in the name) of the Holy Ghost.' When the words baptizing them are inserted, too much is added." So then you find that my construction of the sentence is correct according to his book, only that he gives you "en" which should be "eis", which means into. Into the Father and into the Son and into the Holy Spirit, because Elder Riggle says I am right in my construction.

I am very much obliged to Professor McHatton. He has done exactly what I told him to do. I told him to write his name on the white sheet of paper, and on the yellow paper and on the blue paper and he did it. I don't have to ask how many times he wrote his name. This is parallel with "into the Father and into the Son and into the Holy Spirit." I am taking my friend's illustration. There is no way for him to work carbon paper between the Father, and the Son, and between the Son and the Holy Spirit. This first piece of paper represents the Father, the next the Son and the next the Holy Spirit. When we baptize into the name of the Father it takes one act, and when we baptize into the name of the Holy Spirit it takes one act. It took three acts to write his name on the three papers. I am very much obliged to my friend for the illustration. Now I want to know how my opponent is going to get all the fullness of the Godhead in Christ with carbon paper between them. Can you not see the absurdity of his reasoning and his evident effort to hide the truth?

Fifth argument. Trine immersion is the only form of baptism that harmonized with the figures of baptism recorded in the Bible. Noah and his family. There were three apartments in that ark, and it took three acts to get into the three apartments just as it takes three acts to get into three apartments of the Godhead. Israel in the Red Sea. We have already given a number of Scriptures on this point and have illustrated it, so will not mention any more here. Then we come to Naaman in 2 Kings 5:10, where he was told to go and dip himself seven times in the River Jordan. That would dip is the same that we have to express baptism. Had he meant a single act we would have used the word bapto, which means to dip. Then the numeral seven would give how many times. We have the same identical word, baptizo, in our Savior's command that carries out the idea of baptism-repetition.

Baptism of suffering with our Savior. Matt. 26:38-40. "Then saith He unto them, My soul is exceedingly sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with Me. And He went a little farther, and fell on His face, and prayed, saying, O My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt. And He cometh unto the disciples, and finding them asleep, He saith unto Peter, What, could ye not watch with Me one hour? Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak. He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O My Father, if this cup may not pass away from Me except I drink it, Thy will be dome. And He came and found them asleep again: for their eyes were heavy. And He left them and went away again, and prayed the third time, saying the same words." So we have a figurative baptism of the suffering of our Savior. You see it is clearly proved. Three times He went and prayed the same identical words and thoughts, not three prayer, but it was one prayer repeated. Just like we have in baptism into the Father and into the Son and into the Holy Spirit. Nothing could be more clear so far as a figurative language is concerned than we have here. These figures represent repetition of baptism. Now I want to notice a few of the illustrations my friend brought up. Matt. 8:11: "And I say unto you, that many shall come from the East and West, and shall sit down with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven." Now these books will represent Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. If he will tell me how a person is going to come from East and from the West and from the North and from the South by one act, I will surrender the argument right here. Do you get the idea? Many shall come from the East and from the West and from the North and from the South. If he will tell us just how a man could come from the East and from the West and North and South by one act, I will surrender my argument. He said this was a parallel sentence with the commission. I want to say to you that I don't like to deny the statements of an intelligent and learned man like he is, but I want to show you that it is an intransitive verb, and has no object. But suppose we substitute a transitive verb in place of "sit" like "shake." Now we have the transitive verb and we have an object. In this case you have the intransitive verb and have no object. I will turn around and call these men (Moderators) Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and we put the transitive verb in it and make it identical with the commission, and I will say that I shake hands with Abraham (shakes hands), and with Isaac (shakes hands), and with Jacob (shake shands), How many acts did it take? If he will give us a transitive verb like we have given in the commission it will knock the bottom out of his argument.

"When He shall come in His glory." Luke 9:26. In the glory of the Father. We have an intransitive verb here---" when He shall come in His own glory, and in His Father's and of the holy angels." The Savior came in the three glories, but His coming did not put Him into these glories. He was in these glories before He came. Did He get into those glories all by the same act? When He got into the glory of His Father, did He get into the glory of the angels at the same time? When you get the illustration right, when the light of day shines on it, there is nothing that sustains it, his position and arguments go down and down and he will never be able to restore them. "I pray God your whole spirit, and soul and body, be preserved," etc. Another of his texts.

I want to ask him if the act that preserves the body will preserve the soul, the undying spirit?

Our next argument will be confirmatory of what we have stated. This one form of baptism is the only form that we have in the world down to the year 360 A. D.

_________________________

Elder Riggle's Twenty-First Speech
Saturday Evening, September 25

Mr. Chairman, Brother Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen:---

Eighth. My eighth argument is based upon the fact that there is absolutely nothing in the wording of the commission itself in its strict grammatical structure to prove anything concerning action in baptism, whether it be one action or three. Here I attack and remove the main pillar upon which rests the practice of three immersions in baptism. The fact is, they predicate everything on this point. There is no other place in the New Testament where they can find any evidence whatever for their practice. If three immersions are not found, and that without reasonable doubt, in the grammatical structure of the commission as recorded in Matt. 28:19, it has no foundation in holy writ. I want to present the issue squarely, for right here is where their whole doctrine and practice falls to the ground. To sustain this argument, I will present a number of facts.

Fact 1. There are scores of instances in the Bible and thousands in our language outside of the Bible, where the conjunction is either followed by another term expressing something additional, or is used to connect a synonym in order to place greater emphasis upon a fact already stated. Here I state an incontrovertible truth.

Fact 2. Last night I gave twelve clear examples of grammatical construction parallel with the commission, where in each case but one action is required. I also gave nine decisive texts of Scripture where the construction of the language is parallel with the commission, and in each case there is but a single action. To these nine texts I will here add another. Matt. 22:37: "Thou shalt love the Lord they God with all they hear, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind." One act of love fulfills the language.

I gave thirteen clear illustrations of one action in parallel language with the commission. I will again refer to but two of these. The sun emits the light, and the heat, and the life of our solar system. Now, suppose I step suddenly from a dark room into the clear beautiful sunshine. By that one act I am instantly immersed, submerged, or baptized into the light, and the heat, and the life of the universe. I also gave you an illustration with a glass containing three elements---oil, water and mercury. By one act I dipped my pencil into the layer of oil, and of water, and of mercury. The language is parallel with that found in the commission, and the three elements in one glass with the three persons in the Holy Trinity and just as by one act I baptized my pencil into all the three elements, so by a single act are we brought into fellowship and relationship with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Baptism is a public symbol of this truth, hence there can be but one action.

My contention then is clearly sustained. You see it is very uncertain and unsafe to predicate a church practice upon the mere grammatical construction of a single text. I will give two examples of this fact. Matt. 3:11: John said, "I baptize you in water unto repentance." The structure of this language would indicate that in John's ministry baptism actually preceded repentance. Baptized unto--in order to---repentance. But a careful study of the record will reveal the fact that John required a thorough repentance before he would baptize the people. John 4:2: "Jesus Himself baptized not, but His disciples." From the structure of this language it is difficult to ascertain whether the text means that Jesus baptized none other than His disciples, or whether He baptized by proxy, that is He Himself did not administer the rite, but His disciples did it for Him.

You see the weight of evidence is heavily in my favor. In all the examples, illustrations and texts given I used nothing but what was in exact parallel with the Trinity and the wording of the commission. And in all of these we have but a single action. Last night I illustrated my point with three sheets of paper---a white sheet, and a yellow sheet, and a blue sheet. I made the point that these three sheets of different colors represent the three persons in the Trinity, their office and work. Pasted together at the top, these three sheets compose one tablet, just like the three persons compose one eternal Godhead. But there is a beautiful connecting link between the three persons of the Trinity in their office and work. This I illustrated with the carbon sheets. Passing the tablet to Professor McHatton, I asked him to write his name on the first page of the white sheet, and of the yellow sheet, and of the blue sheet. You will remember that this was done by a single act, by one writing. In the same manner, by a single act we are brought in touch with the entire Trinity. Elder Kesler tonight tried to offset this by handing to Professor McHatton three sheets of paper, and the Professor wrote separately upon each sheet. Both Elder utterly failed in his illustration. It is not analogous in any sense with the Trinity. My three sheets were pasted together into one tablet. This is analogous with the God head, for "these three are one." Again, the Elder left out the connecting link between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Right here is where his whole contention throughout this debate fails him. To uphold his practice of triple baptism, he must deny the unity of the Godhead.

Again, you will remember I gave you an expression parallel with that found in the commission. I plunge my hand into a basket of apples, and of pears, and of plums. I requested Elder Kesler to determine from that language whether one action or three were required. He evaded my point and said that three baskets, each containing a separate kind of fruit, represent the three persons of the Trinity. I deny this. There is no parallel between three baskets, each containing a distinct kind of fruit, and the three persons in the Godhead. Of the Trinity it is said, "These three are one." Christ said, "I am in the Father, and the Father in Me." This cannot be said of three separate baskets of fruit. Right here the Elder fails.

I will now demonstrate my position by an illustration that you all can see. (Here Mr. Riggle placed upon the table a basket containing three kinds of fruit: a;;les, pears, and plums. By a single act the thrust his hand into the basket of fruit, using the following language:) I plunge my hand into the basket of apples, and of pears, and of plums. You see this is exactly parallel with the commission, and requires but one action. I am willing to submit the grammatical construction I here use to any scholar in this land, and I am sure they will agree that a single action fulfills the language.

Now, concerning the title written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin (John 19:20). These are three distinct languages, and not one language, as the three persons in the Trinity are one God. Here I want to impress the point. While the Elder can find a few sentences that are somewhat parallel with the commission that require three actions, I have produced an overwhelming number of them in exact parallel with the commission that require by a single action. This fact, then overthrows his practice based upon the exact grammatical language as contained in this single text of Scripture. His doctrine and practice go down on this important point. Elder Quinter, whom my friend says was an honest man, frankly admits this fact. Again, I read from page 72 of the Quinter-McConnel Debate: "I have not argued that in every case where there is an ellipsis to be supplied there must necessarily be a repetition of action; whether such is the case or not is to be inferred from other circumstances." With this frank admission from this renowned author in the Brethren Church, trine immersion goes down. They base all on the wording of the commission, but Quinter says that this is not well grounded, and that they must depend upon something inferred from other circumstances. But the trouble is, there is not a hint at repeated action in baptism in a single other instance in the Bible.

He referred to Mark 5:14, "told it in the country in the city." Another text they use, which Elder Kesler has not bought in, is Matt. 17:15: "The child cast into the fire and into the water." I contend that there is no parallel whatever between the circumstances, no analogy between these instances and our induction into the Trinity. The city and country are entirely distinct. So with the two elements---fire and water. The are separate and incompatible. They cannot exist together. Of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit it is said, "These three are one." This cannot be said either of the country and city or of fire and water. It is Impossible to fall into both fire and water at the same time; but with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit a single act brings us into relationship with all three. Let me here give you safe rule. Any illustration that will convey the idea of separation in the Trinity is not valid. When my friend succeeds in showing that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are as separate and opposite in their natures to each other as fire and water, then he has carried his point. When he accomplishes this, he will have cracked a nut that he will find as hard as an adamant stone.

Fact 3. God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit are inseparably united in the work of saving men, and it is absolutely impossible to do anything in the name of the one and it not be in the name of the other two. Let me give you an example. I ask Elder Kesler to go to the office of the justice tomorrow and sign the contract of Smith, and of Jones, and of Brown. I challenge him to tell by that language whether he must sign one contract or three. He must determine from something else than the structure of the language. No more can he determine from the mere structure of the language of the commission whether one action or three is required. Right here his practice falls, for he has no other proof. If these three men, Smith, Jones, and Brown, are working independent of each other, then there are three contracts to sign, and it will require three distinct actions. If they are legally united in a firm bearing that name, then one contract is all that is required to sign, and a single action will fulfill the language. In this case it is absolutely impossible to do business with one of these individuals independent of the other members of the firm. From this I deduct this logical conclusion: The Father, Son, and Holy Sprit are not independent of each other. They constitute one heavenly firm---the eternal Godhead. An act performed in the name of one includes the other two.

Fact 4. When Elder Kesler proves that in the work of salvation God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit work independently of each other, then and then only has he proved that a three-fold action in baptism is necessary to be in the name of each, and in the favor of each.

Fact 5. This shows the utter fallacy and absurdity of trying to establish three immersions upon the peculiar structure of the language in the commission. As I told you before, right here the practice of his church goes down. It is here that he utterly fails. There is absolutely no proof in the construction of the language to warrant their practice. Allow me to illustrate. I hold in my had a book entitled, "The Cleansing of the Sanctuary." This book was written by D. S. Warner and myself. I will now hand that book to Professor McHatton and ask him to please write his name in the book of D. S Warner and of H. M. Riggle. (Here Mr. Riggle handed the volume to Professor McHatton and proceeded.) How many time will he write his name? How many actions will he perform? He cannot determine alone upon the structure of the language. He is a thinking mind and naturally will reason thus: If I can determine that the command to write my name in the book of Warner and of Riggle refers to independent separate works produced by these men, then I will know that I must write it two times, but if it develops that the command refers to one work bearing the name of these two men, then a single action is all that I can possibly employ without exceeding the command itself. I notice that before the Professor wrote his name he examined the book. (Here Professor McHatton passed the book back to Elder Riggle, who inquired: How many times did you write your name in the book? The Professor answered, "Once." How many actions did it require? The answer was, "One action.") The structure of the language, then, alone cannot determine the action. Here I demonstrate a logical fact which overthrows my respondent's contention. By one action, the Professor wrote his name in the book of D. S. Warner and H. M. Riggle. One book by two or three authors is parallel with one God in three persons and names. This determines the action. One writing in the book is parallel with one induction into the Godhead. There is a Commentary by Jamison, Faussett, and Brown. These three men wrote one book. Now, if you were to write your name in that book it would require but one writing. By that one act your name would be recorded in the book of Jamison, and of Fussett, and of Brown.

Ninth. My ninth argument is based upon the fact that the conversion of the soul is a single work of the Trinity, and but a single action can represent it. Salvation is the work of God, and of Christ, and of the Holy Spirit. Baptism represents this work. The work is one work---a single work. Then a single action only can testify to this fact. We are converted once, and this single act of conversion, mark you, is the work of the divine Trinity. I repeat for emphasis that only a single immersion can appropriately represent that work. If we were converted three times, once by the Father, and once by the Son, and a third time by the Holy Spirit, then trine immersion would be proper and all right. I do not care to condescend to the ridiculous, but I do want to show the inconsistency of Elder Kesler's practice. I was truly converted to God and met every other condition of the Word of God, and I went down into the water and was immersed one time under the formula, "I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Will my opponent deny that the first immersion in the name of the Father is valid? Of course he will not; for that is just the way he did himself in the first part of his baptismal act. Then will he admit that I am one-third baptized? If so, then I have fulfilled all the requirements of the Father and am well pleasing in His sight; but the Son and the Holy Spirit each has a charge against me of no honoring them with a separate dip. Now, when I come up to heaven what will Christ and the Holy Spirit do with me? They cannot reject me because the Father has received me, etc. This fractional business leads to all sorts of inconsistencies. Whoever hear of being one-third converted, or one third born again? Preposterous! And it is just as absurd to talk of a fractional baptism, when every other work of God performed in the human soul is a single act wrought in the three-fold name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Thus sanctification is a definite, single act; but it is said to be performed by God (1 Thes. 5:23), and By Jesus (Heb. 13:12), and by the Holy Ghost (Rom. 15:16). Its operation in man is stated under a three-fold division: "The very God of peace sanctifies you wholly---ENTIRELY---and I pray God your whole spirit, and soul, and body be preserved blameless." Here again is a three-fold statement of a work that is positively single in its action.

Tenth. My tenth argument is based upon the fact that the plural form---baptismos---immersions is never employed with reference to Christian baptism. The only place in the New Testament that the plural form baptismos, which means immersions, is found is in Heb. 6:2 and Heb. 9:10. Dr. Adam Clark, Dr. James McKnight, and Matthew Henry, in their commentaries, all agree that these texts apply to Old Testament ceremonial washing, and not to Christian baptism. The Elder's practice, then, of three immersions is strictly Old Testament and has no place under the new covenant.

Eleventh. Elder Kesler's teaching and practice of triune immersion, or three immersions, is in itself contradictory, impossible and unscriptural.

Fact 1. If the first dip inducts them into the Father, and not into the Son, nor into the Holy Spirit, then should they never receive a second dip they would never be in Christ nor in the Spirit. Question: What about the millions who have received but one immersion? Can a man be saved out of Christ? Can a man be lost while in the Father? Jesus said, "No man can come to the Father but by Me." Paul said, "Throught Him (Christ) we have access to the Father."

Fact 2. Since no one can get into the Father only through Christ, then all in the Father are in the Son, Jesus Christ. This truth contradicts my friend's position. You see, the Elder's church in their practice squarely contradicts the New Testament teaching. They approach the Son by the Father, whereas the New Testament teaches that we must approach the Father through the Son. Question: How can a person be in God the Father and not in Christ the Son? Jesus said, "Believe Me, I am in the Father and the Father in Me." John 14:11: "I and the Father are one." John 10:30: "These three are one." 1 John 5:7: "There is one God."

Fact 3. The same act that brings a person into the Son brings him into the Father, and also into the Spirit. It cannot be otherwise. This truth contradicts and makes impossible and unscriptural Elder Kesler's position.

Fact 4. Baptism is a public testimony of the change of relationship toward God, and Christ, and the Holy Spirit. One act symbolizes this change. To illustrate: As I now stand, I am facing the east, with by back toward the west, my right hand toward the south, and my left hand toward the north. I change my position to the four points of the compass by a single act. (Here Mr. Riggle by one act turned around facing the west.) By one act I now face the west, and my position to every other point of the compass is changed. Just so in salvation, and by its visible symbol---baptism.

Fact 5. Since the Father is in the Son, and in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead substantially, the moment that by one act we are inducted into Christ, that act must bring into relationship with the entire Trinity.

Fact 6. According to the Elder's practice, when a man is baptized into the Father, the Father is honored, but not the Son. If this is not true, there is no use of a second baptism. Then when he is baptized in the name of the Son, the Son is honored but not the Father, nor the Holy Spirit, else the Father receives double honor. This must be true if their teaching is correct. Now, then, if it requires a repetition of the act that each many be honored, then only one is honored in the first act---the Father, and not the Son. Christ said, "He that honoreth not the Son, honoreth not the Father." Here the Elder's practice squarely contradicts the Bible.

Twelfth. My twelfth argument is based upon the fact that plurality in unity involving a distinction does not necessarily contain the idea of division and separation and to represent that plurality in unity it is not necessary to perform separate acts. I will give a logical proof of this fact. Man is plurality in unity---a compound being of body and of soul, an outer and an inner man. These are distinct---one flesh, the other spirit, yet both constitute one man. One act of divine grace saves both. Three persons constitute one eternal God. One act by this eternal God saves man. One immersion testifies this fact. Based on these facts, I deduct tow logical conclusions:

(1) That if triune immersion is the door into the church, as Elder Kesler teaches, then it requires three acts to put a member in the church. The first dip puts him one-third in, and he is one-third a member; after the second dip he is two-thirds in and two-thirds a member, and the third takes him clear through. Now he is a whole member. What inconsistency this practice presents! What if he should die after receiving the first dip, he would be but one-third into the church or one-third a member. If he should die after receiving the second dip he would be two-thirds in or two-thirds a member. I ask, in either case what would be his condition? Will Elder Kesler please tell us whether the man in such a case would be saved or lost? How could a man be saved and only one-third or two-thirds a church member? Upon just such inconsistency rests the practice of my friend.

(2) If it requires three distinct immersions to induct into the Trinity, then the first dip puts us but one-third in. If the first dip places us into the Father and we are not yet in Christ or in the Holy Spirit (which Elder teaches), suppose we die before receiving the second dip. Will the Elder tell us the moral condition of such a person? Question: How can a person be lost and in the Father? How can a person be saved outside of Christ and the Spirit? May God help people to flee from such doctrines that were born in the dark age of apostasy. Here is a fact that contradicts such a practice. By a single oath of allegiance a person becomes at one a citizen of the United States, and of the State of Pennsylvania, and of the municipality in which he lives. He becomes a citizen in this three-fold capacity in his single act. In the same manner we become citizens of the household of faith. Single immersion testifies this fact.

Thirteenth. Triple baptism contradicts facts as expressed in the Scriptures. A clear exposition of Elder Kesler's position is as follows: We are to be immersed once in the name of the Father, exclusive of the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost; once in the name of the Son, exclusive of the name of the Father and of the Holy Ghost; once in the name of the Holy Ghost, exclusive of the name of the Father and of the Son. According to this, two of these immersions are unscriptural; for Paul commands, "Whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus." Co. 3:17.

If to dodge this point, he will say they do not administer each immersion exclusive of the name of two persons in the Trinity, then he attacks his own doctrine, and virtually admits that they are practicing three prefect single immersions.

The fact is, it is impossible to act in the name of one person of the Trinity and not in the name of the other two. To act in the name of another is to act with his authority, and how could we act with the authority of one of the persons of the Trinity and not with the authority of the three, for "these three are one?" 1 John 5:7. I will illustrate:

If three men are united in a company for the purpose of transacting business, and they send out an agent to transact business for them, he is not sent by one member of the firm, but by the three. All his business transactions are performed in the name of the three copartners. And if the agent should use but one name in some of his transactions he is nevertheless acting with the authority of the three, because the three are united as one, so far as business is concerned. So, like wise, when the apostles immersed, using only the name of the Lord Jesus, they were baptizing in the name of or with the authority of, the whole Godhead, because, as we have already seen, "these three are one."

Fourteenth. My fourteenth argument against Elder Kesler's position is based upon the fact that the apostolic church did not understand the commission in the sense Elder Kesler's church does. Their practice proves this. It is doubtful whether they used the exact formula of Matt. 28:19 in administering baptism. I made this point in defense of single immersion under the former proposition. In not a single instance recorded did the apostles use the triune name of the formula. To the argument I then presented, Elder Kesler could not reply. He simply asked the question, whether I baptized people in the single name? I answer, that several dimes during my ministry I have administered baptism under the formula, "I baptize thee in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ." But this formula, which is identical with that use by the apostle, includes the whole Trinity; for in Christ dwells all the fullness of the Godhead substantially. In Acts 2:38, Acts 8:16, Acts 10:48, and Acts 19:5, it is clearly stated that the apostles baptized believers into the name of the Lord Jesus. If, as Elder Kesler contends, to baptize in the name of three persons implies a triune action, then to baptize in the name of one person implies one action, or single immersion. By the force of his own argument the first apostles of Christ practiced single immersion. This is a fact, a truth, and he cannot overthrow it. I will now read from page 69 of my book on "Christian Baptism." "From whatever standpoint trine immersion is considered, it destroys the object and purpose of baptism, and is contrary to all the plain teaching of Scripture. There is one induction into the kingdom of grace, which brings us in touch with the whole Trinity; one spiritual birth; one spiritual resurrection; one death to the world and our sins; one death of Jesus on the cross; one burial in Joseph's tomb; one resurrection from the dead; one future resurrection when Jesus comes. The figure Jesus chose to publicly testify all this is certainly a fitting one---namely, one immersion.

I have just a moment left and will call attention to the illustration of sitting down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob. My opponent evaded the point. It is not the coming from the east and west, but the one sitting down with Abraham, and with Isaac, and with Jacob in that future eternal kingdom. Allow me to illustrate this point: Suppose we make a supper in our home and invite our friends and neighbors to come and partake with us. At the appointed time they come from the east and from the west, and all enter through one door into my home. After thus entering they sit down at the table with myself, and with my wife, and with my children. Does this require three acts? Do they sit down one, then rise up and sit down again, and then again rise and sit down a third time in order to sit down with me, and with my wife, and with my children? Since the Elder so strongly believe in a triple action, this would be a triune action for sure. I wonder if he would have the people act like this in his home. I think not. There is but one sitting down to that table, and just so in the future kingdom there will be but one sitting down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob.

(Time.)

_________________________

Elder Kesler's Twenty-Second Speech
Saturday Evening, September 25

Gentlemen, Moderators, Brethren and Friends:--- (Note from Jerry: I have selected to omit part of this speech because is was just "more of the same"...more repetition regarding triune baptism...)

Now, I am going to start and give you a few thoughts on the position of the Church of the Brethren on the subject of the Lord's Supper.

Position 7. The Lord's Supper, an evening meal. Argument 7. The Lord's Supper is a full meal to be eaten as a religious observance or rite. Matt. 26:27: "And He took the cup, and gave thinks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it." Mark. 14:21-25, we have a similar statement. Luke 22:19, 20: "And He took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is My body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of Me. Likewise the cup after supper." John 13:4: "He riseth from supper." Again, the question is, what was called supper? It was not the bread and the wine, but was the mal that He was eating with them. If my friend gets up and tells us that this was the Passover, it places him on the affirmative side of the question, and he would be under obligation to prove that it was the Jewish Passover. We are contending it was just what the Bible said---a supper, and not the Passover. It was instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ. 1 Cor. 11:20, 25: "When y come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's Supper. After the same manner also He took the cup, when He had supped, saying, This cup is the New Testament in My blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of Me." Here we see Christ's example was kept up twenty-five years after it was instituted.

Argument 2 Acts 20:7, 11: "And we sailed away from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread, and came unto them to Troas in five days: were we abode seven days. And upon the first day of the week when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. And there were many lights in the upper chamber, where they were gathered together. And there sat in the window a certain young man named Eutychus being fallen into a deep sleep: and as Paul was long preaching, and sunk down with sleep, and fell down from the third loft, and was taken up dead. And Paul went down and fell on him, and embracing him said, Trouble not yourselves, for his life is in him. When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed." 1 Cor. 11:20 "When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's Supper, for in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not." "Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger let him eat at home that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come." So we have the example of our Lord Jesus Christ. "If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord Jesus Christ." We find that the Lord's Supper was still kept up twenty-five years after the death of the Lord Jesus Christ. What was the reason they had the supper? Paul had instructed them so, so Paul tells them to tarry for one another. No harm to have a supper, but when you eat it, "tarry one for another." Don't eat it in groups, but put it together and eat the Lord's Supper.

(Time.)

_________________________

Elder Riggle's Twenty-Second Speech
Saturday Evening, September 25

Mr. Chairman, Brother Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen:--- If assertions prove anything, then you have had the argument in the last speech; but if fact and truth has any bearing, then the contention of Elder Kesler goes down. Empty talk will not win this debate.

(Note from Jerry): I have decided to include all of Elder Riggle's speech...you can imagine from his rebuttal...the content of Elder Kesler's speech regarding triune baptism.)

I have not time to refer to all the sentences or diagrams that he had on the blackboard, but will select two of them as a fair sample of the rest. Egypt, the Red Sea, and the wilderness. A man is hard pressed for argument that will use a sentence like this and assert that it is analogous to the Trinity. When he has proved that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are as distinct in their natures and separate in their work as Egypt, the Red Sea, and the wilderness are distinct and separate the, and then only, will he have made a point. This he can never do. Again, his three separate baskets of fruit are not parallel in any sense with the Godhead. I want to impress the fact that in all the examples and illustrations I gave on the point in debate, I used only such examples of language and illustrations as are parallel or analogous to the Trinity and the exact language in the commission. This he has not done, therefore all his talk has no weight when it comes to the real point in debate.

I was a little amused at his illustration. He tried to use the same one that I used last night by dipping his pencil into a glass containing oil, water, and mercury; but you notice it failed him. He used three actions, and by doing so because the mercury was at the bottom of the glass and the oil at the top, he was compelled to dip his pencil three times into the oil and twice into the water. So, if he practice according to his illustration, he should dip three times into the Father, twice into the Son, and once into the Holy Spirit. This would be six dippings instead of three. You see, he failed to make his point. My illustration was logical and perfectly analogous to the language of the commission. By one act I dipped my pencil into the layer of oil, and of water, and of mercury. This is exactly parallel with our induction into the Trinity.

He tried to make a point when he passed a copy of the New Testament to Professor McHatton and asked him to write his name in the book of Matthew, and of mark, and of Luke. This proves nothing whatever in his favor. In their literature they call this "clincher," but a thorough investigation will show that his nail was not even driven through, much less clinched. There was no possible way for the Professor to tell from the structure of the language itself whether he was to rite his name one time or three times. When he decided that he must write it three times he was drawing from outside information, and this information was not contained in the structure of the language itself. Note well this fact. Right here I make a point that completely overthrows three immersions based upon the exact grammatical structure of the language contained in Matt. 28:19. If a man who had never heard of Matthew, Mark, and Luke were given the same command and be required to give an immediate answer as to whether he must write his name one time or three times, will Elder Kesler please tell us how he could tell from the language itself? Professor McHatton knew from other sources that Matthew, Mark, and Luke wrote three separate, independent works, therefore he knew that in order to write his mane as requested he must write it three times. (Here Mr. Riggle asked Professor McHatton whether he had written his name three times because of the structure of the language as worded by Elder Kesler, or because of his previous knowledge that Matthew, Mark, and Luke wrote separate works, whereupon Professor McHatton answered that in this case it was because of his previous knowledge.) That is the point exactly. The structure of the language cannot determine the action, and right here Elder Kesler's whole argument, practice proposition and all, falls flat.

Fifteenth. My fifteenth argument will be a reply on history. By this method you can prove anything by history. I will now show what importance the Brethren attach to history in order to sustain their practice of three immersions. I will read from "Doctrine of the Brethren Defended," by R. H. Miller, page 123: "On the subject before us (triune immersion), as well as all others, history is one of the surest guides to lead us into the truth." From this you will see that this church depends upon history as their surest guide to the truth, and upon it they largely depend for their practice. I have already removed the one main pillar upon which trine immersion rests, and in this argument I will remove the other, and their whole structure goes down. Every stream has a beginning, a fountain head. As we follow the stream of historical evidence favorable to trine immersion from the present time back through the centuries, it narrows down and becomes smaller and smaller until, finally, we come to it fountain---a spring of erroneous teaching which sprang up during the life of Tertullian, who was born A. D. 204. This is the farthest back that the practice can be traced by history. There is no stream of historical testimony, however small, beyond Tertullian. As you start from a distant point toward a city, the road becomes more distinct, more traveled, broader and wider as you approach its terminus. How different with trine immersion! As the traveler meanders his way back the pathway of history, the road becomes less distinguishable, until it narrows down in the third century to a very small path and then ends about two hundred years this side of the great commission as given by Jesus Christ. Tertullian first mentions it. I repeat for emphasis, Tertullian is the first to mention triune immersion, and this was two hundred years this side of the commission. My opponent spent most of his time in trying to defend his practice reading from modern historians.

He read from Catheart and several other Baptists, as well as Episcopalian historians, who declare that trine immersion was a very ancient rite. You all know that I appealed direct to the Bible, which is to be the standard of evidence in this debate. I predicated my arguments upon the Scripture testimony, and Elder Kesler is wise enough to know that I have completely overwhelmed him with unanswerable evidence. I prefer to go to the pure fountain head for my practice, rather than from three hundred to twelve hundred years down the stream. Single immersion is found in the spring. Three immersions is found down the muddy stream of apostasy. I will not read from modern historians, but will produce the ancient document itself. I have here a volume which contains all the original writings of Tertullian. (Here Mr. Riggle produced a large volume of the Anti-Nicene Fathers.) I read from Volume III, page 94, 95, Tertullian's work on "The Crown": "To deal with this matter briefly, I shall begin with baptism. When we are going to enter the water, but a little before, in the presence of the congregation and under the hand of the president, we solemnly profess that we disown the devil, and his pomp, and his angels. Hereupon we are thrice immersed, making a somewhat ampler pledge than the Lord has appointed in the gospel. The, when we are taken up (as new-born children) we taste first of all a mixture of milk and honey, and from that day we refrain from the daily bath for a whole week." "We count fasting or kneeling in worship on the Lord's day to be unlawful. We rejoice in the same privilege also from Easter to Whitsunday. We feel pained should any wine or bread, even though our own, be cast upon the ground. At every forward step and movement, at every going in and out, when we put on our clothes and shoes, when we bathe, when we sit at table, when we light the lamps, on couch, on seat, in all the ordinary actions of daily life, we trace upon the forehead the sign." "If, for these or other such rules, you insist upon having positive Scripture injunction, you find none." Here is the first writer in history who mentions triune baptism, and in doing so he frankly admits that they performed "a somewhat ampler pledge than the Lord has appointed in the gospel." This admission proves that Tertullian was aware of the fact that single immersion was the primitive practice, and that they had no authority in the gospel for the new practice introduced in his day, namely trine immersion. His reference to the ampler pledge that the Lord had appointed in the gospel is in direct connection with triune immersion. So much for this Catholic Father. He also taught and practiced the sign of the cross. He said that in all the ordinary actions of daily life it was necessary to trace upon the forehead the sign of the cross. Since the Elder depends so much upon the testimony of this Catholic writer for his three immersions, why don't he all follow him in practicing the sign of the cross?

Summing up all these matters, Tertullian frankly states that for these and other such rules "if you insist upon having positive Scripture injunction, YOU WILL FIND NONE." Trine immersion has back of it no Scriptural authority. It belongs to the class of such silly things as taking a mixture of milk and honey in your mouth and refraining from the daily bath for a whole week, and kneeling in worship on the Lord's day being unlawful, and tracing upon the forehead the sign of the cross. To be plain it is a relic of the apostate and dark ages. No wonder that Tertullian tells us that in administering the rite of triune immersion they performed a somewhat ampler pledge than the Lord authorized in the gospel.

That this Tertullian was the first in history who mentions trine immersion I will prove by Elder James Quinter. Of Elder Quinter, whom I am about to quote, the Gospel Messenger, the official organ of Elder Kesler's church, July 17, 1915, the number says: "He was once editor, debater, preacher, and chief counselor at conference. He was a writer of great force, a preacher of extraordinary power, and a historian that about covered the field."

Now, then, let us hear this great historian of the Brethren Church. I read from Quinter-McConnel Debate, page 126: "In regard to filling up the gap (Meaning the two hundred years between Tertullian and the great commission as given by Christ) * * * we have not, it is true, the direct testimony of men living between Tertullian and the apostles as to the mode of immersion then practiced." Good for Quinter. This admission clearly shows that my friend's church cannot possible trace their practice any farther back than to Tertullian, and don't forget that Tertullian wrote about two hundred years this side of the great commission as given by Christ, almost two hundred years this side of the apostles.

Now, then, Tertullian, at the same time he wrote this work on "The Crown," in which he mentions being thrice immersed, was a Montanist, or heretic. The Montanist were rejected by the orthodox church. This was just at the time of the great agitation in the church over the Trinity. Before this arose the Gnostics, and heretical sect who denied the humanity of Christ. The Montanists, to whom Tertullian belonged, baptized men after death. They also sometimes baptized living men for the dead. In Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History we read that the Montanists, at the very time Tertullian belonged to them, were one of the rankest heresies of ancient times. J. B. Wampler, a trine immersionist, in his book "Bible Researches," pages 17, 18, readily admits this fact. Reference to any standard history will bear out this statement. Thus the practice of triune immersion originated among the heretics, and was born in heresy.

Ignatius, before Tertullian wrote about A. D. 170. In his letter to the Philadelphians, pages 81 and 90, he exalts the Roman bishop above Caesar, and exhorts the people to reverence him as they would God. This will give you an idea of the rank heresies that were sweeping over the church at that early date. At the time of Tertullian when triune immersion was first mentioned, some of the grossest errors were introduced, and many corruptions swept over the church: Infant baptism, infant communion, exorcists employed in baptism, baptizing the candidates, both men and women in the nude state or without clothing, and many other unauthorized and unscriptural ceremonies had begun to cluster around this sacred ordinance. In the second century and at the very time when Tertullian wrote, several rank heresies and sects arose, the principal ones being the Ebonite's, the Gnostics, and the Montanists. Right in this century, according to Ecclesiastical History, a thousand other heresies and false doctrines were introduced and practicede by the church, and for hundreds of years afterward, that Elder Kesler does not accept. Why then does he embrace the heresy of triune baptism which was introduced at the same time. His historical proof is gathered from the dark ages of the great apostasy of the church.

Let me give you a safe rule. Always dip and drink from the fountain or spring rather than go down the stream from two hundred to twelve hundred miles, or years. I go to the fountain, to the New Testament. He relies on the muddy waters of apostasy, from two hundred to twelve hundred years this side of the spring of New Testament truth.

He says the Greek Church practiced triune baptism. Does he accept all that the Greek Church practiced because they practiced that? Will he stand for all the abominations of the Greek Church---mockeries, praying for the dead, infant baptism, and a lot of other like things? If they are authority on one point they ought to be on all of these, since they claim to find authority for all these practices in the New Testament. You see the Elder's position is inconsistent with itself from whatever standpoint you may view it. Greek scholars of today know as much about the meaning of Greek language as did the ancient fathers, and the majority of these do not understand the commission to teach triune immersion.

A fact. All the authorities quoted by the Elder, who claim to trace triune immersion back to very ancient time, are men who lived this side of Tertullian. These same authorities claim to trace a thousand errors that are afloat in the Christian world body right back to the apostolic times. The advocates of sprinkling have the same grounds for their practice. I want something more conclusive than this. These late authorities can tell what the practice was in their day. For example, a writer from the fourth century could tell what was practiced in his time, but he could only guess at what was practiced several centuries before him, unless he has clear evidence upon which to found his belief. There is no evidence, no witness for trine immersion between Tertullian and the commission. There is absolutely no history for trine immersion in the first century. Elder James Quinter, the renowned historian of the Brethren Church, frankly admits this.

My opponent depends upon the interpretation the Catholic Fathers placed upon the commission rather than that of the apostles themselves. I prefer to accept the testimony and interpretation of the inspired writers as to the meaning of the words of the commission. These define it "into the name of the Lord Jesus," which implies a single action. Because a number of Greek and Latin Fathers, most of the beclouded with heretical doctrines and practices, claimed to find trine immersion in the commission, is no authentic proof that it is found there. These same Fathers claim to find a thousand other false practices in the New Testament, and that without authority. All these facts show the flimsy proof and sandy foundation upon which the practice of triune baptism rests. The Elder is standing on a pile of sand.

The Eastern or Oriental Churches who practice triune immersion do not do so because they think that expresses the meaning of the word baptize or fulfills the commission, but because of a perverted idea of what baptism symbolizes. In proof of this I quote Hasting's Bible Dictionary, Vol. I, article Baptism, page 245: "In the Eastern Churches triune immersion is regarded as the only valid form of baptism, and the Catechism explains that this triune immersion is a figure of the three days' burial of our Savior and of His resurrection." If their practice on one point proves what the apostolic method was, then their practice on every other point should be adopted.

By the same method Elder Kesler employs to establish triune immersion I can prove infant baptism. The same historians that mention triune baptism also mention infant baptism. Question: Does he accept infant baptism on these grounds? No He rejects it on the very same ground on which I reject his triune baptism.

Origen, who was born about eighty-five years after the death of St. John, says in his eighth homily on Leviticus, "Baptism of the church which is given for remission of sins is by the usage of the church given to infants." In his fourteenth homily on St. Luke he says, "Infants are baptized for the forgiveness of sins." Again, in his comments on Romans, Origen says, "For this cause also it was that the church received from the apostles a tradition to give baptism to infants."

Cyprian, born about 200 A. D. In the great council at Carthage, held about 254 A. D., in which sixty-six bishops met, and Cyprian was president of the council. This council decided as follows: "Baptism we think more especially to be observed in reference to infants, even to those newly born."

Augustine, fourth century, says: "Infants must be baptized. And further, this practice was delivered by our Lord and His apostles." Again, says Augustine, "The whole body of the church holds that little infants shall be baptized." And again, "The custom of our mother church in baptizing infants must not be disregarded nor counted needless, nor believed to be anything else than an ordinance delivered from the apostles." He further says, "The whole church practices infant baptism. It was not instituted by council, but was always in use."

Now, then, I have not referred to these historical quotations from those early writers in order to favor infant baptism, for I do not believe it was the primitive practice, but I have quoted these Greek and Latin Fathers to show you that they claim to trace infant baptism right up to the apostles, and it is upon the testimony of historians and those early Catholic Fathers the Elder bases his practice of triune immersion. These quotations from history will give you and idea how much merit should be placed upon the testimony of historians and those early Catholic Fathers. You will remember that Elder Miller said "History is one of the surest guides to lead us into the truth." If this be true, then the Elder and his church should surely practice infant baptism.

Why does he refer and depend upon the testimony of these Catholic writer for his practice? There is as much authority in history for infant baptism as there is for trine immersion. Since he rejects the former why does he not be consistent and throw down his practice of the latter? If he will do this and accept the primitive practice of single immersion, then he will be apostolic.

Now I will give you one quotation from Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History in which he goes back to the first century, the age of the apostles. "The sacrament of baptism was administered in this century, without the public assembles, in places appointed and prepared for that purpose, and was performed by AN immersion of the whole body in the baptismal font." When you go back there in the first century beyond the Montanist heresy where triune immersion arose, you will notice that instead of three immersions, baptism was administered by an immersion---one immersion---of the whole body in the baptismal font.

As I still have a few minutes left, I will present a number of arguments against the practice of Elder Kesler's church in the observance of a full meal for the Lord's Supper. Under the former proposition I presented an argument on what constitutes the true Lord's Supper. The Lord never commanded His church to partake of any other elements than the bread and wine. I abundantly proved that the partaking of these elements constitutes the New Testament Lord's Supper.

First. There was a love feast or love feasts of the church, a sort of a social gathering held at different times, where they met in the homes of the saints and ate a meal together. There were a few occasions where they held a communion service following this feast. This was not always true, however. This love feast was never once in the New Testament called the Lord's Supper. Elder Kesler's church dies so without Scriptural authority.

Second. The Commentaries and Lexicons and scholars generally do not call this feast the Lord's Supper. For example: Dr. Adam Clark, in his Commentary on the Feast of Charity, Jude 13 says: "The love feasts were at first celebrated before the Lord's Supper; in process of time they appear to have been celebrated after it. But they were never considered as the Lord's Supper, nor any substitute for it."

Third. All commentators point to the bread an cup as the Lord's Supper. In this my friend and his church stand square against the leading scholarship of the world.

Fourth. Not a singe one of the Ancient Church Fathers called the feast the Lord's Supper. They always point to the Eucharist as the Lord's Supper.

Fifth. The historians do not call the love feast the Lord's Supper. While they speak of the feast, they also speak of the Lord's Supper as separate from it.

Dr. Schaff, a profound scholar and church historian, Vo. III, page 402, says: "The Holy Supper on this day was observed in the evening, and was usually connected with a love feast."

Mosheim, Church History, Vol. I, page 197. "The expression to take bread when it occurs in the Acts of the Apostles is for the most part to be understood as signifying the celebration of the Lord's Supper, in which bread was broken and distributed." Page 44, Mosheim, I again read: "The Lord's Supper was set apart and consecrated by prayer. The distributers of the sacred supper were the deacons. To this most holy ordinance was annexed the agape or feasts of charity."

Smith's Bible Dictionary, commenting on Acts 20:11, says: "Then came the teaching, and the prayers, and then toward early dawn, the breaking of bread which constituted the Lord's Supper."

Next, Philip Schaft Bible Dictionary. "Lord's Supper or Holy Communion is the ordinance which commemorates the dying love and sacrifice of Christ. Love feasts were held in connection with the Lord's Supper."

The Standard American Encyclopedia. "Lord's Supper---one of the sacraments of the Christian religion. So named because it was instituted by our Savior on the occasion of celebrating the Passover. It also has the names of Eucharist and Communion. The Lord's Supper ought to be celebrated before the whole congregation, with the administration of both bread and wine."

Dr. James McKnight on Jude 12. "Those suppers which the first Christians ate, previous to their eating the Lord's Supper."

Genkyn, on Jude 12. "Before the celebration of the Lord's Supper they used to have a feast."

Neander, History of the Christian Religion. "The Lord's Supper originally was always joined with a general meal."

Now the point I make by reading all these authorities is to show that while the early Christians ate a meal and had their feasts of charity, they did not elevate this into a religious rite and call it the Lord's Supper. Right here Elder Kesler takes issue with the testimony of all these learned authors and scholars on the subject. They all associate the Lord's Supper with the communion of the bread and wine.

Sixth. There is not a command in the New Testament to eat a full meal as a sacred rite. There is a reason for this. The apostle tells us in Rom. 14:17: "The kingdom of God is not meant and drink; but is righteousness, and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost." And again, 1 Cor. 10:11, 34: "And if any man hunger let him eat at home; that y come not together unto condemnation." 1 Cor. 11:22: "What? Have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the Church of God?"

Elder Kesler's church, like the Corinthians, practices the very thing that Paul condemns.

Seventh. I will present a few thoughts on what the Lord's Supper is not. The Corinthian Church observed the ordinances which Paul had delivered to them. This we learn by reference to 1 Cor. 11:2. But they added to the real Lord's Supper the eating of a full meal, and in eating this meal the apostle informs them that they did not eat the Lord's Supper. "When ye come therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's Supper * * * What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the Church of God?" They brought a quantity of ordinary provisions sufficient to constitute an ordinary meal, and like my friend's church they ate this common food like any common meal, to satisfy hunger. Paul condemned this. The trouble with such a practice is right here. We say and the apostle says "this is not to eat the Lord's Supper." He became astonished at their practice and exclaimed, "Have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the Church of God? If any man hunger," continued the apostle, "let him eat at home." They brought victuals for a common meal and ate the supper as a common meal. Just like the Church of the Brethren, they added to the Lord's Supper the eating of a meal. This the apostle condemned.

(Here Elder Riggle asked Elder Kesler for Brumbaugh's History of the Brethren Church, but Elder Kesler did not have it with him.) I wanted to read from Brumbaugh's History, where he says that when they changed their supper from a slice of meat and a large bowl of soup to a slice of bread and a cup of coffee, that if certain old sister of former days had been living “they would have scratched their heads." I think so, too. Whoever read in the Bible of a sacred Christian ordinance being commanded in which the church was to eat a slice of meat, a bowl of soup, a slice of bread, and drink a cup of coffee? Here we see the utter absurdity of their practice. It is without Scriptural authority.

But should not people come together as Elder Kesler's church does, and cook and eat a meal? Here is Paul's answer: "This is not to eat the Lord's Supper? But in eating the Lord's Supper are we not to satisfy hunger? Hear the apostle's reply: "If any man hunger, let him eat at home that ye come not together unto condemnation."

Here then is a fact clearly stated. All full meals are to be eaten at home, in your own houses. We have no objection to the love feasts as observed in primitive times; and, in fact, we frequently observe them as the primitive Christians did. Not long since a number of the Brethren came to our home and we had just such a feast. When I lived back East there were tseveral times when almost the entire church came to our home with many good things, after which we had song and prayer and enjoyed a season of refreshing from the presence of the Lord. I believe these love feasts are a good thing. In ancient time, at the close of some of these feasts, they had a communion service and ate the Lord's Supper. But here is where I object to the practice of Elder Kesler's church. When we hold such love feasts, we would not think of elevating them to the plane of a religious ordinance, nor more than the primitive church. The Elder's church, however, does this very thing. There is where we differ.

I have no doubt but that these love feasts or social meals had their beginning in Jesus' instruction as given in Luke 14:12-14, where He said to make a feast and call in the poor, the halt, the lame, the blind, etc. Then again, there is no doubt that the Judaistic brethren kept the Passover feast for a time, as well as circumcision and the Sabbath.

(Time.)

_________________________

Elder Kesler's Twenty-Third Speech
Sunday Evening, September 26

Gentlemen, Moderators, Brethren and Friends:---I come before you this evening in the opening speech of the last session of the discussion, and it becomes my duty just now to notice a few things that were presented to you in the last speech of my worthy opponent last evening. I have one question that I want to ask him, and I would like to have him answer it in his first speech. Is baptism one in the sense that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one? Then I want to say further in this connection that I certainly was surprised that my worthy opponent in his last speech told you that we cannot determine what our Lord Jesus Christ meant by what He said. You remember, when he was talking to you, he told you you can't depend on God's word. We have sustained beyond a reasonable doubt that the language of the commission, baptize into the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, means three immersions, and now he says you cannot take God's word at what it says, that you can't determine your faith and practice by God's word as you find it recorded on the pages of eternal truth. I didn't think that a minister of the gospel, representing a people that cling so tenaciously as these people claim to do to the written word, would get up in a debate which will go down on record that we cannot know what God means by what He says.

Another thought. In regard to Tertullian and the Montanists, he says they were heretics. God forbid that I shall ever, in public debate, dishonor the dead. I would like for him to present the authority on which he grounds that statement. Again I want to read to you a little on that line. I beg your pardon, I didn't bring my book. I have a historic reference that I wanted to read to you, but the substance is this: Catheart writes and tells us that Tertullian was a Christian, he was one of the most voluminous of the Christian writers in his day, and Mr. Catheart says he was a noble man and was to be commended for the life that he lived, and for my worthy opponent to get up here and cast a shadow on trine immersion and do it by branding this man as a heretic, I feel like he is dishonoring a dead man. I was going to read from four different authors that translate that passage that Tertullian wrote on baptism that the baptism was trine immersion, "We pledge ourselves to more than was in the gospel." He left the impression that trine immersion is something more than the Lord has commanded in the gospel. I believe that he ought to be fair with Tertullian. He ought to read that over and give you the facts in the case. I read one quotation from Tertullian in which he tells us that "He (Christ) commanded baptism in three immersions when He said baptize in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit." Another. We are not immersed once but thrice, our Lord having commanded, "Go baptize the Gentiles in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." The presbyter asked a number of questions and made applicants make a number of promises before they baptized them, and this is what Tertullian meant when he said we pledge ourselves to something more than the Lord commanded in the gospel. This is made clear by a historical writer that translates this passage of Mr. Tertullian's "answering" to something more than the Lord commanded. This word "pledge” in the quotation, is translated from respondents from which we get the word respond, meaning to respond or to answer. This is what it meant. He did not mean to say that triune immersion was more than the Lord commanded in the gospel. He read from his own words, "if for these and other rules you search for Scriptures, you will find none." Now how in the name of reason is he going to make "these" go back and agree with the singular noun baptism? You people that have any knowledge of grammar know that the plural pronoun cannot agree with baptism, so "these" go back to the answers and promises demanded of them before baptism. Again if "for these and other such rules," how is he going to get rules and baptism to correspond or agree in number? Before they were baptized Mr. Tertullian says these were the things that they pledged themselves unto more than the Lord commanded in the gospel, and he did not mean to say that trine immersion was more than God authorized in the Bible. My dear friends, you remember there was something said about the water on the eyes. It is possible for a man to have something over his eyes that can't wee water where it really is. He told you when I performed that little illustration before you; I dipped my pencil into the oil three times. We will see whether I did. We will let the oil represent the Father, and the water the Son, and the mercury the Holy Spirit. I dip my pencil into the oil (presses it into the oil, and into the water (presses into the water), and into the mercury (Presses it into the mercury), all being in one glass. Now, then did I dip it into the oil three times? Certainly not. That is going down on record, and I want you to get it straight. I regret that a man will do things like that in a debate in order apparently to cover up the truth. He said I had water on the brain. I would a whole lot rather have a little water on the brain than to have a ball of mutton tallow in place of a brain.

Honoring the Father and not the Son. You know he said last night we must honor the Son, and if we didn't honor the Son we didn't honor the Father. I baptize in the name of the Father, doesn't that honor the Father? and I baptize in the name of the Son, doesn't that honor the Son as well? If I baptize in the name of the Holy Spirit, doesn't that honor the Holy Spirit? He come up here and takes the position of the heretic, who is branded by all the historians, or practically all of them, as a heretic, and he says that baptism should be into the death of Christ and by single immersion the Pope of Rome sanctioned it and said it takes only a single act to represent the Trinity of the Godhead. He said you can represent the unity of the Godhead by a single act, and so it came down for a while, and then practically died out, until the reformation, and then it started out again. Such is the history of the baptism which my worthy opponent practices, but the singular thing about it, I don't know what to think about the honesty of a man who will talk to you with all his God-given powers and denounce trine immersion, and then tonight he will take every trine immersionist into his church on his baptism if he could do so. Just think about the man that will do things like that. I hope you can see these things and look at them in the same light.

The Professor told him last night when he wrote his name in Matthew, Mark and Luke that he "wrote from previous knowledge," and when I gave him the paper to write on, he didn't have that previous knowledge, but he did what he had to do, what the language demanded. I said, give me your signature writing it on the white paper, and on the yellow paper, and on the blue paper. He had to do it, not because of "previous knowledge" but because the language demanded it of him, but he did write on that paper with carbon between it with previous knowledge. I am inclined to think there was a little consultation on that matter before, and they had it all worked out before they came here, and he wrote on that paper from "previous knowledge," I am inclined to think.

He said my authors sustain infant baptism. And now the fact is, the authors in the primitive age of the church, like Tertullian, Jerome and others in the primitive church, did write in favor of infant baptism, but they considered infants just like we consider minors. It was to take the young people into the church, or minors, as we would call them. They called them infants until they were pronounced young men and young women. Even if they were babies, if Tertullian and those old church fathers would tell me that they got infant baptism from the Scriptures, God's holy word, and from the commission of the Lord Jesus Christ (which they do not), I would say let us practice it. My dear friends, if my friends, if my friend Elder Riggle would write a history now, and he would tell the world that the church he represents practices single action in baptism, and that they have been practicing it now for about forty years, and then two thousand years from now someone would say that this man didn't know what he was talking about, and that they didn't believe he practiced it for forty years and that he had got it from the Lord Jesus Christ, what would Elder Riggle and the world think of a man like that? and yet Elder Riggle says those old church fathers were mistaken about the matter. Mosheim, single immersionist, who was born in 1694 and died in 1765. Does Mr. Mosheim know more than those church fathers in the early age? He was about 1500 years after those old church fathers. I don't know whether my worthy opponent has the original Mosheim or not, but if he has I wish he would give us a complete statement on that point. In a footnote Mosheim refers to Origen, and Origen says it was triune immersion. He takes just a part of what an author says and then makes that carry his point. This is a perversion of the author, so to speak, because he does not let the author speak his own sentiments. I don't believe we ought to teat a man like that. We ought to let him come out and speak his sentiments, and not try to cover up the thought as they present it.

He talked about love feast. He can get up and talk about love feasts all he pleases, but for the life of him he will never get love feast out of the Bible. Jude and Peter tell us that they observed the love feast in the church in apostolic times, in the primitive church they had love feast. When he found he couldn't get it out of the Bible he said, "we used to have love feasts," and then he gets up and just denounces love feasts with all his power and might, because I am contending for the old time Bible way, and the Bible reads now just like it did then. Then he will get up and say, "O, yes, we have love feasts, we used to have them." He said the commentary that he read called the loaf and cup the Lord's Supper. Adam Clark and some other authors that he quotes from, in almost every case these men do not belong to church that have any Lord's Supper their churches. They wouldn't call the meal Christ ate the Lord's Supper, and condemn themselves. Elder Riggle says, "Mr. Clark didn't believe that the supper our Savior ate with the disciples was the Lord's Supper." He is on the other side, and we wouldn't expect Mr. Clark to write what he didn't believe. He was a Methodist and they do not have any love feast or supper, so I didn't expect him to tell us that the Savior's meal that they ate was the Lord's Supper. There are other authors who tell us they kept the Lord's Supper and the feast of charity until about the middle of the fourth century. A council met and they decided to discontinue the supper because of abuses that became connected with it, and we have had from that time on just the communion until the reformation. Did any inspired man ever call the loaf and cup the Lord's Supper? My friend say the loaf and cup is the Lord's Supper. I ask him if any inspired man ever call it the Lord's Supper. I asked him that question when he was on his own proposition, but he failed to answer it. This supper was prepared by the command of Christ and eaten in the presence of His disciples. Now, then, I am going to present another argument on the Lord's supper.

Argument 3. The meaning of the word. We have the word in the original that tells us all about it, but my friend tells you you can't take God's word at what it says. We have the word in the original. It is diepnon, and Mr. Greenfield a Greek lexicographer, says, "In the New Testament it means supper." And he gave us John 13:2, 4, where Jesus "rose from supper." 1 Cor. 11:20, 21, 26, Paul gives us the word supper. That word in the New Testament means supper, and it can't mean anything else. Mr. Groves, Greek Lexicographer, gives it originally breakfast, but laterly supper. Mr. Lidelland Scott, lexicographers, give it a meal or meal time, the principal meal whenever taken. All lexicographers agree that diepnon means a full meal, a repast, and that it is to be taken in the evening of the day, or at supper time, and in the New Testament can't mean the loaf and cup. Such words are used as express the intended meaning. God didn't undertake to use this word to mean anything else, and if we are going to get God's meaning we must take God's word for it, but my friend says you can't do that. You can't take God's word for what it says. You have to take it and put a private interpretation on it. Peter says, "No Scripture is of any private interpretation," but that is my friend's contention. He must put a private interpretation on it in order to carry out his point.

Diepnon means a full meal and not the loaf and cup. In Luke 14:12, 16, it means supper, and also in Mark 6:21, John 12:2, 4, John 21:20, and in 1 Cor. 11:20, 21, 25. This word as used in the original means a full meal they took before the bread and the cup of communion were taken. Three inspired men come up against my opponent on this subject. Peter and John prepared the meal, and they ought to know if anybody does whether it was a meal of just simply the loaf and cup. John specifically called it supper and Peter called it feast. 2 Pet. 2:13. Jude 12 called it feast. The Brethren observe this supper, and therefore they are identical with the New Testament church.

Argument 4. Paul says, in 1 Cor. 11:20, 21, "When ye come together therefore in one place, this is not to eat the Lord's Supper. For in eating everyone taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken." Paul meant the full meal. The question is, did the supper consist of a full meal, or of the loaf and cup? According to the Scriptures the loaf and cup were never used to mean the Lord's Supper, so it must mean a full meal, or supper, my dear friends. These Corinthians had a full meal, and Paul writing about it said they had a full meal. Luke and John called it by this word diepnon, which means a full meal, and didn't mean a bit of the loaf and a sip of wine. Inspired men didn't use language in that way when they used the same word. If diepnon mans a full meal and at the same time means the loaf and cup of the communion, then there is no meaning in language, and my friend's position is right. If we can use words and show they convey any kind of meaning I hold that his position is right and my position is wrong. But this is what it takes to sustain my friend's position. My opponent's contention condemns the Lord Himself for eating a meal. He condemns the Lord for doing the very same thing we do. Matthew, Mark, Luke and Paul spoke of eating a meal. We have four inspired writers that say this. Four inspired writers stand against my opponent in this contention.

Argument 5. The cup of blessing which we bless. 1 Cor. 11:16, where Jesus gave the loaf and cup. "It is not the communion of the blood of Christ?" Will my friend say no? The cup of blessing is the communion of the blood of Christ. The bread which we brake, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we, being many, are one bread and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. Paul says the bread and the cup ore the communion of the blood and body of Christ. My opponent says that it is the Lord's Supper. They stand in direct opposition one to another. Whom will you take? Will you take Paul or my worthy opponent? This plainly shows the difference between Paul and my opponent. Where he differs from Paul he differs from me. I stand with Paul and my opponent stands against me when he stands against Paul. Where he differs from Paul he differs from me.

Why restricted communion? What we call close communion. It tends to unity and faith in practice. When we hold a communion among ourselves it tends to unity and faith in practice. There cannot be interdenominational communions. We can sit down and eat together, but that is not communion. Eph. 4:1-5,1 Cor. 1:14, Phil. 3:16. In this world of division and multiplicity of churches, I just say we need to labor for unity. The church must rid herself of evil doers. There must be some way of dealing with the case when men will not live right and do right. There must be some way of maintaining the purity of the church. In John 18:18; 20:23, 2 Thess. 3:6, the church is given this power. This is not the practice of my friend. He will get up and preach to you with all his might in favor of open communion, and then when you people hold your open communion services and they are present, by all the coaxing and begging you ever did in your life you could not get one of them to come over and commune with you, and yet he will get up here and ask you to come over and commune with him. I told you in my negative that he wanted you to come over and commune with him, but he would not go over and commune with you. Can't you see the inconsistency? I don't see how a man can be honest with himself, his God, his Bible and his people that will act that way. He asks you to come over and commune with him, and then he says the sects "belong to the devil," and then he will go and commune with those devils (if he practices what he preaches) and invite you devils to commune with him. Paul said, "What communion hath light with darkness?" and "Ye cannot be partaker of the Lord's table and the table of devils." You can sit down and eat together, but you can't commune together. There can be no communion where there is no union.

(Time.)

_________________________

Elder Riggle's Twenty-Third Speech
Sunday Evening, September 26

Mr. Chairman, Brother Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen:---I wish to state in my opening address tonight that I am not in the least perturbed by the talk to which you have listened. Although the Elder has said some very sharp things, I assure you that I still hold an attitude of pure Christian love and kindness toward him. He is welcome to that kind of talk.

He spoke of Tertullian as an illuminous character. True, but he apostatized, and at the very time when he made reference to triune immersion he was a Montanist, and the Montanists were among the rankest heretics of the second century. He spoke of my reflecting upon the dead. Of course this was all for effect. He referred to certain men in the fourth century as rank heretics who practiced single immersion, and I reckon those men are dead also.

He asked for historical authority that the Montanists were heretics. I would simply refer him to Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History, and Dr. Schaff, or any other standard church history or encyclopedia.

The Elder tried to leave the impression that by "the ampler pledge" Tertullian meant the other things mentioned and not trine immersion. This is not true. Tertullian used this language in direct reference to being thrice baptized. To forever settle this matter I will again read word for word from Tertullian's own writing: "When we are going to enter the water, but a little before, in the presence of the congregation and under the hand of the president, we solemnly profess that we disown the devil, and his pomp, and his angels." Here this sentence ends. Now Tertullian goes on to say: "Hereupon we are thrice immersed, making somewhat ampler pledge than the Lord has appointed in the gospel." This settles the matter. You see by the ampler pledge that the Lord has authorized in the gospel, Tertullian refers directly to being thrice immersed.

The Elder referred to infant baptism, and stated that by infants the Catholic Fathers did not mean little children. I am surprised that a man of Elder Kesler's standing would make such a statement to evade the force of argument that is against him. In the quotations I gave from Origen and other, they definitely mentioned "little infants" and "newly born" babes as eligible to this ordinance. You will notice that Elder Kesler admitted that the same church Fathers who teach trine immersion also state that infant baptism was practiced in their day, and that they claim this was received direct from the apostles. This admission is fatal to his practice. Since he will not accept infant baptism on the testimony of the Fathers, whey does he accept trine immersion on the same authority?

Love feasts. I accept that. I told you last night that we have them just as the primitive church had, but we don't elevate them to the plane of a Christian ordinance as Elder Kesler's church does. Right here I challenge him to cite a single text where the love feasts were ever referred to as the Lord's supper. This he cannot do, and with his failure to do so his whole argument fails him.

I will now proceed with my regular line of argument. First. The full meal the Church of the Brethren eat is to take the place of that which Christ and the apostles ate on the night of His betrayal. They base their practice on that very supper. Note well this fact. The question is, Was the meal Christ and his apostles ate before he instituted the Lord's Super of bread and wine a Jewish institution or a New Testament rite? The whole argument rests on this point. Right here his practice goes down.

Second. I affirm in the fear of God and on the positive authority of the inspired testimony of three inspired Evangelists---Matthew, Mark, and Luke---that Christ and His disciples ate the Passover. This was the only full meal supper that they are on that memorial night. I will now appeal direct to the inspired testimony. Matt. 26:17-21: "Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto Him, Where wilt Thou that we prepare for Thee to eat the Passover? And He said, Go into the city to such a man, and say unto him, The Master saith, My time is at hand; I will keep the Passover at thy house with My disciples. And the disciples did as Jesus had appointed them; and they made ready the Passover. Now when the even was come, He sat down with the twelve. And as they did eat, He said, Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me." I have the Emphatic Diaglott here and will read the account from it. "Now, on the first day of the unleavened bread, the disciples came to Jesus, saying, Where dost Thou wish that we should prepare for Thee the Paschal supper? He answered, Go into the city to a certain person, and say to him, The Teacher says, My time is near; I will celebrate the Passover at thy house with My disciples. And the disciples did as Jesus had ordered them; and they prepared the Passover. Now, evening being come, He reclined at the table with the twelve; and as they were eating He said." I will not turn to the account as given by Mark, found in Chapter 14:12-18: "And the first day of unleavened bread, then they killed the Passover, His disciples said unto Him, Where wilt Thou that we go and prepare that Thou mayest eat the Passover? And He sendeth forth two of His disciples, and saith unto them, Go ye into the city, and there shall meet you a man bearing a pitcher of water: Follow him. And wheresoever he shall go in, say ye to the good man of the house, The Master saith, Where is the guest chamber, where I shall eat the Passover with My disciples? And he will show you a large upper room furnished and prepared: There make ready for us. And the disciples went forth, and came into the city, and found as He had said unto them: and they made ready the Passover. And in the evening He cometh with the twelve. And as they sat and did eat, Jesus said, Verily I say unto you, One of you which eateth with Me shall betray Me."

I will now turn to Luke 22:7-16 and read the account as there given. "Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the Passover must be killed. And He sent Peter and John, saying, Go and prepare us the Passover, that we may eat. And they said unto Him, Where wilt Thou that we prepare? And He said unto them, Behold, when ye are entered into the city, there shall a man meet you, bearing a pitcher of water; follow him into the house where he entereth in. And ye shall say unto the good man of the house, The Master saith unto thee, Where is the guest chamber, where I shall eat the Passover with My disciples? And he shall show you a large upper room furnished; there make ready. And they went, and found as He had said unto them: and they made ready the Passover. And when the hour was come, He sat down, and the twelve apostles with Him. And He said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer: For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God."

Now, friends, I have read in full the account as given by all three of these inspired Evangelists. Let us analyze their testimony. (1) The day had arrived in which the Passover "must be killed," the "first day of unleavened bread," "when they killed the Passover." (2) The disciples asked Jesus "Where wilt Thou that we prepare fro Thee to eat the Passover?" (3) He sent Peter and John, saying, "Go and prepare us the Passover that we may eat." Note the fact that Jesus commanded His disciples to prepare THE PASSOVER. (4) Question: Did they obey the command? You will find the answer in matt. 26:19, Mark 14:16, and Luke 22:13, in these words: "And they made ready THE PASSOVER." (5) Jesus told them to tell the man at whose house they were to prepare the Passover, that He would eat it with them in that house. Here are Jesus' own words as rendered in the Emphatic Diaglott: "I WILL CELEBRATE THE PASSOVER at thy house with My disciples." (6) Now, in Luke 22:13-16, it is positively said that "they made ready THE PASSOVER." Right here I want to read to you an admission from Elder J. H. Moore, of the Brethren Church, in his book "The New Testament Doctrine, " pages 115 and 116. "It is a question over which there has been more or less controversy among Theologians. Among the Jews the day began at sundown and ended at sundown. It was probably not far from sundown, or Thursday afternoon, which would be the beginning of the fourteenth of the month Nisan or the first day of unleavened bread, when the disciples asked Jesus: "Where wilt Thou that we prepare for Thee to eat the Passover?" He told them what to do and it is said that "they made ready the Passover" (Matt. 26:17-19). Luke says it was "the day of unleavened bread, when the Passover must be killed" (Luke 22:7). Remember that the day did not end until the next evening, hence it could well be said that it was the day on which "the Passover must be killed." It was killed on that very day. "After receiving their instructions concerning the preparation of the Passover, the two disciples went to the proper parties and contracted for a lamb to be delivered, as the custom was, at the upper room which they had engaged. This done they arranged for supper, and later Jesus came with His disciples. On this occasion, as shown in previous chapters, Jesus instituted feet-washing, the Lord's Supper and the communion. All of this was on the fourteenth day of Nisan, the day of unleavened bread, or the day on which the Passover must be killed." Good. While this man himself observes the eating of a full meal, you see he is forced to admit that it was the Passover supper---the Jewish Passover---that was prepared to be eaten by Christ and His disciples on that memorial night. (7) Now, it was around this very table that Christ and his disciples gathered and then ate. Did they not eat that which was prepared? Certainly. And what was prepared? Three inspired man tell us it was "the Passover." While they were eating Jesus called that which they war eating "this Passover." This forever settles the matter. There is no appeal from it.

Third. Here I will state a fact that Elder Kesler cannot overthrow. The word Passover occurs forty-seven times in the Old Testament, and in the Greek Septuagint version in every text it is translated from paschal. In the New Testament the word Passover occurs twenty-eight times, and is always translated from "paschal." In all seventy-five times in the Bible the word Passover is from the same original paschal. Right here I want to impress the fact that the very meal Jesus ate with his disciples, recorded by Matthew, Mark and Luke, is paschal, the identical feast of the Jews.

Fourth. When Elder Kesler and his church deny that Christ and his disciple ate the Passover, they squarely contradict the plain testimony of three inspired men of God---Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Elder Kesler and his church positively declare and teach that Christ and his disciples did not eat the Passover. Three inspired Evangelists, and one of them (Matthew) was present on the occasion, positively declare that Christ and his disciples did eat the Passover. I appeal to all honest and good thinking people, which will you believe? Here is a logical conclusion, If the testimony of the three inspired writers is true, then the teaching and practice of Elder Kesler's church are wrong.

Fifth. I will now consider some objections that Elder Kesler's church bring up. (1) They claim that Jesus ate this supper before the feast of the Passover, and cite John 1`3:1 as proof; but their proof is entirely wanting. In this text it is simply stated that before the feast Jesus knew that His hour was come, that is, before they ate the Passover Jesus already knew that the time had arrived for Him to give up His life. This is the true meaning, as the rendering in the Emphatic Diaglott will show, as well as Dr. Adam Clark's comments on this verse. The fact of the matter is this: Before Jesus had eaten the Passover supper with His disciples, He knew that His hour had come, that is, the solemn day had arrived when He must be slain and depart our of the world to the Father. This proves that his supper was the last Passover.

(2) Elder Kesler's church objects that the Passover was never called a supper. From usage the Jew did call this very feast a supper, and Luke, the inspired writer, calls it a supper. Being eaten at night naturally attached the term supper to the feast.

(3) Again, Elder Kesler's church objects that Christ and His disciples did not eat the Passover at the appointed time. I will simple let the word of God answer this. Matt. 26:17, Emphatic Diaglott: "Now, on the first day of the unleavened bread, the disciples came to Jesus , saying, Where dost Thou wish that we prepare for Thee the paschal supper?" Again, Luke 22:7, I will read from the Emphatic Diaglott: "Now the day of unleavened bread came, on which it was necessary to sacrifice the paschal lamb."

(4) But Elder Kesler will tell you that the Jews had not yet eaten it at this time. He will refer you to John 18:28 and John 14:19. The feast of the Passover lasted for eight days. These texts refer more especially to the remainder of the feast. The fact is, at this very time while Jesus was on trial and yet before Pilate, the feast of the Passover had already commenced. This I prove by referring to Matt. 27:15, Mark 15:16, Luke 23:17, and John 18:39. I have not here the time to read these texts, but it is stated that at "the feast" it was customary to release someone, and the Jews desired Barabbas to Christ, and Pilate released unto them Barabbas. So the feast of the Passover had already commenced.

(5) As to whether the proper time to kill and eat the Passover was the beginning of the fourteenth day of the month, or at its close and the beginning of the fifteenth day, is a controverted point by the leading scholars of the world. I will now read from the Union Bible Dictionary, article Passover, from Beer's Jewish Passover, page 10. Beer was a writer of the Brethren Church. "As to the time of the celebration of the Passover, it is expressly appointed between the evenings, or as it is elsewhere expressed, at even, at the going down of the sun. (Deut. xvi. 6.) This is supposed to denote the commencement of the fourteenth day of Nisan, or at the moment when the thirteenth closed and the fourteenth began. The twenty-four hours, reckoned from this point of time to the same period of the next day, or fourteenth, was the day of the Passover. At sunset of the fourteenth day the fifteenth began; and with it the feast of unleavened bread. The lamb was to be selected on the tenth day by each individual or family, and kept up till the fourteenth day, in the evening of which day it was to be killed. (Ex. xii. 3-6.) Then followed the feast of unleavened bread, occupying seven days; the first and last of which were peculiarly holy like the Sabbath. The facts of chief importance in reconciling all the evangelists are, that the word Passover is applied sometimes strictly to the fourteenth day, and at other times to the whole festival of unleavened bread; that the Passover, or paschal supper, strictly speaking, was celebrated at the beginning of the fourteenth day of the month, or immediately after sunset of the thirteenth; and that the fourteenth, or Friday: the Jews begin their day at sunsetting, we at midnight. for the feast of unleavened bread, and also for the Sabbath."

I will now read Dr. Adam Clark's comments on Matt. 26:20. "Now, when the even was come, He sat down with the twelve. It is a common opinion that our Lord ate the Passover some hours before the Jews ate it; for the Jews, according to custom, ate theirs at the end of the fourteenth day, but Christ ate his the preceding even, which was the beginning of the same sixth day or Friday: the Jews begin their day at sunsetting, we at midnight. Thus Christ ate the Passover on the same day with the Jews, but not on the same hour. Christ kept this Passover the beginning of the fourteenth day, the precise day and hour in which the Jews had eaten their first Passover in Egypt."

(6) The disciples knew of no other Passover than the Jewish when they said "Where wilt Thou that we prepare the Passover?"

(7) My friend's church contends that the words "this Passover" in Luke 22:15 was a new institution, but if you will turn to 2 Chron. 35:17-19 you will find this same expression, "this Passover," applied to the Jewish institution. So they are the same. Elder Kesler made an argument on the meaning of the word diepnon, and says it signifies a meal or supper. I will reply to this in my closing speech.

I will close my present address with an argument relating to the veil or head covering. The wearing of this veil is referred to in 1 Cor. 11:4-16. This veil, according to oriental custom, covered the entire head and face. In proof of this I refer to any standard history, encyclopedia or commentary. On the latter I refer to Dr. Adam Clark, Dr. James McKnight, Matthew Henry, and Jamison, Faussett, and Brown. All commentators of any note declare that the veil worn in those days, which Paul refers to in 1 Cor. 11, was a long garment covering the entire head and face and reaching down over the body.

Now, as to the purpose for which women wore such a veil, I will read from Dr. Clark, on 1 Cor. 11. "Propriety and decency of conduct are the points which the apostle seems to have more especially in view. As a woman who dresses loosely or fantastically, even in the present day, is considered a disgrace to her husband, because suspected to be not very sound in her morals; so, in those ancient times, a woman appearing without a veil would be considered in the same light."

I will also here read from Dr. James McKnight on this point. "In the East it was reckoned immodest in women to appear unveiled before any of the male sex except their nearest relations. Thus Rebecca veiled herself on seeing Isaac. (Gen. 4:65.) The immodesty of women appearing unveiled in an assembly of men the apostle illustrated by observing that it was one and the same thing with being shaven."

This makes the matter clear. It was considered immodest for women to appear in public places, to take any part in a public service or worship without wearing the customary veil. All oriental women seen in public without this long veil were regarded as harlots. You see, then, that for the women in the Corinthian Church, where this was the custom, to throw off the veil would at once brand them as prostitutes. Many of these women were married. This clearly explains why Paul wrote as he did. Notice his language: "The head of the woman is the man. And every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoreth her head," that is, her husband. You see by so doing such women by throwing off their veil would at once be branded as harlots and their husbands would have to bear the shame.

The apostle taught that existing customs should be respected as well as the laws and governments under which the church lived. In this case he was applying the law of accommodation. The man who reads the Scriptures and cannot see this principle---the law of accommodation applied---is indeed very dull. Jesus applied this rule or law and accommodated his language to the understanding of the people when he said that the queen of Sheba came from the uttermost parts of the earth to behold the wisdom of Solomon. The facts are she came but a few hundred miles, and the distance could be covered by our modern means of conveyance in a few hour' time. Paul also accommodated his language to the understanding of the people when he declared that in his day the gospel had sounded out in all the world and in all the earth. Facts proved that it had not spread over an area larger than about one-half the United States; but to the people of that time this was the then known world.

Just so in the matter of veiling. Paul accommodated his language as it applied to the people to whom he wrote. The church of God which I represent strictly observe the instructions Paul gave just as he gave them and as he intended them to be applied. The same customs are still prevalent in oriental countries the same as in Paul's time. Native women of the upper caste always go in public places veiled. To do otherwise would be considered immodest, and would bring dishonor upon heir husbands. Brethren who have come from those countries and natives with whom I have conversed say that the custom there is yet very much the same as it was at Corinth in Paul's time.

We have congregations in those oriental lands, and just like Paul instructed the Corinthian sisters, so we instruct our native sisters today. We teach them to wear the veil and not dishonor their head or husband. It seems that Elder Kesler in his theology has never been able to grasp the principle of accommodation as applied in the New Testament Scriptures. He has not studied deep enough into these things. You see the gospel was to reach all nations, and customs of dress as well as other manners so widely differ the world over. No rule can be safely applied on this particular point to all the nations of the world. Our American customs and dress differ widely from the Eastern and oriental customs. In this country it is not considered immodest for women to go unveiled, or ever to appear so in public gatherings. You see Paul's language in the above Scripture does not apply to us, and he never intended that it should. A woman in this country does not dishonor her head---husband--by going unveiled.

What I am about to say, I assure you, is no reflection upon the sisters in Elder kesler's church, and it is said with the kindest feelings toward them There is no similarity whatever between the veil and what Paul taught in 1 Cor. 11 and their practice of wearing the little cap on their heads.

Now I call attention to verse 16. "But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God." This is the key to all of Paul's instruction. If any man will be contentious, as Elder Kesler, for instance, and try to make this binding upon all people, Paul says "WE HAVE NO SUCH CUSTOM, neither the churches of God." You see this was not a church custom, but a mere custom of the people at Corinth on which Paul was giving his advice.

I will here read Rotheram's translation on this verse. "If, however, anyone things to be contentious, we such a custom as this have not, nor yet the assemblies of God." Just as the apostle instructed, so do we. In those countries where the principle applies we strictly observe these things.

(Time.)

_________________________

Elder Kesler's Twenty-fourth Speech
Sunday Evening, September 26

Gentlemen, Moderators, Brethren and Friends:---I arise to deliver the last address that I shall give to you in this discussion, and I want to finish up the line of thought I was presenting when my time was called. I was talking on the subject of close or restricted communion. As applied to the Brethren it affords ample opportunity to appropriate the blessings that come through communion service. We have the opportunity in our own church just as often as we need the communion service. This is in harmony with the Bible idea,"as oft as ye eat and drink, do it in remembrance of Me." There is no number of times specified how often we shall do this. We would have to sacrifice Bible teaching to practice open communion. My friend gets up here and condemns the idea of holding close communion, but the fact is evident that he believes in close communion all right because he doesn't commune with you. In condemning us for close communion he is simply admitting that we are right. He wouldn't want to do a thing (commune with us) that he doesn't believe is right. We have got him on our side of the question. He must admit that ours is right. We don't need to go from home to get spiritual food. You can get it right in the Church of the Brethren, and if his or any other church in the land does not give its members opportunity to get spiritual food enough at home, then there would be some reason for you to go abroad and partake of the communion service, but with the Church of the Brethren we don't need to go from home to get spiritual food. If I have to go from home to get spiritual food I would just go from home and stay. If my church doesn't give me all the spiritual food I need I would just go and stay. I wouldn't go and be a beggar at some of your communion tables. I would go and stay right with them. I would go and identify myself with them. It is in harmony with the model communion given by Christ. No interdenominational communion was held in the apostolic times. In our Savior's time there was only one church, and there couldn't have been any open communion, there couldn't have been any until the time of reformation. I asked him when he was on his proposition, but he didn't even try to answer the questions I gave him. The apostolic church maintained the principles of the close communion. No interdenominational communion in apostolic times. Our Savior did not eat the Jewish Passover on the night of His betrayal. I am going to give you a few facts in this case. Neither evangelist says in so many words that Jesus ate the Passover. We admit that He sent the disciples to prepare the Passover, and they prepared it that evening, as far as possible in the time they had. The Jews would not arrest Jesus "on the feast day lest there be an uproar among the people." The feast day came the next day after the Passover, and if Jesus ate the Passover on that day they would have to arrest Him on the feast day. The supper must have been eaten on the day before, just as we shall develop presently that He ate the supper on the previous evening, the evening before the Passover. Matt. 16:5; Mark 14:21. That was the day before they ate the Passover. Matt., Mark, Luke 18:28, tell us plainly and positively that He was crucified on the preparation day, that is, the day when they prepared for the Passover to come on the evening of that day. When Jesus said to Judas, What thou doest do quickly, the apostles thought Jesus was telling Judas to go and buy things needed for the feast. They weren't fully prepared yet, and they thought when Jesus told Judas to go quickly that he was to go and buy thing for the feast tomorrow evening. Peter and John prepared the meal, and neither of them called it the Passover. In John 13:1, "Now before the feast of the Passover, that Jesus knew that His hour had come that He should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved His own which were in the world, He loved them unto the end." My friend says, "It was the hour of the Passover." But John says, "Jesus arose from supper of meal and laid aside His garments." He did not say He arose from the Passover. "Before the Passover, Jesus knowing that His hour was come." He "riseth from supper." Elder Riggle will not find that word pascha here. Jesus rose from the supper, not from the Passover, and He washed the disciples' feet. John 18:28: The Jews "went not into the judgment hall lest they should be defiled, but that they might eat the Passover." If He ate the Passover then we have these evangelists contradicting themselves. You have John, Paul, Luke, and Mark contradicting themselves, but when you have the fact that Jesus did eat the supper twenty-four hours before the Passover, then it will all come out right. I want to go again to Luke's statement on this matter. Elder Riggle read you from the Authorized Version, "With desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of heaven, as it reads here. The Revised Version on this subject, his own version that he reads does not sustain his contention. Luke 22:16: "For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. With desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer." Some of you, before this debate commenced , said, I am going to this debate. I want to attend this debate. I have never attended a debate, and I want to attend this one. Some of you used that form when the debate was some days in the future, and just as you said you wanted to attend this debate. The debate was in the future. "This Passover," meaning the Passover, was yet twenty-four hours in the future.

He says, "Tertullian was a Montanist when her wrote on the subject of baptism." I have read Catheart, an historian on the subject, and he states that Mr. Tertullian wrote in the year 196 and joined the Montanists in the year 200, or four years after. He says "eating meals was a Jewish custom." That is right. Feet-washing was also a Jewish custom, and yet he washes feet. Just contradicts himself! He just knocks the bottom out of his own argument. Because eating meals was a Jewish custom his argument is, therefore, the Lord's Supper should not be eaten. His own argument knocks the bottom out of his position. He reads from Brother Moore when they killed the Passover. Brother Moore doesn't believe that Jesus ate the Passover in the evening of the day on which they killed the Passover, which meant the evening before the daylight part of the day. The day started at sunset, and our Savior met with the disciples and ate His supper at the beginning of the night. They killed the lamb in the afternoon, about 3 o'clock in the afternoon, and then they ate the Passover in the night after they had killed it. If he contends this is the Passover I want him to tell us just when He ate the supper mentioned by Luke and John and Paul. Luke 22:20. "Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the New Testament in My blood, which is shed for you." After "supper," and not after the "Passover." He tells us that the Jews sometimes refer to the Passover as supper, but he didn't find it in the Bible. He didn't find where Jesus called the Passover the supper. Paul said He took bread in the same night after supper. We have three inspired writers telling us that Jesus ate a supper after which He partook of the loaf and cup.

He has nothing to sustain that author who "believes our Savior ate the Passover." He refers to Clark and says that "it is a common belief that Christ ate the Passover." Would that make it the Passover? If He had actually eaten the Passover before the right time, wouldn't they have had something to accuse Him of? The had to get men to sear lies to get some sort of chare against Him, that they could have some evidence, and if He had actually eaten the Passover, they would have had a charge against Him to condemn Him when He was on trial. I will pass on now. My time is passing away.

Position 9. The prayer veil. It is Scriptural for Christian women to veil their heads in time of worship. Paul teaches the propriety of the veil. 1 Cor. 11:5, 10. Jesus received it from heaven. John 12:49, 50. Paul got if from Christ. Gal. 1:11, 12; 1 Cor. 14:37. Being part of the gospel it is a means of final salvation. Rom 1:16; 1 Cor. 15:1, 2; Eph. 1:13; Jas. 1:21. Paul set up in the churches planted by him the veil for women. "If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge than the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord." My friend get up and tells us Paul makes a certain command and then bind it upon God's people. There are two kinds of ordinances, "carnal" and divine" ordinances, and he tell us Paul took some of these "carnal" practices and bound them upon the apostolic church. I don't like to see God's word perverted in this way. 2 Tim 3:16, 17. "All Scripture is give by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. 1 Cor. 11:1, 2. "Be ye followers of Me, even as I also am of Christ. Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember Me in all things as I keep the ordinances as I delivered them to you. Eph. 1:13, Jas. 1:2. Kalumma is the word that means the covering that Paul talked about. 2 Cor. 3:13. "And not as Moses, which put a veil (Kalumma) over his face, so that the children of Israel could not steadfastly look to the end of that which is abolished." Now that is the word that means the covering in the original. Kalupto (the verb form) to hide, to conceal. That is from Greenfield. Grove's, and Liddell's and Scott's lexicon says, to cover with a thing, to conceal. Now we have the meaning of these words plainly given and they mean covering. 1 Cor. 11:10: "For this cause ought the woman to have power (exousia) on her head because of the angels." Greenfield says the emblem of power, honor, and dignity is a veil. 1 Cor. 11:10. This was not confined to India, China, Greece, or some other country where it is the custom. They gave it in general terms, and these men living 1800 years this side tell us these words mean a covering, that means authority to do a thing. Pray and prophesy. This is the meaning of the words---the idea they express. But Elder Riggle says you can't take the Bible at what is says, you have to put on a private interpretation. Paul says, "the things I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord Jesus Christ," and he must admit that Paul wrote this eleventh chapter of 1 Cor. in which the veil is plainly taught. Two kinds of ordinances. Heb. 9:10. One carnal and one divine. "Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposted on them until the time of the reformation." Paul bound a carnal custom on the church without any authority from the great God of heaven, according to my friend, but Paul says it is a command of the Lord Jesus Christ. Two kinds of coverings. The natural is her hair, and artificial her veil to be worn in time of worship. Verses 4 and 5. "Every man prophesying, having his head covered dishonoreth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoreth her head; for it is even all one as if she were shaven." Why do you men come in here with your heads uncovered? "Every man praying or prophesying having his head covered, dishonoreth his head." Why don't you come here with your hat on? "But every woman that prayeth or prephesieth with her head uncovered dishonoreth her head." My friend will come here and tell you that Paul would go and bind a heathen custom on God's people. We seriously object to it. The Scripture is applicable to all nations and there is no system of theory or logic that will show our practice here is not in harmony with the eternal truth. "For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, for as much as he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of the man. Verse 10: "For this cause ought the woman to have power on her because of the angels." Sign of authority does not mean the hair for then ungodly woman would have the power as Christian women, and Paul's teaching would be meaningless. I want to read Mr. Albert Barnes on 1 Cor. 11, Verse 4: "Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, with cap, hat, turban, or whatever is worn by men, dishonoreth this head." Verse 5: "But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoreth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven." "If her head be not covered with a veil." Verse 10: It is generally agreed that the word power means the veil or covering for the head. There can be no doubt that a veil is meant. "Her hair is given to her for a covering." A sort of outward natural veil. Verse 16: "We have no such custom." Mr. Barnes says no such custom in Judea that women pray or prophesy unveiled. It is contrary to the custom there for women to appear unveiled. Mr. Barnes and my friend are up against each other. Mr. Barnes writes as a scholar. My friend is in debate trying to gain his point, and you would have to decided who would be the more honest in giving the truth in the matter. "Neither the churches of God," says Paul. "It is customary in Judea for the women to appear veiled." Pages 199, 204. Verse 4 means what is worn as hat or whatever she usually wore. "If her head is not covered with a veil let it be covered with the veil." "There is no doubt that the veil is meant," says Mr. Barnes. Verse 16: "It was the custom of churches in Judea and elsewhere for women to appear in public assemblies and to join in public worship veiled. If the church at Corinth refuses it well be a departure from customary usage, and offend the churches elsewhere." The Brethren's position here could not well be more correctly and concisely stated.

(Time.)

CLOSING REMARKS

Now I have the privilege to say to you that we have had a very pleasant discussion, and I have enjoyed it immensely, and with reference to Elder Riggle I can say that I have the very kindest feelings toward him, and I might say the same as he has said, I believe he is in error, and I didn't expect to convince him, I didn't come here for that purpose. I hadn't the least idea of convincing Elder Riggle, but when my brethren called on me I felt it was my duty to respond to my people. I feel just as kind toward Brother Riggle as any man I ever debated with, and I am sure I feel kindly toward everybody else. I certainly appreciate the interest you have manifested. This has been the most largely attended discussion I have ever engaged in. With reference to the moderators, they certainly have performed their duties fairly and consistently. This discussion is over now, and let us not take it into our homes and discuss it there, stirring up feelings in your homes, with your neighbors and friends. The book will come out and with that Christian charity and love that should characterize the people of the Lord Jesus Christ, you can read it and form conclusions for yourselves. May God's blessings rest upon you all until we meet up yonder. Amen.

_________________________

Elder Riggle's Twenty-fourth Speech
Sunday Evening, September 26

Mr. Chairman, Brother Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen:---I now arise to deliver the closing speech of this debate, the rules forbid me to introduce any new argument; so I will make reply to a few statements in my opponent's closing remarks.

Although I have fully covered the ground under my affirmative proposition I will here drop a word on close communion, as the Elder has spent considerable time on this point. The ordinances of the Lord's house are for all the Lord's people. No matter where found, all of God's children have a perfect right to participate. As observed in the Elder's church it is a strictly sectarian rite.

Tertullian. Elder Kesler said that he wrote in A. D. 196, and joined the Montanists in A. D. 200, or four years later. Well, what of that? Suppose this is true. All of his works were not written prior to his joining the Montanists. His work on "The Crown" was written somewhere between 204 and 210 A. D. or a number of years after he apostatized, joined this heresy, and himself became a heretic. It was from this book---The Crown---written while he was a heretic, that I read where he mentions trine immersion and himself admits that in this tire they performed a somewhat ampler pledge than the Lord authorized in the gospel. There is no evasion of the fact that trine immersion originated in one of the rankest heresies of the second and their centuries. The Elder's practice sprang from his spring of corruption. He has positively not been able to trace it historically beyond the heresy of the Montanists. Single immersion as I have clearly proven, was the practice of the primitive church. O that the Elder would accept the truth and drop his heresy for the doctrine and practice of the apostles.

He tried to make an impression by reading where the apostle said, "The things that I write unto you they are the commandments of God." But in Paul's writings, all the truly enlightened can see that he followed the law of accommodation in some things. For example, he gave instructions concerning slaves and their masters. You see slavery was very prevalent in Paul's time. But will these instructions apply to us free Americans where slavery is unknown? Again, the apostle devoted several chapters to the subject of meats offered to idols, and the eating or noneating of such meats. I ask, does his exact language on these points apply to us in this country where there are no altars to idols and no meats thus offered? I hardly think so. And just so with the veil covering. In all these teachings, however, there is a principle expressed that is applicable everywhere. So we apply the principle just as Paul did, when custom and necessity demand it. There is one text, however, that settles the whole question. Verse 16: "But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such customs, neither the Church of God."

The Elder read a number of authors on the head veil. Did any of these authors teach the women in their respective churches to wear the veil? Not one. They all understood Paul just as I understand him: that the wearing of the veil was only applicable in such places where custom and propriety demanded it. One of the authors quoted is Dr. Barnes. Will the Elder say that Dr. Barnes taught his Methodist people to veil themselves? No, indeed. Dr. Barnes did not so understand Paul's teaching. In all the authors the Elder quoted not a single one of them sustain his practice of wearing a little cap on the head as the sisters in the Church of the Brethren observe. For this the Elder has no authority, neither in the Holy Scriptures nor in the historic record.

But Dr. Barnes mentioned one thing that I had overlooked: That the "veil distinguished her sex." You see in those Eastern countries both men and women wore robes or flowing garments. The mark of distinction, then, between the attire of women and that of men was the wearing of the veil. If Paul were here today, and our American sisters would insist upon wearing men's attire, he would advise just like he did at Corinth, that they strictly observe the law of modesty and wear that attire that becomes women professing godliness.

Elder Kesler again brought up the thought that the supper Jesus ate was not the Paschal Supper, and gave us proof. John 13:1. While I explained this in my last speech, I will again give it a passing note. I will read from the Emphatic Diaglott: "Now Jesus, knowing before the feast of the Passover, that His hour was come, that He should depart out of the world." I will also read Dr. Adam Clark: "Now, Jesus having know before the Feast of the Passover that His hour was come, the supper mentioned in verse 2 is supposed to have been that on Thursday evening, when the Feast of the Passover began."

The idea in the text is that Jesus knew before He ate the Passover that His hour was come, and that is why He ate this last Passover with His disciples before the literal rite reached its fulfillment in Himself, the true slain Lamb. So you see the very text her refers to proves nothing for him, but squarely contradicts his contention.

You all remember how Elder Kesler got up in his last speech, and, right in the face of the clear testimony of three inspired evangelists, denied that Christ and His disciples ate the Passover. He says they ate a full meal. Certainly, and Matthew, Mark and Luke plainly tell us that that full meal was the Passover. He asks for one inspired writer who calls the Passover a supper. Luke, the Evangelist , who was an inspired writer, called the Passover a "supper." I will again read the account as given by Luke. Surely the simple account itself ought to be sufficient to refute the Elder's contention. "Then came the day of unleavened bread, WHEN THE PASSOVER MUST BE KILLED." This shows that the disciples killed it at the proper time, Elder Kesler to the contrary notwithstanding. "And He sent Peter and John, saying, Go and PREPARE US THE PASSOVER, that we may eat." What could be plainer than this? Jesus told them to prepare the Passover that they might eat it, and yet, Elder Kesler, right in the fact of this inspired testimony, denies that this was the Passover. Friends, which will you believe? I will take the divine record in preference to his talk."And they said unto Him, Where wilt Thou that we prepare? And He said unto them, Behold, when ye are entered into the city, there shall a man meet you, bearing a pitcher of water, follow him into the house where he enterest in. And ye shall say unto the good man of the house, The Master saith unto thee, Where is the guest chamber, where I SHALL EAT THE PASSOVER WITH MY DISCIPLES?" Now, right in the face of this, my opponent tells you that Christ and His disciples did not eat the Passover. If they did not, then Christ falsified. I sounds strong, but if the Elder's contention is correct Christ told a positive falsehood. His doctrine makes Christ a liar. Which will you believe? Christ said, "I will eat the Passover at they house with My disciple." "And he shall show you a large upper room furnished; there make ready. And they went, and found as He had said unto them: and they MADE READY THE PASSOVER." The Elder says this was not the Passover. You see he contradicts the inspired record. "And when the hour was come, He sat down and the twelve apostles with Him. And He said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat THIS PASSOVER with you before I suffer." You see the thing they ate was what was prepared. Jesus Himself, while they were eating it, called it "this Passover." This forever settles the matter. The full meal which Christ and His disciples ate on that night was the Passover---the Paschal lamb. "For I say unto you, I will not eat any more thereof until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God." This show that the supper they ate belonged to the types and shadows of the law and was fulfilled in Christ. This fact knocks the bottom out of the Elder's full meal theory.

Now with all the esteem I have for Elder Kesler as a man, I cannot accept his testimony against that of the inspired Evangelists. Jesus said, " will eat the Passover," "I will keep the Passover." My opponent said that Christ did not eat it, did not keep it. Now I ask this intelligent audience which will you believe? They cannot both be right. They differ too widely. They squarely contradict each other. I am inclined to believe that you will accept the testimony of the Master in preference to that of the Elder. Now, if Christ did not eat the Passover, He told an untruth. Can you believe such a thing? Preposterous! Incredible! I will credit Christ's testimony above that of any man, no matter how highly I esteem that man.

The language is too plain to be misunderstood. Here is the testimony of three inspired men that Christ and His disciples ate the Passover. Let us carefully analyze the account. 1. The day had arrived in which the Passover "must be killed," the first day of unleavened bread, "when they killed the Passover." 2. The disciples asked Jesus, "Where wilt Thou that we prepare for Thee to eat the Passover?" 3. "He sent Peter and John, saying, God and prepare us the Passover, that we may eat." 4. He told them to tell the man at whose house they were to prepare, "I will keep the Passover at they house with My disciples." "I shall eat the Passover with My disciples." If, as some say, He did not eat the Passover, then He told a positive falsehood. But He told the truth, though is makes men who contradict Him liars. 5. "And they made ready the Passover." 6. In the evening He came and "sat down, and the twelve apostles with Him." 7. As they sat at the table, "He said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer." 8. "They did eat." And while they were eating He said, "I will not eat any more thereof until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God." Comments are unnecessary. To deny that Christ and His disciples ate the Passover is to indulge in the height of folly and betray extreme ignorance.

This was the last Passover. It was to be eaten nor more until fulfilled in the kingdom of God. You see, the Passover was one of the types of the old testament.

Just a word on Deipnon---supper. Deipnon---"A meal." "Supper." Granted. Question. How much must a person eat? Where is the Scripture statement? A fact. The only thing our Lord commanded to be eaten was bread, the only thing to be drunken is the fruit of the vine. Question. Where did the Lord say how much? Paul does say not to eat enough to satisfy hunger. "IF ANY MAN HUNGER LET HIM EAT AT HOME." This utterly refutes the full meal idea. To eat a full meal without hunger is gluttony. Because the elements---bread and the blood of grapes---signify so much, the GREATNESS of this supper eclipses all the meals, feasts and great suppers that ever were eaten. It stands above all else as the one great DEIPNON of the gospel.

In confounding agape with deipnon, Friend Kesler makes a very serious blunder. The feast of charity is never called deipnon, and the Lord's Supper is NEVER called agape. Mark this. Thus Elder Kesler's full meal for the Lord's Supper stands refuted.

I WILL NO GIVE MY FINAL SUMMARY AND NEGATIVE ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE CHURCH OF THE BRETHREN, BEING IDENTICAL WITH THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH IN ORIGIN, NAME, DOCTRINE AND PRACTICE.

First. I made the point that to be identical the Church of the Brethren must be THE SAME, DIFFERING IN NO ESSENTIAL POINT.

Second. I proved that there is no identity between the founders of these two churches.

The New Testament Church was founded by Christ. Matt. 16:18; Heb. 8:3. Whereas the Church of the Brethren had its beginning in a small company of eight persons who met on the bank of the Eder in Schwarzenau, Germany, in the year 1708, at which time Elder Moore of the Brethren Church tells us "a new religious sect" had its beginning.

From these facts I presented the following logical conclusions: (1) Christ built His own church, which He denominates "My church." Whereas the one built on the River Eder in Germany by eight fallible persons cannot be His church.

(2) The one is divine, the other human. The one was founded by the infallible God, the other by finite, fallible man. No identity.

(3) The New Testament Church was conceived in the divine mind, parallel with the gift of His Son. Its origin dates back to the plan of God from the foundation of the world. The law, its tabernacles and services, was the shadow of this church. Whereas, the Church of the Brethren was conceived in the human minds of eight fallible men, therefore, there can be no identity between the two bodies.

Third. There is no identity in the nature of the two bodies. The New Testament Church is a spiritual house. 1 Pet. 2:5. The Church of the Brethren is a literal temporal structure, as men cannot manufacture spiritual things.

Fourth. The New Testament Church is the whole. It is the established church, the first of the Christian dispensation. It is no sect. Whereas the Church of the Brethren is admitted by Elder Moore and by Elder Kesler several times during this discussion to be a sect. Since a sect is a body dissenting from the established church, there cannot possibly be any identity between the two bodies.

Fifth. I proved that there is no identity between the New Testament Church and the Church of the Brethren as to date of organization. The New Testament Church began under the labors of John and continued during the ministry of Christ, and was fully organized in its completed perfected sense on Pentecost in A. D. 33. Whereas the Church of the Brethren dates from the years 1708, or 1675 years too late to be identical with the New Testament Church.

Sixth. There is no identity between the two bodies as to place of organization. The New Testament Church was organized at Jerusalem. This was by divine appointment. The prophet had foretold that the Word of the Lord would go forth from Jerusalem. And Jesus instructed His disciples to tarry in Jerusalem until endued from on high, with the promise that they should be witnesses first in Jerusalem, then throughout all Judea, and finally unto the uttermost parts of the earth. Whereas the Church of the Brethren had it beginning near Schwarzenau, Germany, without any authority or prophetic truth pointing thereunto. Hence, without authority from the Word of God.

Seventh. I next proved that there is no identity between the two bodies in the manner of setting up the two institutions. Therefore they cannot possible be the same.

TO THESE LOGICAL AND UNANSWERABLE FACTS WITH ELDER KESLER COULD NOT REFUTE, HE SIMPLY REPLIED, THAT IF CHRIST BUILT ONE CHURCH WHY COULD HE NOT BUILD ANOTHER? To this I replied that of the New Testament Church which Christ built it is declared would "never be destroyed," and "shall stand forever." And, again, of the New Testament Church, Jesus said, "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. " Based upon this unanswerable fact, I presented this logical conclusion. That since the New Testament Church is destined to stand forever, and is an exclusive church, it leaves no room for a rival body, and there is no need of any. There is absolutely no Scriptural proof that Christ would ever build more than the one divine church. Therefore, the sect know as the Church of the Brethren is without Scriptural authority for its existence.

Eight. I clearly proved that there is no identity between the New Testament Church and the Church of the Brethren in membership. Christ is the door of the former (John 10:9). Triune baptism is the door into the latter. Salvation makes us members of the New Testament Church (Acts 2:47). Salvation makes no one a member of the Church of the Brethren. The Lord adds the members and takes them into the New Testament Church ( 1 Cor. 12:12, 18). Whereas, by the literal rite of baptism, the preacher takes members into the Brethren sect. A Spiritual work inducts us into the church whereas a literal rite inducts members into the Church of the Brethren. THEY CANNOT BE THE SAME.

Ninth. I clearly proved that the two bodies are not identical in their universality. The New Testament Church is declared to be the body of Christ, hence includes all Christians. Whereas the Church of the Brethren includes but a very small part of God's family. The two bodies, then, cannot be the same.

Tenth. I made the point that there is no need of this new body known as the Church of the Brethren. Because

(1) Christ built a perfect church that was to continue throughout all ages; hence no man can improve upon the divine system.

(2) In the days of the apostles they had perfect organization, visibility and success, without this late rival body. There is no excuse for its existence.

Eleventh. I clearly proved that God had but one church under the old covenant, and that was the typical church, hence He has but one church under the new covenant, which is the antitypical church. Since Christ has but one true church, and this church existed seventeen centuries before the Church of the Brethren ever was heard of, this last institution which Elder Kesler represents cannot be Christ's church. To all this he replied that, since Christ built His church in Palestine, could He not build a distinct and separate body seventeen centuries later in Germany? Against this I gave the following fact and logical answer: The New Testament Church is the same in organization, visibility, membership, faith, doctrine and practice, in all nations, throughout all ages. There is, the, no excuse for the Church of the Brethren.

He next replied that the Church of the Brethren is now the same in all countries, therefore identical. I clearly proved that this establishes no identity, for it would prove as much for the Catholics and Mormons who are the same in all countries.

Twelfth. I clearly proved that in every case where the plural term churches is used in the New Testament, it always applies to the local bodies or assemblies of God's people in different parts of the world who held membership in the one universal church. And that this plural term is never once used to represent distinct, separate bodies or churches.

Thirteenth. He tried to establish identity by saying that the New Testament Church believed and taught faith, repentance, the new birth, baptism, holiness, sanctification, perfection, etc., and that because the Church of the Brethren hold and teach these truths in some manner, the two bodies are identical. I showed the fallacy of his argument by proving that these are points of teaching which most all Christian people accept and, by his own logic, proves as much for the Mormons and the Catholics as it does for him.

Fourteenth. I clearly proved that the New Testament Church is the body of Christ. Nothing more or nothing less. ( Col. 1:18, 24; Eph. 1:22, 23.) The Church of the Brethren cannot be the body of Christ, for Christ's body existed for seventeen centuries before the Church of the Brethren came into existence. The cannot be the same. The New Testament Church is one body. The New Testament only teaches and recognized one body. Since the Church of the Brethren came seventeen hundred years later it has no recognition in the New Testament. Cannot be Christ's body.

Fifteenth. The New Testament Church is the House of God, the family of God, the bride, the lamb's wife. The New Testament clearly teaches that Christ has but one house, one family, one bride. The leaves the Church of the Brethren without any identity, for it cannot be that one house, family and bride.

Sixteenth. I gave a prophetic history of the Church as portrayed in prophecy and Revelation and confirmed by the testimony of history. I thus traced it from its morning glory down through the twelve hundred and sixty years of popery, through the three hundred and fifty years of Protestant Sexism to it final restoration in the same unity, organization, faith, purity and power of primitive times; a blessed state now enjoyed by hundreds of thousands who are being gathered in the blessed evening light.

Thus, I established the identity of the church I have the honor to represent with that of the New Testament Church, and clearly proved that the organization named the Church of the Brethren has no place in prophetic record, unless indeed that it was foretold that sects would arise in which God's people would be scattered.

Seventeenth. I clearly proved that the title, the Church of the Brethren, cannot be found in the New Testament. That the term brethren as used there, is a universal term applying to all God's people in all ages, and is not limited to a certain distinct organization. I clearly showed that there are a number of other bodies as the United Brethren, Radical Brethren, Plymouth Brethren, Old Order Brethren and Progressive Brethren, that have as much right to this title as the Elder's church.

I clearly proved that the New Testament Church was named by the mouth of the Lord. That God's people and city were to be called after His name. In the fulfillment Christ named the church after the Father, as the family of God and the bride of Christ. That this title by twelve clear texts of Scripture is declared to be the "Church of God." Thus I have clearly proved that the Church of the Brethren is in no sense identical with the New Testament Church in origin or in name.

As to doctrine on the purpose of baptism, I clearly refuted his position that trine immersion is essential to our present salvation from sin.

First. I showed that salvation is predicated upon repentance and faith. And that through Christ, the only Mediator between God and man, every sinner has direct access to God.

Second. That the procuring cause for salvation is the blood of Christ, the only cleansing element.

Third. That salvation is not dependent upon an external rite that one man must perform upon another.

Fourth. I proved that the Old Testament figure of New Testament salvation proves that we must get into Christ by spiritual birth before we are baptized in water. Noah and his family entered the ark before the flood came. Just as we now must enter Christ before baptism.

Fifth. Cornelius and his household received the Holy Spirit, were both converted and sanctified before they were baptized.

ON PRACTICE. The arguments are all fresh in your minds. I presented fifteen logical arguments, based upon incontrovertible facts and truths, well supported by abundance of clear Scriptural tests that single immersion was the primitive mode of baptism, that trine immersion has no place whatever in the divine record.

Last night I gave overwhelming historical proof that triune baptism as a practice in the church cannot be traced farther back in the pages of history than Tertullian, who was a heretic, a member of the Monastics, one of the rankest heresies which arose in the second century.

I proved the practice of single immersion by going back to the fountain of New Testament truth, while Elder Kesler depended largely on the muddy waters of history written away down the stream during the time of apostate Christianity.

I clearly showed that triune immersion began to be practiced in the second century at the time when the agitation arose over the Trinity. It was born in heresy.

And lastly I have clearly proved that the observance of a full meal for the Lord's Supper is unscriptural, that in eating such meal the Brethren are observing a rite that is purely Jewish and not Christian, for the only supper Christ ate with His disciples on the night of His apprehension was the Passover. That the bread and wine are the only elements Christ ever commanded to be received, and these constitute the New Testament Lord's Supper.

I leave the evidence with you, with a prayer that the God of all grace through the Spirit of Truth may guide all hearts into the way of eternal life.

In conclusion, I wish to thank the congregation for your good attendance and attention throughout the debate. I also wish to thank the chairman for the unbiased manner in which he treated my respondent and myself. And I wish further to thank the moderators for the part they both so well filled. I want to assure you all that I close this debate in the same spirit in which I entered it; with Christian love and friendship towards Elder Kesler and the members of his church. As a man I shall ever hold him in high esteem, though I firmly believe him to be in error in his doctrine and practice.

During this investigation I have endeavored to the best of my ability to present what I honestly believe to be the truth and have ever kept before me the thought of sincerity, knowing that for all I have said I must give an account in that last day. I have not treated the truth as though it were fiction, but as the truth.

I feel my feet pressing the rock and upon His truth I rely. This will be the standard of judgment in the great day. Then let me say to one and all---"Buy the truth, and sell it not." At the sacrifice or traditions or former teaching imbibed even at mother's knee, it is always safe to exchange error for truth. This is the only safe rule of life and it well pay. I now close with best wishes and love to all.

(Time.)

The Chairman in closing said:

I want to thank the people for their good attention throughout this discussion. I feel that the people have taken a very deep interest and I trust that they will receive the truth that has gone forth from this stand. Let us pray.

Closing prayer by the Chairman:

Our Father which are in heaven, we are glad that we can come to Thee as our Father. We are glad that we were ever brought into a knowledge of salvation. That Jesus Christ, the Son of God, has power to forgive sins and set us free. And we desire to thank Thee tonight from the very depths of our soul for this great salvation which we enjoy. We thank Thee for the blessed gospel, for Thy wonderful power to save and keep. We pray that Thou mayest have Thy right of way with every soul in divine presence. And now as we are about to separate, God forbid that anyone should close their hearts against the truth that has gone forth from this stand. Help us all to realize that we are eternity bound.

This night has brought us, every one, nearer to out eternal destiny than we have ever been before. It is a sad thought when we think of separating, probably never again to meet in this world as we have met here during the twelve nights of this interesting session. Our next meeting will probably be before the tribunal bar of God. Help us to ask ourselves the question, Am I ready? May the Holy Spirit at this very moment help this congregation to see the need of being fully prepared to meet God. It will be a fearful thing to go out of this world without hope. We are glad of the fact that God knows every one of us. He is personally acquainted with us. May we all live that we may be used to Thy honor and glory. Lord, we pray that there may be no root of bitterness springing up in any heart. And now may the blessings of our heavenly Father rest upon us, and may we be kept from all the sin and evil of this world, and at last may we all be gathered into that eternal kingdom where parting and pain shall never come, but where we shall praise Thee in worlds without end, through Christ our blessed Redeemer. Amen.

[THE END]

the church of God (evening light)

Friday, January 20, 2012

The Riggle - Kesler Debate PART SIX

No comments:

Post a Comment

About Me

Blog Archive