The Riggle - Kesler Debate PART FIVE

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 FIVE

The Riggle - Kesler Debate

__________________

Elder Kesler's Eighteenth Speech
Thursday Evening, September 23

Gentlemen, Moderators, Brethren and Friends:---You remember my worthy opponent said just as he took his seat he thought enough had been said about the design of baptism. I admit I think he has said about enough. You remember he began on baptism on his proposition and has been hammering on it ever since, but that will not prevent me from submitting some Scriptures on the subject.

Tenth argument, position 4, on the design of baptism.

Baptism is a part of the new birth. John 3:5: "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." 1 Pet. 1:23: "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the Word of God, which liveth and abideth forever." No you will see that through water baptism and through birth which includes baptism, as my friend will not deny, we see we get the new birth through obedience to the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ---faith, repentance, confession and baptism---and places us in His family. 1 Cor. 4:15: "For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet ye have ye not many Fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel." That is the starting point---the beginning. James 1:18: "Of His own will begat He us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of first fruits of His creatures." Luke 8:11: "Now the parable is this: the seed is the word of God." Seed of the new birth. That is what we are presenting to you, that the Word of God is the seed of the new birth. We are quickened by the word. Psa. 119:50: "For Thy word hath quickened me." Verse 93: "I will never forget Thy precepts: for with them thou hast quickened me." We are converted by the word. Psa. 19:7; 1 Pet. 1:23; John 3:5. As we have just stated, there may be such a thing as still birth. A child of God is not inducted into the family of God by such birth. The work that is necessary in the heart and life of a person brought about through faith, repentance, and confession may not have taken place. Then, there may be such a thing as bastards in the Spiritual world.

11. Baptism is connected with regeneration.

(a) Titus 3:5: "not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost." Acts 22:16: "And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away they sins, calling on the name of the Lord."

(b) Cleansed by the washing of water. Heb. 10:22: "Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water." God's Holy Spirit sprinkles the conscience and baptism in which our bodies are washed, is a part of the work, as Brother Moore has stated. That He might sanctify and cleanse it by the washing of water by the word. Baptism is the only "washing of water by the word."

(c) Obedience including baptism frees from sin. Rom. 6:17, 18: "But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness." John 15:3: "Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you." Baptism is the only birth of water.

Note 2. We are regenerated in baptism, washed from sin in baptism, born into new life and adopted into the family of God, and resurrected in baptism into new life after burial, not before, as my friend teaches. My friend teaches resurrection to new life before burial of the old man of sin.

Argument 12. The primitive church baptized for remission. I want to read an extract from Faber's History, pages 164, 180, 184, to show that the primitive church in the primitive ages of the church taught baptism for remission and God's people baptized for the remission of sins just as the Church of the Brethren today. "The Petrobuisians taught that it is not the faith of another, but an individual's own faith which saves with baptism, inasmuch as our Lord says: He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved. The Petrobuisians also said that neither baptism, without concomitant faith, nor faith without concomitant baptism, is of any avail, for neither can save without the other." The Petrobuisians were but the Albgenses under different names. The Petrobuisians were ancient Waldenses. Therefore the Ancient Waldenses held baptism in order to the remission of sins. Next we read from Ray's (Baptist) "Baptism of the Ages and Nations," page 57: "Clemens Romansus represents Peter preaching to the people and telling them 'they might wash away their sins in the water of a river or fountain, or the sea, when they were baptized by invoking the name of the blessed Trinity upon them.'" Again we read from Burrage's (Baptist) "The Act of Baptism." pages 39, 40: "In the work called 'The Shepherd,' attributed by Irenens, Tertullian, and Origen to Hemas (Rom. 16:14): Hence those who were dead were sealed with the seal of the Son of God, and entered into the kingdom of God. But this seal is the water, into which we go down devoted to death, but come up assigned to life. Hence, also this seal was preached to them, and they used it that they might enter into the kingdom of God." Irenens, referring to Naaman, says: "He dipped in Jordan seven times. Not in vain in old times was Naaman, being a leper, baptized and cleansed, but for our information, who, being lepers in our sins, are cleansed by the holy water, and invocation of the Lord from our old transgressions, as new born children spiritually regenerated as the Lord, too, saith: Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven." On page 64 of the same work we read: "He (Augustine) says: The Savior willed to be baptized, not that He might Himself be cleansed, but to cleanse the water for us. From the time that He Himself was dipped in the water, from that time He washed away all our sins in the water. Thus the blessing which, like a spiritual river, flows on from the Savior's baptism, hath basins of all pools, and the courses of all fountains." We read these citations to show you the Brethren hold the same views of the baptism as did the church of primitive ages, and also as held by the apostolic or New Testament Church, as these authors plainly state. We don't say that water literally washes away sins, but Christ does it through the application of the blood in baptism. Right back in the primitive age of the church we find them teaching the very same doctrine that the Church of the Brethren teaches today.

Argument 13. Our position accepts and embraces all the conditions of pardon and salvation named in the Bible. Luke 8:11: The seed of the new birth is the Word of God. The seed is the Word of God. 1 Pet. 1:23: "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the Word of God, which liveth and abideth forever." Rom. 10:17: "So, then, faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God." Heb. 11:6: "But without faith it is impossible to please Him: for he that cometh to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him." Mark 16:16: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." Acts 16:3: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved." Repentance. Mark---"Except ye repent ye shall all likewise perish." Luke 13:3. Acts 3:19: "Repent and be converted." Acts 17:30: "He commandeth all men everywhere to repent." This is the position of the Church of the Brethren---just like they had in apostolic times, in the apostolic church. Men must repent.

Confession. Matt. 10:32: "Whosoever, therefore, shall confess Me before men, him will I confess also before My Father which is in heaven." 1 John 1:9: "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."

Baptism. Mark 1:4: "John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins." Mark 16:16, Luke 3:3. "Preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins." John 3:5, "born of water and the Spirit." Acts 2:38, "for the remission of sins." 1 Pet. 3:20, 21: "Eight souls were saved by water," the like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." Heb. 10:22: "Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water."

Preaching. 1 Cor. 1:18: "For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God."

Gospel. Rom. 1:16: "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth."

Grace. Eph. 2:5, 8: "Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, by grace ye are saved. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God."

Hope. Rom. 8:24: "For we are saved by hope; but hope that is seen is not hope: for a man seeth, why does he yet hope for?" There are the divinely appointed means by which men get into the church and get the remission of their sins. (My worthy opponent teaches contrary to that.) Not in the sense of the price, cause, or source of pardon, but the divinely appointed means by which we accept and receive remission of sins, and without which we cannot receive remission and salvation. That is the position of the Church of the Brethren. My worthy opponent comes right squarely against that position, as sustained by these Scriptures.

Now, I want to notice a few thoughts that I didn't mention in my last speech. I had gotten down here to where we were talking about Brother Kurtz' position. Branches in Christ. "Every branch in Me that beareth not fruit, He taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit."

Elder Riggle says, "All saved people belong to the church, and no unsaved people belong to the church." Paul said, "Withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly," showing there were unsaved in the New Testament Church. 1 Tim. 1:19: "Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck. Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander: whom I have delivered unto Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme." Verse 19, it says some have made shipwreck. These got off the ship. There are no unsaved people in the church, says Elder Riggle, but they do get in sometimes, and God has provided the means by which the church may get rid of them, but my friend seems to be utterly unable to do this. The New Testament Church practiced it, why can't other churches practice it? "Withdraw" and let them "be as a heathen man and a publican," as Jesus says.

He has been telling you a great deal in regard to his succession, and the strongest argument he can make is that "Jesus built the church," and "that the church has never ceased to exist," and "that he belongs to that church." Merely assertion, you see. The facts in the case are, these people came from somewhere, and you people know just where they came from. Just from where I told you---from the Winebrennerian Church. I ask the M. E. people if they came from their church, and they say we know nothing about them. We ask the Presbyterians whether they came from their church, and they say we know nothing about them. The same with the Christian and Episcopalian Churches, but when we get to the Winebrennerian Church right there I trace them right back to the den from which they came. Then we trace them to the Reformed Church, and from the Reformed Church they are traced right back to the Roman Church, so we trace them right back into the old den of Rome. This is his favorite argument that Jesus built one church in Palestine and I belong to that and no other. He has been preaching this so long I concluded he just about believes it. You remember, Paul says, "If the trumpet give an uncertain sound who shall prepare for battle?" He is a Gospel Trumpet man, and I expected it to sound pretty loud, but the trouble is the trumpet gives such "uncertain sounds." I accused him of "jumping around," he says. When he was on the affirmative side he affirmed that the church was built on the day of Pentecost, and I proved by my arguments that the church was built in Christ's time, and finally he concluded it was built before the day of Pentecost, and then he said if I had read that wonderful little book of his I would have known that he taught it was built in the Savior's time. It is a pretty nice thing to advertise books in a public discussion of this kind.

In talking about the chart, he said he agreed with all but two things. He gets farther and farther away from the chart. I made a remark before I got into this debate that I was going to debate with a Gospel Trumpet man, and I expected the trumpet to sound pretty loud, but it give such an "uncertain sound."

He says the church between the cross and Pentecost was just where it was before Christ's death. He can't find his church back there. He can't find any church between the cross and Pentecost, according to his theory.

Again, it required mush jumping around. I have to jump to follow after his so that the doesn't get the wrong impression in your minds.

He says my position is the same as the Mormons. I think it was pretty well for him that he had the Ebeling-Riggle debate to read from. He didn't need to tell us what Mr. Ebeling taught. He is here to show you the church he is representing is the New Testament Church. If the Mormon has some Bible in his teaching, and I believe he has, what of that? The Mormon was too much for him and it has been bearing on his mind ever since, and that is the reason he can't meet it in the issue before us. He said I have been showing that the doctrine and practice of the Church of the Brethren is line the New Testament Church, but that doesn't prove identity. I want to ask him if identity does not consist in sameness of doctrine and practice, what does it consist in? I am showing you right along that our doctrine and practice is identical, and he has to admit our teaching and practice is like the Bible, but he says that doesn't prove identity. That is what my proposition says I have to do. I have to prove that we are identical with the New Testament Church in "doctrine and practice," and that is what I am doing.

He had a wonderful criticism of syllogisms, major and minor premises must state the truth and the same thing. I knew that myself. He don't need to get up here and tell us what it means. I knew that well enough, but here my friend has referred to a number of my syllogisms in this discussion showing you that my position is correct. "They don't convey the same thought and are illogically drawn, " he says, My syllogisms were drawn on his own statements, nearly every one of them, and the conclusion I gave is certainly true, and proves my position correct, and when you read the book you will find that Elder Riggle failed to show they were not logically drawn and the conclusion were not true. That is the only way to settle it, my friends.

I said when Jesus built His churches He built them just alike. When Jesus built a church in Palestine, and then built one in Germany in 1708, he built them just alike; it is just like the first one he built in Palestine. He now argues the church should not be the same in all the world. He thought I wouldn't say the Church of the Brethren wasn't the same all over the world, so it must be the New Testament Church. If we have a Church of God here in America, and then go to Australia, God don't build a church there like it, according to Elder Riggle's teaching. He can't build it like the church in America. The only way that God could get the church in America to Australia is to build one there through His people just like it, just like the one in America, and He hasn't built one any other way in any part of the world.

"The drowning man grasps at a straw." I wonder what made him think of that. He has been reaching up and grasping at them all the time. He is reaching up and trying to get hold of that little straw, but he hasn't got it. It proves he has been thinking about it.

The book of this debate ought to go wherever his little book has gone. I believe this debate ought to go right where this little book went---just simply follow this little book and show how it contradicts his teaching in this debate. I am glad to have it follow right after that little book---"Christian Baptism," "Lord's Supper," and "Feet Washing."

He says our conference makes laws to force discipline. I told him what the conference does, and he ought not to get up and say the conference makes laws. It does what his church did a few years ago, over the very little thing like that of the necktie, such a little, insignificant thing like that of the necktie---repealed former ruling and said you can wear neckties.

He says the Brethren over there where he was didn't worship together, and he gave the name L. R. Holsinger, a Progressive minister, where the sisters word hats. I don't know L. R. Holsinger, but I call for the evidence that L. R. Holsinger is a Progressive, and writes for the Gospel Messenger.

He says, "Brethren" applies to all God's people. Then surely the Brethren are in identity with the New Testament Church in name. We have got that all right. We don't need to trouble with that any more.

Churches of God in Judea. I showed you that the churches of God mean God's churches, and it never was used by the apostolic church as a name. The Scriptures I gave he preaches and practices them, then I would like him to tell us how he practices 1 Cor. 11:4-16---how he does that. I do not overthrow my position, but his misrepresentation of our position.

(Time.)

__________________________

Elder Riggle's Eighteenth Speech
Thursday Evening, September 23

Honorable Mr. Chairman, Brother Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen:--- Before I begin my negative argument, it will probably be necessary to notice a few remarks made in the last speech.

He again spent much time trying to show that baptism is a part of the new birth. He read a number of texts that we are quickened by the Word, saved by the Word, converted by the Word, etc., but what does that prove for him? Simply nothing. Does the fact that we are saved by the Word of God prove that water baptism enters into the work of regeneration? Certainly not. These texts that he read are the very ones that I used under the former proposition to refute the idea that water baptism regenerates. It is by the Word and Spirit that we are saved. A sample of the texts he read is Romans 6:17, 18: "But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness." I must confess that I can find no triune immersion in this text. I don't think anybody else can. You see, he assumes the very thing that he cannot prove---that trine immersion was the form of doctrine delivered unto them. With his failure to prove this, all his time spent in reading Scriptures that we are saved by the Word avails him nothing. Of course by the Word he means triune immersion; but this is something that he reads into the Bible, for it cannot be found there. He has not even proved that triune immersion was the primitive mode. Therefore his argument rests upon his own bare statements.

He again brings up Rom 6:3, 4. While I fully explained this in former speeches, I presume it will be necessary to notice it in this connection again. "know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into His death." (Here Mr. Riggle took a small box to represent Christ, and a glass of water to represent baptism. He placed the box before the water, and then placed his pencil in the box to represent our induction into Christ through the Spirit.) "Therefore, we are buried with Him by baptism into death." (Here Mr. Riggle dipped his pencil into the water to illustrate our burial in baptism after that we have been inducted by the Spirit into Christ.) You see from this text that Paul clearly teaches it is after we have been inducted into Christ by the Spirit that we are buried in the rite of Christian baptism. The latter is because of the former. (Here Mr. Riggle changed the glass of water to the other side of the box to illustrate Elder Kesler's position that baptism comes before salvation.) This shows the difference between us. In the argument I stand with Paul, Elder Kesler to the contrary, of course. You see, water baptism represents a death, burial and resurrection, as Elder Kurtz in his book clearly shows. The person baptized is supposed to be already dead to sin and quickened to spiritual life. This fact alone proved that salvation from sin must precede baptism, and not follow it, as the Elder has been teaching all through this discussion.

He read from the Catholic Fathers in order to sustain his position. But he didn't go back direct to those ancient writings, but quoted a number of modern authors, Baptists and others. I happen to have those ancient documents with me. I don't depend upon modern and biased authors, but I got to the ancient writers themselves. The fact is you can prove most any false doctrine by those Catholic Fathers. They taught many superstitions and false doctrines that were very prevalent during the apostate age of the church. The Catholic Church depends largely upon these writing for her practices, and I am surprised that Elder Kesler would go to these same Catholic Fathers for proof to sustain his position.

He has spent much time again this evening reading a large number of texts that repentance and faith bring salvation. But every one of these Scriptures that he read refutes his own doctrine and mocks his theories. The more such Scriptures he reads the more he sustains my position. That has been my contention right along, that through repentance and faith every sinner has direct access to God through Jesus Christ, and that no ceremonial rite administered by man need stand in the way.

Under the former proposition, I clearly proved that when people commit sin they lose their membership in the Church of God, and that only saved people belong to it. I then read from Elder Kurtz, of the Brethren Church, where he admits that the Church of the Brethren is "a hospital for sinners," made up of members "not yet perfect," and that "there are sinners in it." In his last speech my opponent tried to defend Elder Kurtz' position, but he miserably failed. He referred to John 15:2: "Every branch in Me that beareth not fruit He taketh away." This text is fatal to his argument and tradition. You see that the moment these branches cease to bear the fruit of the Spirit, the Father-husbandman---takes them away. This, then, is not the work of the preacher or some conference, but He, the Lord, takes them away. This proves that after they lose salvation they are no longer members in the church. Again, he refers to Hymeneus and Phyletus, who concerning the truth had erred and denied the faith. He says these "got off the ship." Exactly. Then they were not in the church.

About all of his last speech was a rehash of former ones. When he says that his teaching and practice are just like the New Testament, he assumes this statement and cannot sustain it. There are a number of things in which he stands directly opposite to the New Testament teaching and practice, such as trine immersion and the full meal practice. Let him come out on these and defend them if he can.

Eleventh. I will now present my final argument against the position he holds on the church question, and at the same time sustain the position which I occupy. A Biblical trace of the church.

You will remember that Elder Kesler, in his opening speech on the affirmative, stated "that an argument to be of force in establishing a position must have some prophetic, historic, or direct relation to the question in debate, else it becomes mere talk without any effect, except to show the lack of argument." According to his own premise and principle, his cause fails him. (Here Mr. Riggle hung up a large chart on which was illustrated a prophetic history of the church, showing it in four periods---in its morning glory, then during the papal reign and dark night of Roman superstition, next through the cloudy days of Protestant sectism, and finally in its gathered state and evening light glory, the redeemed church just before the closing of time.)

I cannot give you as thorough an exegesis of this line of truth in the fifteen minutes that remain as I would like to, but I will give you the general idea (Pointing to the diagram)> This represents the morning light age of the church; the church in it primitive glory. This was prophesied in Isa. 21:11, 12: "The burden of Dumah. He calleth to me out of Seir, Watchman, what of the night? Watchman, what of the night? The watchman said, the morning cometh, and also the night: if ye will enquire, enquire ye: return, come." The question, "What of the night?" is equivalent to, "What time of night is it?" This night was Israel's night of four hundred years, from the last inspired prophet Malachi to Christ. The question meant, "What time in the night is it?" The answer way. "The morning cometh." This refers to the ushering in of the Christian dispensation. It was foretold as the dawning of a beautiful morning. Isaiah foresaw it thus (Isa. 60:1-3): "Arise, shine; for they light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee. For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the Lord shall arise upon thee, and His glory shall be seen upon thee. And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of they rising." Again, in Mal. 4:2: "But unto you that fear My name, shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in His wings." These prediction were fulfilled in the coming of Christ, the light of the world. We are informed in the gospel that they which sat in darkness "saw a great light." And John tells us that this is the light "that lighteth every man that cometh into the world." This light "is the life of men." Thus the day-spring from on high "hath visited us." The dark night of sin that held the multitudes of earth under the gloomy pall of death for four thousand long years began to give way to the light and glory of Christ's great salvation.

He established his church in unity, purity, and power. It was one fold, one body. It had but one head, one faith, one doctrine, and but one name---the Church of God. It was said of its members that "They were all of one accord, of one heart and of one soul. They were "all of one mind," all "spake the same thing," and all saw "eye to eye." This church was a clean, separate body. It was an exclusive church, distinct from sin and sinners. "Of the rest durst no man join himself to them." Acts 5:13. Because of this unity and purity the power of the Lord was in their midst. The sick were healed and mighty miracles were wrought in the name of Jesus. This was the church in her pristine glory.

A great apostasy was foretold. That primitive glory of the church was not to always continue. Jesus foretold a time when false prophets would arise, and that because iniquity would abound the love of many would wax cold. Paul said that after his departing grievous wolves would enter in, not sparing the flock. And of their own selves would men arise speaking perverse things and draw away disciples after them. The same apostle foretold that many would depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils. A time would come when they would not endure sound doctrine. In 2 Thess. 2:2-12, this great apostasy of the church is described. The apostle says, "That day"---Christ's second advent---" will not come, except there come a falling away first." This is equivalent to an apostasy. It is further stated that a great power would arise in which the man of sin would exalt himself above all that is worshipped. The pope of Rome certainly fulfills this prediction.

In Rev. 113:1-10, this same power is brought to view under the symbol or figure of a beast having seven heads and ten horns. The seven heads signify the seven supreme forms of government in the empire. When Rome changed from paganism to the papacy, it was the same old dragon power, only clothed in a Christian garb. This is how it comes that the heads and horns of Papal Rome are the same as that of Pagan Rome. The ten horns signify the ten kingdoms that grew out of the Roman Empire, ten temporal powers which supported the papacy. It is said that this power made war with the saints. This refers to the bloody days of martyrdom. This power was to continue forty and two months. Counting thirty days to the month, according to the Jewish calendar, we have twelve hundred and sixty days. In Ezek. 4:6, and Num. 14:34, we read that each day signifies a year. This gives us the Bible rule by which to interpret this time prophecy. The twelve hundred and sixty days, then, signify as many years.

While the apostasy began early in the Christian era, the real dividing point between the morning glory of the church and its decline into the darkness of apostasy is located near the close of the third century. Joseph Miller, the renowned church historian, positively states that the decade state of the church ought to be dated from about the year 270 A. D. Many historians agree as to this date, but I have not the time to refer to them here. Counting forward twelve hundred and sixty years from the historic date 270 A. D. brings us to 1530 A. D. This is the very date when the Augsburg confession was formed in Germany. This was the first Protestant creed, and really draws the dividing line between the Papal age and the Protestant age. Now, the question will be asked, and has been during this debate by my worthy opponent, where was the church during this time? This period was prophetically called "night." In the text I read (Isa. 21:11, 12) it will be seen that a night was to follow the morning. "The morning cometh, and also the night." This period is known in history as the dark ages.

As to where the church was during this time, we have the answer in Rev. 12 I will read verse 1: "And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars." Under the figure of this woman we have the church in its primitive glory. "Clothed with the sun," signifies the fact of the church being clothed with the light, glory, salvation, authority and power of Christ, her eternal head. "A crown upon her head," signifies her royalty. "She sat as a queen, her husband being King of kings and Lord of lords." This suggests the triumphant victory enjoyed by the primitive Christians.

Next, in verses 6 and 14, this woman is seen fleeing into the wilderness, where she remained twelve hundred and sixty days---or years. You see, this is the same period of time when the papacy reigned. Wilderness signifies a place of seclusion and desolation. This was the time when the church was represented in little bands, as the Waldensees, and others. These would not submit to the supremacy of the pope. There were a host during that period who remained true to God; but many of them were put to death.

In the sixteenth century, God began to raise up men as Huss, Luther, Philip Melanthon, and others, who cried out against the dark superstitions of Rome, and preached justification by faith to the light they had. This resulted in a great spiritual reformation. The immortal Luther defied the Roman hierarchy, and when he nailed upon the church door at Whittenburg, Germany, his ninety-nine theses, a flame was kindled in Europe that finally enabled thousands to throw off the galling yoke of Catholic superstition. The people came out into clearer light.

Other reformers followed, as Zwingli, in Switzerland, and the Wesleys, in England and America. Thus, step by step the church was brought out into clearer light. But Protestantism never restored the morning glory of the church. She still remained more or less in a wilderness state. Not fully discerning the body of Christ, the followers of these great reformers organized themselves into sect bodies, and these were somewhat patterned after their mother, Rome. So it has come to pass inside of the last four hundred years that more than a thousand of these distinct sects of Protestantism have arisen.

This second form of the apostasy is brought to view in Re. 13:11-18, under the symbol of a two-horned beast. He has the appearance of a lamb. This signifies the tolerance of Protestantism. It was not so intolerant as Rome before it. Its two horns denote the two temporal powers---England and Germany--- which first supported it. It is said that this beast "exercised all the power of the first beast before him." This denotes the fact that as truly as Rome once swayed universal dominion, so Protestantism would exercise a world-wide influence. It can be truly said that the nations of earth, as a whole, are as much Protestant as they ever were Catholic.

Now, into these multiplied sects of Protestantism God's people have been led and scattered. This was predicted in Ezek. 34:5, 6, 11, 12, and many other texts, that I will not have the time to read. Ezekiel, in foretelling this period of apostasy, described it as "a dark and cloudy day." The prophet Zechariah, in chapter 14, verses 6, 7, describes the same period as a time when the light shall not be clear or dark, neither day nor night. That is, not clear day as in the morning glory of the church, nor dark night as during the Catholic age; but a mixture of light and darkness, of truth and error. This certainly describes the Protestant age. They have considerable light and truth, but with it is mixed much darkness and error. It is a cloudy time. I will now read from a few prominent Protestant writers who clearly describe this condition.

Wm. Kincaid, in "Bible Doctrine," page 249, says: "I think Christ has a true church upon earth, but its members are scattered among the various denominations, and are more or less under the influence of mystery, Babylon and her daughters."

Alexander Campbell says: "The worshipping establishments now in operation throughout Christendom, increased and cemented by their respective voluminous confessions of faith, and their ecclesiastical constitution, are not churches of Jesus Christ, but the legitimate daughters of that mother of harlots, the Church of Rome."

Lorenzo Dow says of the Romish Church: "If she be the mother, who are the daughters? It must be the corrupt, national, established churches that came out of her."

Mr. O. Scott (Wesleyan Methodist) says: "The church is as deeply infected with a desire for worldly gain as the world. Most of the denominations of the present day might be called churches of the world with more propriety than churches of Christ. The churches have so far gone from primitive Christianity that they need a fresh regeneration---a new kind of religion."

D'Aubigne, in his "History of the Reformation," describes the Protestant period as three days. I read from Book XI., chap. 9: "It has been said that the three last centuries, the sixteenth, the seventeenth, and the eighteenth, may be conceived as an immense battle of three days' duration. We willingly adopt this beautiful comparison. * * * The first day was the battle of God. the second the battle of the priest, and the third the battle of reason. What will be the fourth? In our opinion, the confused strife, the deadly contest of all these powers together, TO END IN THE VICTORY OF HIM TO WHOM TRIUMPH BELONGS."

In Rev. 11:7-9, we have the prophetic testimony referring directly to this time. The two witnesses---Word and Spirit---were to lay dead three days and a half. These are the true vicars of Christ on earth; but by the adoption and enactment of their human creeds in the place of the divine creed, the Word of God, conferences and synods have in reality supplanted the place that the Word and Spirit should occupy in the church. Thus in Protestantism the Word and Spirit, in this particular, have been slain and are not able to perfectly fulfill their functions as in primitive times.

We behold a beautiful harmony between the divine record and the testimony of the renowned historian. The three days and a half signify three and one half centuries. This period measures from the beginning of the Protestant age, 1530 A. D., to about 1880. About this time a large number of God's people in different parts of the world began to see the veils of schisms and divisions among God's people. The Lord began to reveal to them His true church as it existed in the morning light age of the Christian dispensation, before the apostasy came. The result was, they threw off the yoke of sectism and took their stand for the whole truth, the unity of God's people in the one divine body of Christ. These did not come out of the Winebrennerian sect, as Elder Kesler has been telling you, but out of every sect. The movement did not start with one man, but people in different parts of America and other countries, as Russia, Germany, and India, about the same time were led to see the truth, and these at the time did not know that anyone else on earth saw it as they did. Behind me sits Brother A. B. Palmer, who was formerly a Methodist minister, and lived in the first days of this great reformation. He, by studying the Bible in a prayerful manner, was led to see the truth before he knew there was anyone else in the world that saw the light as he did.

The thousands to whom the Lord revealed his pure church, and to whom was restored primitive holiness, naturally flowed together and Christ became the center around which the movement gathered. In this manner it has come to pass that hundreds of thousands of "saints in light" are gathered into the same unity, faith, doctrine, and organization that constituted the primitive Church of God.

We have probably the largest publishing plant of a religious character in the world today, and hundreds of tons of pure gospel literature are being sent to all the nations of earth. This is not the bringing into existence of a new sect, but the gathering out of the world of sin and sect confusion, a clean people who recognize and hold membership only in the one divine and heavenly ecclesia which Christ built. It is the church restored again to its primitive state. This was clearly predicted in Zech. 14:7: "At evening time it shall be light." The evening time here refers to the closing days of the Christian dispensation. Again, Sol. S. 8:5: "Who is this that cometh up from the wilderness, leaning upon her beloved?" Again, Sol. S. 6:10: "Who is she that looketh forth as the morning, fair as the moon, clear as the sun, and terrible as an army with banners?" You see, just before the end of time, the light was to break forth again, clear as it was in the morning. At the end of the great apostate reign, which includes both the Catholic and Protestant ages, the church was to come forth again out of the wilderness state looking forth just as it did in the morning age. "Looking forth as the morning, fair as the moon, clear as the sun, and terrible as an army with banners." This fulfills Rev. 19:9, where it is said, "His wife hath mad herself ready." The church is not being prepared for the coming of Christ.

I have now give you a brief prophetic history of the church, tracing her from her morning glory down through the dark night of the papacy, through the cloudy day of Protestant sectism, where she has been in a scattered condition, and finally to her gathered state in the blessed evening light. In this I establish my position both in prophecy and history, and according to the Elder's premise I occupy a foundation that cannot be moved.

The church Elder Kesler represents has no place in prophecy unless indeed in that it fulfilled that which was predicted, that sects would arise and God's people would be scattered in them.

The spiritual people in Protestantism are bewailing there scattered and divided condition, and may honest souls, both among the ministry and laity, are looking for the light and ready to accept it when they hear it. Friends, do not oppose this work. It is of God. Open your hearts and accept it.

Elder Kesler may again tell you that I have preached a sermon instead of debating, but I care not as to that. My business and work as a minister of Christ is to preach the truth, for it is the truth, and not mere entertainment, that people are looking for.

(Time.)

__________________________

Elder Kesler's Nineteenth Speech
Thursday Evening, September 24

Gentlemen, Moderators, Brethren and Friends:---In opening the discussion this evening I want to congratulate you on the beautiful sermon you heard in the last speech of last evening, and I apprehend that we are going to have probably two or three more sermons before this discussion is over.

I will now proceed to continue the line of discussion as I have it on my hands. First, I want to present a few syllogisms on the design of baptism.

No. 1. To the members of the original church of Christ, baptism was made a condition of pardon. Baptism is made the same to the Brethren. Therefore they possess pardon and membership identity.

2. The Bible teaches we are baptized into Christ. It give no other was of getting into Him. Hence we get into, or put on, Christ in baptism.

3. The Scriptures teach baptism for remission. This phrase means "unto" or "in order to." There fore baptism is "in order to" remission.

4. Apostolic precedent shows baptism to be a condition of pardon and membership. Baptism was always demanded. Therefore baptism is a condition of pardon and membership.

5. God's spiritual children are "begotten," "quickened," with the Word of God, and born "of the Word, and of the Spirit." The Brethren are so "begotten," "quickened and born," hence the Brethren are spiritual children of God.

6. The Scriptures teach faith, repentance, confession and baptism as conditions of pardon and church membership. The Brethren teach the same. Therefore the Brethren are Scriptural in their teaching.

7. All who put on Christ in baptism are part of the family of God. The Brethren put on Christ in baptism, therefore the Brethren are part of the family of God. You notice we don't mean to say that we are the whole family, but we are part of the great family of God. You remember the criticism my worthy opponent gave you last evening of syllogisms. I want to remind you of the fact that while he gave you a number of illogical examples of syllogisms, he hasn't pointed out any of mine that are illogical, and the only illogical one that I have given in this discussion is the one that I developed from his own. If his arm is cut off it is a sect, and I said a stick of wood cut off is a sect, therefore his arm is a stick of wood. That is the only illogical one I have presented to you, and it was developed from his own statement.

Now, we have before us the illustration that my worthy opponent gave you of the church last evening. You remember, he gives us the beginning of papacy in the year 270, and then he goes up to 1530 at the beginning of the Reformation under Mr. Luther. Now, then, he brings the Church of God right down through the wilderness, through the dark ages. You understand this wilderness state is what we call the dark ages. He referred to Scripture in Solomon, "Who is this that cometh up form the wilderness, leaning upon her beloved? Who is she that looketh forth as the morning, fair as the moon, clear as the sun, and terrible as an army with banners?" I want you to look right here, and when you read the book I want you to think. He tells you right here that when Jesus Christ brought the church out of the wilderness, of darkness, out of popery, when he came out here He leads that church leaning on His arm right into the sects which my opponent tells us belong to the devil. When Mr. Luther starts the Reformation, instead of the Lord steering clear of sects, which my worthy opponent condemns, he tells us that the Lord Jesus Christ took that lovely bride of His and led her right into the conglomeration of sectism. We are going to give you a different illustration presently. My dear friends of the "saints" people, I think you can see the thought here, and I hope you are not so blind that you cannot see the absurdity of his position and the fallacy of his reason. God forbid that you shall be so blind you cannot see the light. Just think of the idea, the preposterousness and ridiculousness of the idea when Christ brought that bride out of the domain of the devil, our of popery, he led her leaning on His arm right into the conglomeration of sects, right into this reform that was started, and tight into this sectism which my friend denounces as sects, and tells us that the "sects belong to the devil." Tract, "Church of God and Sects Contrasted." You remember something he said last night about the drowning man grasping for a straw. He though that statement was very significant. When a man makes a statement, it generally means something, and I am sure he is sinking, and that is just about what it meant. In my worthy opponent's last speech he was just about out of argument, and that led him to deliver to you that beautiful sermon he has been preaching. He has been foundering around on the sea of error so long that his sip is just about stranded, and now he is floundering around in the ocean, on the sea of error so long that it seems the poor fellow can hardly keep his head above water, and it takes almost a gigantic effort on his part to keep himself above water, just like the stranded ship, and if I mistake not, before this discussion is closed he is going to take a Titanic plunge---stern and aft---and sink to rise no more. The Scriptures I present, he says, mean spiritual baptism. You know, I gave you a number of Scriptures referring to baptism, practically all of them referring to baptism, and he says the Scriptures refer to spiritual baptism. Then I would like for him to tell us what Scriptures refer to water baptism. Out of the nine cases of Bible conversion that I gave you he tells us it is spiritual baptism, then where was the water baptism in the apostolic church? He says no man can baptize into Christ, and he says a great many things, my dear friends, that it seems he doesn't consider before he says them. A great many things he doesn't prove. You must discern enough to know the difference between argument and assertion. His statement was emphatically and positively that no one can baptize into Christ. Page 120 of his book: "To be apostolic, then we must attach the same importance to his, and must preach to the people that they are positively commanded to be baptized, and to disobey means condemnation. Baptism is a public induction into the holy name of the Trinity." Pages 120 and 121 of his little book. When a man talks that way, how do you know what the man means? When he sits down to sober thought and reflection and tells you that in baptism you are baptized into the Trinity, including Christ, and when he gets into a debate he tells you no man can baptize into Christ,what will he tell you next? Rom. 6:3, 4. I do not like to say, my dear friends, when I am in a discussion that a man willfully or knowingly misinterprets the Scriptures, and I am not going to say it now, but I will call you attention to this Scripture: "Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into His death? Therefore we are buried with Him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raise up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." You know, he tried to present the idea that there are two baptisms here, that you are first baptized into Christ by the Spirit, and after that you are baptized into Christ by water. Does it mean that you have to be baptized into Christ twice? Instead of Paul teaching two baptisms in this reference he teaches only one, and that is water baptism. In both verses the baptism is said to be "into Christ," and we are not baptized into Christ twice. Let me read it again so you will get it" "Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we are buried with Him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up form the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." So, we see the baptism spoken of in these two verses is into Christ, and it takes only one baptism. He read this second verse with the word "are" instead of "were," as it is in the Revised Version. It is so rendered in the revised translation when he gets up here and reads the last verse in the present tense and makes his argument for two baptisms. I believe he knows better than that. I am not going to say he is willingly perverting the Scriptures. He may be ignorant of the meaning, I don't know, but Paul teaches only one baptism here.

Then he brings up Cornelius again. I want to read a little form his book, pages 140 and 144: "In defense of what he had done, Peter related to them how God had showed him by the vision of the sheet knit at the four corners that Gentiles as well as Jews were entitled to salvation (verses 4-10) how God had commanded them to go and preach the gospel to Cornelius (verse 12), and how an angel had appeared to Cornelius and had commanded him to send for Peter (verse 13). Then he told how, while he was preaching to Cornelius' household, God poured out the Holy Spirit upon them (verse 17). After that he asks, "What was I, that I could understand God, intending by these words to convey the idea, not that he had withstood God when he commanded Cornelius and his household to be baptized, but that he would have withstood God had he refused to preach the gospel to that Gentile family. Verse 18 shows that Peter's defense satisfied his accusers, and is further proof that the point in question was not water baptism, but the salvation of the Gentiles." That is the fact in the case, and if he would get up here and preach it like he writes in the book, there wouldn't be any contention over the matter. God had to perform a miracle to convince these Jews that the Gentiles could be taken into the church just like they could. It required a miracle out of the ordinary to convince these people of that fact, so this was an instance out of the ordinary. The rule was baptism first and the gift of the Holy Spirit after it, just like Peter told them on the day of Pentecost, when telling them what to do to be saved. "Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost," and when Philip went down to Samaria they believed and were baptized the same day. Then when the elders heard Samaria had received the Word they sent Peter and John down that they might receive the Holy Ghost, as it had not fallen on any of them Fifteen years later Paul met the twelve disciples at Ephesus and asked them if they had received the Holy Ghost, and when he found out they had not then Paul laid his hands on them and they received the Holy Ghost and they spake with tongues." Fifteen years after this instance of Cornelius, this old gospel was preached of baptism first and the Holy Spirit FOLLOWED. To take this one instance in order to prove that this is the order is contrary to all other Scriptures, and is not right, and is doing violence to the Scriptural teaching.

Again, he said, "The preacher doesn't take them out of the church; Christ does that." But he, Christ, tells His church to "withdraw from every brother that walketh disorderly," and to "tell it to the church, and if he won't hear the church, then let him be as an heathen man. God works through His church."

"The Montanists were God's people," he says. If you remember, I asked him several times whether God's people could exist under any other name than the one he has assumed and adopted, and if you remember, he refused to answer, and now he came out and says those people in the early age of the church, the Montanists, etc., were God's people. Then God's people can and do exist under other names than that he has assumed and appropriated for himself.

Now I am presenting to you another illustration of the church. The church as seen from this illustration was built in 32 A. D. by the commonly accepted chronology. It expands until about 270 A. D., when the decline began. Coming on down to 440 A. D. we find the first man (Leo the Great) know to history who was styled a pope. Adding to this the 1260 years of the "dark ages," we have 1700 A. D., when the church was to come out of the wilderness.

In the meantime a number of religious bodies had arisen. The Montanists 171 A. D., Movantians 271 A. D., Donatists a little later, then the Waldenses about 650 A. D. Then, coming on down to 1530, when the dawn of the Reformation began under Mr. Luther. In our illustration we show you that instead of Christ leading His bride out of the hell of Rome into the devil of sects (as my friend's illustration showed you), he steered clear of all alliances and brought her forth in all her pristine beauty and loveliness into the bright light of day---into the bright sunshine of His love and the radiant splendor of His righteousness. And as such she is still marching at His command, advancing against the strongholds of sin, waiting for the final applaud, "Come up higher, enter thou into the joy of thy Lord."

Such is the history of the humble people I have the glad privilege and the honor unworthily to represent before you tonight. Amen! Praise the Lord!

You remember the illustration he had on the board. Right back here in the beginning after the church was built in A. D. 32, coming down to 150, and then to 440, we have the first man that was know in history as a pope, and so popery began with Pope Leo in 440, and we show you that in 270, just like his author that he read, was the beginning of the decline of the church. It began in 270, but popery wasn't established until 440, and covers 1260 days---or years---of the dark ages, down to the seventeenth century. Then here in the year 1530 we have the organization of the first church in the work of the Reformation. That was Mr. Luther's church and the Reformed. Mr. Luther and Mr. Zwingli debate their differences, and each of them formed a church in the year 1530. In 1543 the Mennonite Church was organized; in 1611 the General Baptist was organized. You will notice that we are representing the Reformation. Mr. Luther started this reformation of the church and he came out of the Roman church, then the Reformed, then in 1633 the Baptist, and about this time the Friends and the Presbyterians in the middle of the seventeenth century. In 1708 we find that little body which I represent tonight coming right on down through the midnight darkness, and the little stream of God's light grows fainter and fainter until we get down to the middle of the seventeenth century, when the light became more clear, and in 1708 there came out of this darkness the Church of the Brethren, which is going forth in God's great universe doing the little good she can. We cannot boast about being as large numerically as some other churches, nor that we have the largest publishing house in the world, and that we are sending tracts and books to the four corners of the earth, but as God's people we are going on in a quiet and unassuming way doing the little goo that we can in the world, and finally we come down to 1880. You remember I tried to stir my friend up when he was on his proposition his church being built by Mr. Warner in 1877, and he got up and positively and emphatically denied the fact. You remember he said at about that time (1880) the bright "evening light" began to shine, so we have located him at last, or in other words, he has located himself. We have the little branch that come out of the Church of God, which I have referred to as the Winebrennerian Church, since those people generally go by that name. The real Winbrennerian Church of God began in the year 1830, and in 1880, as we have showed you, came the church which my friend represents. So we have the history of my friend's church definitely located in 1880 as the beginning.

I want to proceed to present some arguments on the for of baptism that is practiced in the Church of the Brethren.

Position 5. The Church of the Brethren has but one form of baptism, only one taught by Christ and the apostles.

a. The recognized but one baptism. John the Baptist introduced the only form of Christian baptism in the world. Matt. 3:3; Mark 1:4; Luke 3:2, 3; Acts 19:4. These Scriptures have been given previously and I will not quote them now.

b. Jesus submitted to this one form of baptism. Matt. 3:13: "The cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John to be baptized of him."

c. The apostle recognize but one baptism. Eph. 4:5.

d. Jesus' law establishes this one baptism. Matt. 28:19.

"Baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Only one baptism handed down to the primitive or apostolic church. I want to show you by historic statements that there was only one form of baptism handed down to the church that succeeded the apostolic age, and will also show you that baptism that came down from the apostles was triune immersion. The first author I refer to was a man born in the year 150, just fifty years after the apostle John died. The first man that ever wrote a line on the form of baptism after the apostolic age, so far as historians know---Clement of Alexandria---about A. D. 150-220. "Ye were conducted to bath just as Christ was carried to the grave, and were thrice immersed to signify the three days of His burial." Wiberg on Baptism, page 228. The next author we present to you is Rev. Henry Cowan, D. D., Professor of the Church History, University of Aberdeen, "Subapostolic age." "The subapostolic age extends from the death of Saint John, about 98 A. D., to the martyrdom of Polycarp, the last of his surviving disciples, 165 A. D." Mr. Cowan says of baptism in that age: "In baptism the general usage was triple immersion (just like the Brethren practice), but effusion was permitted when immersion was inconvenient." We give you another author on the subject, a Baptist historian in Orchard's History, page 26: "It does not appear by any approved authors that there was any mutation or variation in baptism from the former century." This was written of the second century, that there was not mutation or variation in baptism from the former century, that is from the first century.

Now we come to the next century---century three.

(Time.)

__________________________

Elder Riggle's Nineteenth Speech
Thursday Evening, September 24

Mr. Chairman, Brother Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen:---My friend told us last night---finally came out and declared himself---as to who may be saved with out triune immersion. He limits them to "infants, idiots, and a few others whom the Lord through special providential dealings might let in." According, then, to his proposition it would have been well for people either to have died in infancy or been born idiots.

His talk tonight reminds me very much of a political party on the eve of an election, facing utter defeat, and yet claiming everything to keep up an appearance.

He again quotes my book where I state the people positively refusing to be baptized, when they have light on the same, will bring them under condemnation. You will remember that I read this last night and showed clearly that I have no reference whatever to sinners, but to believers who are already saved. If such would willfully refuse to obey this command, or in fact any other precept in the law of Christ, it would bring them under condemnation. I was here writing against the anti-ordinance people's position.

Again he refers to that quotation when I say that baptism is a public induction into the name of the Trinity. You will remember that I read at length from my book where I explained this and show that this is only in symbol or a witness and testimony to what has already taken place in the work of salvation. I also called attention to the fact that if he would bring this up again, he could not do so without clearly misrepresenting my teaching. So I will let that matter stand, and let you be the judges as to his fairness or unfairness in the matter.

It seems that Elder Kesler has water on his brain, and he cannot get away from it. He doesn't understand Spirit baptism. He has no conception of a spiritual induction into Christ. All that he can see is the literal external rite.

I never admitted for a moment that the Montanists or any other heretics were God's people. The only ones I mentioned were the Waldensees.

He again brings up the false charge that the church of God sprang from the Winbrennerians. His only authority is Ebeling, the Mormon Elder. I have clearly answered that, so will pass on.

The great multitude who constitute the redeemed church which I represent in these last days, have been saved and delivered out of the world of sin, and also the multiplied divisions of sectism. This defines the word ecclesia---church---"called out ones." It is no new body or sect, but the one church restored to its primitive glory, holding the same organization, unity, government, name, faith, and power as in the days of the apostles.

On last evening, in my closing speech, I presented my eleventh and final argument against the position of my friend on the church question, and to sustain the ground I occupy. With that argument I am perfectly willing to let the matter rest. He has said nothing since that in the least could shake the truth presented. I will say, further, that I have fully covered the ground as to the design of Christian baptism. I have completely overthrown his teaching and practice, and with a line of logical an unanswerable arguments have sustained the doctrine and practice of the Church of God. I am so perfectly satisfied on this point that I am willing now to let the matter rest on the evidences given. The printed copy of this debate will speak for itself. I am anxious that everyone may be able to obtain a copy.

I have prepared an abundance of argument and proof against my friend's teaching and practice of trine immersion; so will come directly to that subject. You will remember that under the former proposition I spent three whole speeches, and gave thirteen Scriptural arguments in defense of our practice of single immersion. I clearly proved that this was the primitive mode, the practice of the church in the days of the apostles. The argument I then presented stand unrefuted and unanswered.

Elder Kesler, as he was closing his last speech, read from a number of modern authors. These speak of triune baptism being a very ancient practice. One of them (as to his standing as an author and historian I know not) spoke of Clement of Alexandria mentioning triune baptism. I had read this in the writing of Elder Kesler's church, and to satisfy my own mind I made a thorough perusal of all the writing of Clement of Alexandria. I happen to have the volume here tonight that contains all the original writings of this ancient writer. (Here Mr. Riggle took the large volume in his had and said:) Here are all the writings of Clement. I have the original document. Now, then, I am willing to had this copy to Elder Kesler, and if he can find in all the writing of Clement a single reference to triune baptism I will yield the argument as far as that point is concerned. There is absolutely no such statement in any of the writings of Clement.

The first one of the ancient church writers among the Catholic Fathers who mention trine immersion is Tertullian, who's writings in full I have here with me. I will notice this point further along in the regular order of my arguments. I will now, in their regular order, present some arguments based upon sound logic and the holy Scriptures against the doctrine and practice of triple baptism.

First. Three immersions in the rite of baptism have no foundation in fact. Tri, trine, and triune, mean three. Trine immersion means three immersions. I will not quote the renowned author and historian of the Brethren Church, Elder James Quinter, Quinter-McConnel Debate, page 8: "We believe that three immersions constitute one Christian baptism." The question to settle, then is, are three immersions essential to Christian baptism? Does the Bible teach one action or three, one immersion or three? If the Lord had intended three immersions, He would have said so in clear , unmistakable language.

I will now lay down this infallible rule and fact: In every case in the Bible when repeated action was necessary it was clearly stated by giving the numerals. I will give examples: 2 Kings 5:10" "Go, wash seven times in Jordan." 2 Kings 14:43: "The child sneezed seven times." Gen. 33.3: "Jacob bowed before Esau seven times." Dan. 4:24: "And seven times shall pass over thee." Lev. 4:6: "Sprinkle of the blood seven times before the Lord." Lev. 14:16: "And shall sprinkle of the oil seven times before the Lord." Deut. 16:16: Three times in a year shall all the males appear before the Lord thy God." Ex. 23:14: "Three times shalt thou keep a feast unto Me in a year." These are but a few examples out of many that could be stated. My opponent may call this a sermon, but investigation will prove it to be good, sound, logical argument. If the Lord had intended the people to be immersed three times, He would have said three times.

Here is a fact: Nowhere in the Bible, either in command or in practice, can we find three times, or eve a hint at three immersions in baptism. Where is the proof? In the divine record we read of John's baptism, but where is there a hint of the triple action, or of this ancient Baptist administering three immersions in the Jordan River? There is absolutely no such proof. Elder Kesler's church has a practice that has no authority in divine writ. It is simply stated that John baptized those who came to him. He immersed in the River Jordan. So the proof of a triple action in John's ministry is sadly wanting.

In the baptism of Christ. The record says that He cam to John and was baptized of him in Jordan. Since baptize means to immerse, the clear inference is that one action was performed. In the absence of any proof whatever of a repetition of action, the evidence according to the clear rules of logic and reason is all on my side. Where is their a hint that John immersed Jesus three times; or that He was repeatedly dipped in the Jordan River?

Baptism is a burial. Then John buried the Savior in the liquid and symbolic grave. When he lifted Him up "out of the water" the Holy Spirit approved of the act by descending upon Him in visible form as a dove, and the Father spoke out of heaven, saying, "I am well pleased." Then the holy Trinity approved of single immersion. Christ submitted to it and set the example, and the Holy Spirit and the Father in heaven placed the stamp of approval upon what Jesus had done.

In all the examples of baptism as recorded in the acts of the apostle, there is not a hint of a triple action, but the record clearly proves that single immersion was the practice. Philip took the eunuch down into the water and baptized him. After baptism, he came up straightway out of the water. Where is there a hint that Philip immersed this eunuch three times? Not one. Elder Kesler's proof for his practice is what was left out of the divine record. In every example as found in the New Testament there is positively not the slightest hint that three immersions were performed in the administration of the rite of baptism.

Then again, the references to baptism as found in the different Epistles never hint that this triple action was performed. The facts are, every reference to baptism as found in the Epistles clearly shows that there was but a single action.

Second. One immersion instead of three was the apostles' teaching. While this argument was presented under the former proposition, it is fitting to use it in this connection. "One Lord, one faith, one baptism." Eph. 4:5. This text stands square across the practice of my opponent's church. It places him in direct opposition to Paul's teaching. It mocks all his efforts. I made the point that the Greek word for baptism in this text is baptisma. This word by the best lexicographers is defined "immersion." "This is the meaning of the word."---Bretchneider. "Baptisma---immersion."---Bass. "To be baptized in water signifies no other than to be immersed in water."---Beza. I could add to this list a great host of eminent authorities, but time will not permit. The Elder refers to Luther as translating baptisma by "dipping." I challenge this statement. Luther renders baptisma by "faufe." My opponent assumes that Luther here means dipping. I will give you Luther's own words as to what he means, and that will be sufficient refutation of the Elder's contention. "Baptism is nothing else than the world of God with IMMERSION in water." "Baptism is a Greek word, and may be translated IMMERSION as when we immerse something in water, that it may be wholly covered."---Martin Luther. You see if baptize means "to immerse," baptisma can only mean "immersion." The only translators who really translated the word, render it "one immersion."

The apostle teaches "One Lord, one faith, one immersion." Elder Kesler and his church teach and practice three immersions. In this they widely disagree with the inspired writer. I stand on the side of the apostle on this point of doctrine.

I made the point that no more can there be three immersions in one immersion than there can be three Gods in one God, three Lords in one Lord, three Spirits in one Spirit, and three faiths in one faith.

I further made the point that in all other texts in the Bible where the term baptisma is found, Elder Kesler and his church readily admit that it means immersion. But in this singe text (Eph. 4:5) they shift their position and contend for dipping. Anyone can see the reason for this. It is to evade the force of the argument, for it stands square against them. One immersion refutes their practice, so they light onto dipping just to help them our. However, the term is qualified by "ONE." This cannot mean three. But the Elder tried to get out of his dilemma by substituting "one ironing."

I wish to make a final and conclusive argument on this point, and then I will leave it rest. He can never overthrow the facts I am bout to present. Let us briefly consider the real meaning and use of the words dip and dipping from a grammatical standpoint.

Dip, verb transitive. Dipped, dipping, perfect participle. To plunge or immerse, especially, to put for a moment into any liquid or substance; to insert into a fluid and withdraw again.

Let us now turn to the point upon which my friend is contending---namely, dipping---the perfect participle form of the transitive verb dip, or as some grammarians call it the infinitive in ing or a verbal noun. First, let me remind the Elder that the word infinitive means unlimited. And as applied to the verbs it means that their infinitive and participle forms are unlimited by person and number. A participle or infinitive retains its same form regardless of the person or number of its subject. Hence any one who is acquainted with the simplest rules of grammar knows that there is only one way to discover whether one or more than one action is meant, and that is by the number of its subject or any other limiting word in the sentence which directly affects its meaning. There are thoughts from Jonathan R. Rigdon's High School Grammar, the adopted text at Winona College, Winona Lake, Indiana.

Now dipping, according to Webster's International, is the action of the verb dip, as immersion in a solution or liquid. But this is not where the contention lies. Even though I grant the translation of baptisma as dipping (which I don't), there is still another insurmountable difficulty which the Elder cannot overcome. In Eph. 4:5, we have the little word ONE. Listen to Webster and common sense. One---One being a single unit or entire being or thing and NO MORE.

Therefore, since I have clearly proved that there is no way to tell whether one or more than one dip is meant by the word dipping, then we must conclude the inevitable---that we must accept the plain teaching of the Scripture: "One dipping," "one dip," "one immersion." It make no difference which. They all mean but one act. Let us illustrate. (Here Mr. Riggle by one act dipped his pencil into a glass of water to illustrate one dipping, one dip or one immersion.)

There is no similarity between dipping and ironing and like expressions. But let me show you a little of the Elder's reasoning. Taking his own proposition which he presented a few nights ago, let me ask him what woman ever did an ironing with three strokes? Then, according to his own reasoning, why doesn't he keep on dipping his own candidates for at least ten or fifteen minutes, as any woman would do in ironing? If not, why bring up the illustration? This is the full analogy. You must accept it according to Elder Kesler. O what erroneous arguments the Elder has been presenting.

I want to give you the facts as taken from Webster's International Dictionary. Ironing is treated both as a pure noun without the verbal element, and as an infinitive or participle; while dipping is never a pure noun unless preceded by the and followed by of. This grammatical truth is utterly fatal to his position. If your are a grammarian you will readily recognize the fact. If you are not you may be deceived by error. I submit this logic to any grammarian in the state of Indiana.

Third. Baptize, the term Jesus used in the great commission, does not mean repeated action. This I have abundantly proved under the former proposition. Baptizo is the singular form of the word, while baptismos is the plural form. The former is the one used in connection with the Christian rite, the latter in connection with the "divers washings" of the Old Testament. Elder Kesler's practice more properly belongs to the old covenant than to the new. You remember I gave their renowned author, Elder James Quinter, who says on page 87 of the Quinter-McConnel Debate, "the Greek word baptizo* * * is undoubtedly often used in reference to a single action." Elder Kesler claimed to find some authors who say that the word implies repeated action. But I question whether there was more than one or two Lexicographers and Standard Greek Classics in his whole list. You remember I made the point that the testimony of a witness depends upon his competency to testify on the point at issue. Among the very late authorities I gave were the following: Baxter's Greek Lexicon, Green's Lexicon, Parkhurst Greek Lexicon, Robison's Greek Lexicon, Hasting's Bible Dictionary, Hasting's Encyclopedia of Religious Ethics, Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th edition, and Thayer's Greek Grammar. Not a single one of these mentions "Dip repeatedly," but simply defines baptizo"to dip, to immerse," as the primary meaning of the word.

Fourth. Baptism is not a symbol of the Trinity. That is one of the prominent arguments brought forth by the Elder's church in defense of their three immersions. To show you the importance they place upon it I will read from "Doctrine of the Brethren Defended," by R. H. Miller, page 92: "Our first argument to prove that trine immersion is taught in the Scriptures, is founded on the plurality in the Deity, in the author of creation, providence and redemption as revealed in the Holy Scriptures and expressed in the commission. Matt. 28:19: 'Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.' In all the discussions which we have had on this subject, we have presented this argument first for tow reasons. First, that it is the foundation on which trine immersion is based."

Question. Where in the New Testament is there a faint hint that baptism is a symbol of the Trinity? There is not a singe one. The doctrine of the Trinity we all believe and teach, but that baptism is a symbol of it I most positively deny. This idea originated in the second and third centuries when the great controversy raged in the church over the doctrine of the Trinity. It arose coincident with the unscriptural practice of triune immersion. The true Bible symbol in baptism is a burial. Col. 2:12: "Buried with Him in baptism." Rom. 6:4: "Therefore, we are buried with Him by baptism into death." Elder Kurtz, a learned writer of the Brethren Church, admits this, on page 40 of his book: "Baptism is a symbol of burial---a burial of the old man of sin, who is now dead---and a resurrection of the new creature in Christ Jesus (Rom. 6:4) * * * Baptism, if it means anything, is to symbolize * * * a burial of the old man of sin, a resurrection of the new man." What could be clearer than this? It clearly sustains my position. You will notice that Kurtz positively says that when the candidate is buried in baptism, which he calls the symbol, the old man of sin "is NOW dead." Exactly. Then all that Elder Kesler has been contending for is refuted by one of the leading writers of his own church, and my position is sustained.

Baptism is a symbol of a death, burial and resurrection. Now, I ask, how many times do people die? How many times are they buried? How many times are they resurrected? There is but one answer. People die once, and buried but once, and will be resurrected but one. In the case of our Lord Jesus Christ, He was buried and resurrected but once. In Rom. 6:4, Paul draws an analogy between his death and resurrection and the symbol of baptism. "Like as Christ was rayed from the dead" so are we raised out of the symbolic or watery grave in baptism. But how did Christ rise? Did He rise once, then go back into the tomb again and come forth a second time, then return to the sepulcher and come forth a third time? I think not. Such is the inconsistency of the Elder's practice. It destroys the very meaning of Scripture. It is said of Christ that He "died once." And everybody knows that He was resurrected but once. Then since baptism is a symbol of this THERE CAN BE BUT ONE ACTION.

Fifth. Three immersions are not found in the commission. "Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." If not found or taught here, trine immersion falls to the ground. There is not a shadow of proof elsewhere.

Let me lay down a safe rule. It is very unsafe to predicate any doctrine upon the peculiar structure of a singe text of Scripture. Know well this fact. The practice of triune immersion rests upon this uncertain basis. Allow me to give you an example. Matt. 3:11"I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance." Are we to understand that John baptized the people before they repented? The record proves that he required a thorough repentance before baptism, yet the above text in its strict grammatical structure would indicate that John baptized people in order that they might repent.

To sustain a repetition of action founded upon Matt. 28:19, the following would have to be added: "And baptizing them in the name of the Son, and baptizing them in the name of the Holy Ghost." This is too big a load for the little conjunction and to carry. It is adding too much. To be frank, it is incorrect, ungrammatical and unscriptural. Here Elder Kesler and I take issue. Judge ye between us. Let facts and truths settle the matter.

I here take my stand upon a fact. A repetition of the phrase "and of" in this text does not imply a repetition of the action of the verb. I will give some parallel texts with that of the commission to show that this is correct. Matt. 23:1: "Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to His disciples." Then follows the sermon that He delivered. It was one sermon. Are we to understand from this that he spoke at two different times, once to the multitude and a second time to His disciples? Was there a repetition of action here? No, indeed. A single action, one sermon, fulfilled the language. Again, Num. 4:1:"And the Lord spake unto Moses and unto Aaron saying." Then follows what He said to them. He spoke to both of them at the same time, and delivered to them the same words There was but one action. Yet, He spoke to Moses and to Aaron.

Next, I call attention to 1 Cor. 10:1, 2: "Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our father were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea." "All immersed themselves into Moses in the cloud and in the sea."---Totheram's Translation, Emphatic Doaglott, Campbell and McKnight's. "All into the Moses were dipped in the cloud and in the sea."---Direct from the Greek. Here we have a text parallel with the commission in the construction of its language and it was with reference to baptism. In it there was but one action. (Here Mr. Riggle placed a large book over a glass of water to represent the could, while the water represented the Red Sea. He showed how by one act Israel passed through the sea and were under the cloud. And yet by that one act "they were baptized into the Moses in the cloud and in the sea.") By a single act the children of Israel passed down through the sea that night, and at the same time were under the cloud. On the following morning they emerged on the wilderness side like a resurrection out of a wonderful grave. Did they go down into this symbolic grave three time? Of course not. They were symbolically baptized by a single action. Note the fact that the apostle, by the inspiration of the Spirit, called this baptism. Then a single action fulfills the New Testament rite.

(Time.)

Elder Kesler's Twentieth Speech
Friday Evening, September 24

Gentlemen, Moderators, Brethren and Friends:---I want to start in this speech where my opponent left off. He called your attention to certain Scriptures. He says Jesus spake to the multitude and to His disciples. Now he wants to know whether there were two acts in this speaking. I will refer him to the fact that this was one sermon in two parts, and when this book comes out you will read it. Part one includes verse 1 to 12 that He spake to the multitude, and from verse 13 to 36 He spoke to the disciples. Two acts clearly and conclusively by his own illustration. The Lord spake unto Moses and Aaron. Again we have one discourse, but in two parts. Part one is from verse 1 to 20, and part two is from verse 21 to 33. One discourse in two parts. Just like our baptis is one baptism in three parts. His own illustration turns him down and sustains our position. They were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. I referred to this in an argument on his proposition where we showed you that when the baptism in the cloud and in the sea took place, that the cloud went from before their face and stood behind them, and that was one act, and then the children of Israel passed through the sea, that was another act, then the cloud followed them, and the Egyptians followed, and when the Egyptians were in the sea the Lord Jehovah looked forth through the pillar of the cloud upon the Egyptians. The next act we have of that cloud it had come from behind these people and stood between them and the wilderness and the children of Israel looked toward the wilderness and beheld the glory of the Lord in the pillar of cloud and of fire. If he gets one act out of that, he will deceive me.

Now, his arguments 1 and 2 will be covered, I think, in my line of work, and I will proceed where I left off.

I was reading from Mr. Orchard, on page 26, and you remember now he is writing on baptism in the second century, that means from the year 100 up to 200, and he says: "It does not appear by any approved authors that there was any mutation or variation in baptism from the former century." Now, he was a Baptist, and he baptized just like my worthy opponent baptizes, but he was honest enough to say that there is no author that states that there was any change from the baptism in the day of Christ and the apostles until the second century. In the second century there has been no change from that of the first century, and coming down to the third century we find on page 35 of Orchard's History, "The most respectable historians affirm that no evidence exists as to any alteration in the subject or mode of baptism during the third century." In the third century they had baptism just like they had in the second century, and in the second century they had it just like they had it in the first century. He brings up my author that I gave, Mr. Clement, and he wants me to take his book and read what Mr. Clement says about it. If he comes up and denies what Mr. Clement has said he denies what Wyberg, a prominent historian, says, and I will ask him to read just what Clement did say on baptism, and that will straighten the matter out. I will read from Mr. James Chrystal, in Baptism Modes, page 61. He was an Episcopalian. The Episcopal Church previously baptized by trine immersion, but they have changed now. Mr. Chrystal was an Episcopalian and he couldn't get trine immersion in his own church by succession, so he went over to Greece, and got baptism at the hands of a Greek Bishop in order that he might get what he considered apostolic baptism, and then he came over to America and started a church. I want to read from his history in the language of Tertullian, when my friend says is the first man that ever wrote on baptism. "To begin with, baptism: when we are about to come to the water, we do in the church testify under the hands of a chief minister, that we renounce the devil, and his pomp, and his angels. Then are we thrice immersed, pledging ourselves to something more than the Lord prescribed in the gospel." De Corona, Chapter 3, Oxf. trans. I presume my friend will come up and criticize on the strength of the word "pledge." If he does, we will be ready for that issue. "He (Christ) gave, as His last command, that they should immerse into the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, not into one person. For we are immerse not once, but thrice, at the naming of every person of the Trinity." Adv. Praxeam, Cap. XXVII, 30 De Dapt., cap. XIV. Now we have Mr. Tertullian's own statement for it. Again, we want to read from another author, Mr. Cathcart, Baptism of the Ages. He is on my friend's side of the question. He baptized just like Elder Riggle baptizes, and I want to read. Page 15: "Trine immersion was the general practice of the Christians from the end of the second till the close of the twelfth century. The proof of this statement is overwhelming." That is Mr. Catheart's first statement. Page 168: "For we sinking our heads in the water, as if in some grave, the old man is buried; and the whole man, having sunk entirely down, is concealed. Then, we emerging, the new man rises again. For as it is easy for us to be immersed and to emerge, so it is easy for God to bury the old man and bring to light the new. This is done three times." Here he is giving you the language of Chrysostom, who was one of the old church fathers and lived right back in the primitive age of the church that we are talking about. "For as it is easy for us to be immersed and to emerge, so it is easy for God to bury the old man and to bring to light the new. This is done three times." "The ancient deacons led the man to be baptized into the fountain up to the neck in the water,and if the candidate was a woman the deaconesses placed her in the same situation, and the act of baptism after this consisted simply in sinking the head of the person in the water three times in the name of the Holy Trinity." Page 198. He has give you here Mr. Tertullian again. Elsewhere in his work Tertullian says of baptism: "But first in the church, under the management of the Bishop, we bear some testimony that we have renounced the devil and his pomp and angels. Then answering somewhat more fully than the Lord appointed in the gospel we are immersed three times. Our Savior commanded us to immerse into the Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit; and not into one person, and not once, but three times. At each name we are immersed into each person." Again, we read from page 200. This was written in the year 256, about the middle of the third century, right back in the primitive age of the church. "The true doctrine of our holy mother, the Catholic Church (not the Roman Catholic, in that day it meant the general church) has always been with us, my brethren, and especially in the article of baptism, and the trine immersion wherewith it is celebrated, our Lord having said: Go ye and baptize the Gentiles in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, etc." Then, again speaking of Tertullian we read, "Tertullian, sixty years before in Cathage, wrote about baptism: We are immersed three times." Page 201. My friend gets up here and tells you that he knows more about the language and teaching of the Savior's great commission than the Greek scholars that lived in the primitive age that tell us they practiced trine immersion and that they got it from the formula of the Lord Jesus Christ. "He (Christ) gave as His last command, that they should immerse into the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, not into one person. For we are immersed not once, but thrice, at the naming of each person of the Trinity." This is copied from Chrystal's Mode of Baptism, as the statement of Tertullian, who especially and emphatically declares that Christ gave trine immersion as His last command. These Latin scholars in the early days of the church had no trouble reconciling the idea of "one baptism and three immersions," and they actually baptized that way, and they got it from the commission of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is for you to decide whether my worthy opponent, who know about as much Greek as I do, whether he knows more about the commission than these Greek and Latin scholars that lived in the early age of the church. We will read from Schaff, in the History of the Christian Church. You will see that these men are not on our side of this discussion, but they are honest men and will tell you the truth in this matter. In the first century, from 100 to 200, "the usual form of baptism was immersion." "This is inferred from the general custom of the ancient church, which prevails in the East to this day. The oriental and the orthodox Russian churches require even a threefold immersion in the name of the Trinity and deny the validity of any other. The longer Russian catechism thus defines baptism a sacrament in which a man who believe, having his body thrice plunged into water in the name of God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, dies to the carnal life of sin and is born again of the Holy Ghost to a life spiritual and holy. "Marriott in Smith and Cheethan, 1, 1610, says: "Triple immersion, that is thrice dipping the head while standing in the water, was the all but universal rule of the church in the early times," and quotes in proof Tertullian, Cyril of Jerusalem, Chrysostom, Jerome, Leo I., etc. I read again from Vol. 2, of Mr. Schaff's History, pages 247 and 248: "The teaching of the twelve apostle (Zech. 7) enjoins baptism after catechetical instruction in these words: Baptize into the name of the Father, and into the name of the Son, and into the name of the Holy Ghost; in living (running) water. But if thou hast not living water, baptize into other water, and if thou canst not in cold then in warm. But if thou hast neither, pour water on the head thrice into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost." Before the act the candidate was required in a solemn vow to renounce the service of the devil that is, all evil, giving himself to Christ, and confess the sum of the apostolic faith in God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The apostles creed, therefore, is properly the baptismal symbol, as it grew in fact out of the baptismal formula. This act of turning from sin and turning to God, or of repentance and faith on the part of the candidate, was followed by an appropriate prayer of the minister, and then by the baptism itself, into the triune name with three successive immersions in which the deacons and deaconesses assisted. The immersion consisted in thrice dipping the head of the candidate who stood nude in the water. Schaff's History of the Christian Church, Vol. 2, pages 247, 248. This is in the second century that they baptized just like Mr. Cowan said was the usual way in the first century, trine immersion, but effusion was sometimes permitted when immersion was inconvenient, but it was always applied three times, by the triple act. Mr. Schaff again, "Before the act, the candidate was required in a solemn vow to renounce his service of the devil," then he was baptized into the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This act of turning from sin and turning to God on the part of the candidate was followed by baptism into the triune name with three successive immersions in which the deaconesses assisted. These historians come up and sustain my position clearly, but my friend comes up here and tells us that these men are mistaken in the matter. Through his learning and knowledge his know more about it than all of them. He may refer to the idea of being baptized nude, but that doesn't destroy the fact of three immersions. I read from one author that they had the ladies baptized in one side of the font and the men in the other. The women took care of the ladies, and the men took care of the men, so the propriety of decency was strictly observed.

The church in the apostolic times baptized into each name of the Trinity. Matt. 28:19: "Baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." Three names in the Trinity. Matt. 3:16, 17: "And Jesus, when He was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo the heavens were opened unto Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting upon Him and , lo, a voice from heaven saying, This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." Matt. 17:5: "And, behold, a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased: hear ye Him." The Father and the Son are distinct just as much as any two in this congregation. 1 John 5:7: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." They are just as distinct as any three individuals in this congregation. Three persons into which we are baptized. Name here in this commission represents the divine person. Name of the Father means the Father, name of the Son means the Son, and name of the Holy Spirit means the Holy Spirit. Psa. 343:3: "O magnify the Lord with me, and let us exalt His name together." 111:9: "He sent redemption unto His people: He hath commanded His covenant forever. Holy and reverend is His name." 148:13: "Let them praise the name of the Lord: for His name alone is excellent: His glory is above the earth and heaven." Matt. 10:22: "And ye shall be hated of all men for My name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved." Matt. 19:29: "And everyone that hath forsaken houses or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for My name's shake, shall receive an hundred fold, and shall inherit everlasting life." Luke 21:12: "But before all these, they shall lay their hands on you, and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues, and into prisons, being brought before kings and rulers for My name's sake." In all these passages name represents the divine persons themselves. So that baptism is not merely into the name but into the divine persons themselves, and thus Christians dwell in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in the sense in which they are three. 1 Thess. 1:1: "Paul and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the Church of the Thessalonians which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace be unto you and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ." 1 John 2:24: "Let us therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which we have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye shall continue in the Son, and in the Father." Gal. 5:25: "If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit." Rom. 8:9" "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now, if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His." Gal. 3:27: "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." Rom. 6:3, 4: "Therefore we are buried with Him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." Matt. 28:19: "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Since we get into them by baptism it takes a triple action.

Argument 3. The word our Savior used to express the form of baptism indicates repetition of action. Baptizo is frequentative, and carries the idea of repetition. Bapto, to dip, to plunge, to immerse. Bapto means just simply to dip, to plunge or to immerse, and instead of baptizo being what my friend tells you, it bears the same relation to bapto that the word dipping does to dip, or striking to strike. Strike means one stoke, and striking means a repetition of action. Bapto means one action, and baptizo means a repetition of action. Baptizo means a frequentative action, and is so rendered by the following authors who either define it as a frequentative or state that it has a frequentative nature and carries the idea of repetition: Chrystal, Wilke, Buttman, Rost, Stephens and Vossius, Burton, Bretschneider, Bullion, Prof. Berry, Dr. Robinson, Grimm, Gree, Funk and Wagnalls, Passow, Komma, Gaza, Richardson's Lgd, Diet. (Eng.), Hasting's Bible Dict., Liddell and Scott, Amer. Ed., and Donegan (21 in all). God's means of Grace, Yoder, pages 151-154. Twenty-two in all. We have here twenty-two authors. I told my worthy opponent that if he will give one author that says it means to dip only once, we will surrender the argument.

e. The use of the word baptizo by our Savior and the apostles to indicate the form of baptism certainly goes far in determining what that form is, especially since they might have used bapto, which means to simply dip, which means a single action. They could have used a word that means a single act. But bapto was never used by the Savior or the apostles to indicate the act of baptism. If they had used that world we wouldn't be contending for the form from the meaning of the word.

f. Dip the chair into the tank of stain, and into the tank of filler, and into the tank of varnish so that it can be stained and fixed ready for the market. Told in the city and in the country. Baptizo indicates the repetition and the prepositional adverbial phrases the number of repetitions.

g. Englis as well as the Greek follow this rule. Strike, striking. Pound, pounding. Dip dipping.

(Time.)

_________________________

Elder Riggle's Twentieth Speech
Friday Evening, September 24

Mr. Chairman, Brother Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen:---In my closing speech, under argument five, I was giving a number of texts that in their construction are parallel wit that in the commission, as found in Matt. 28:19; and in each case but a single action is expressed. I referred to Matt. 23:1, where it is said, "Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to His disciples." Also Num. 4:1: "And the Lord spake unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying." I showed that in each of these there was but a single action. God spake but once to Moses and Aaron, and Jesus delivered but one sermon, and at the same time spake to the multitude, and to His disciples. Elder Kesler referred to this by saying that in each case there was but one sermon, but he thinks that it was in two parts. The facts are but one sermon in each case was delivered; and He spake to all of them at the same time. A single action, then, fulfills the language.

My next reference was 1 Cor. 10:1, 2. Here the Israelites passed but once through the sea at which time Paul tells us they were UNDER THE CLOUD. This was a symbolic grave from which they emerged on the wilderness side, symbolizing a resurrection. The point I made was this: They passed through this symbolic grave but once. There was but one action. Paul calls this baptism. If we, then, accept the testimony of this inspired writer, baptism is a single action. The only reply that the Elder could make to this was a feeble attempt to deny that the Israelites, while passing through the sea, were under the cloud. But Paul's own language refutes the Elder's contention. At the very time that they passed through the sea the apostles says they were "under the cloud."

My next reference will be Luke 9:26: "For whosoever shall be ashamed of Me and of My words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when He shall come in His own glory, and in His Father's, and of the holy angels." Here we have a parallel text with the commission. Like that, it is an elliptical sentence. Completed it would read: "When He shall come in the glory of Himself, and in the glory of the Father, and in the glory of the holy angels." This is the way you will find it in the direct from the Greek. Now, then, if there are three immersions taught in the commission, there are three comings of Christ in this text. I ask you people here tonight, does this text teach three actions? Why, certainly not. Here are three glories mentioned: The glory of the Father, and the glory of the Son, and the glory of the holy angels. If we were to accept the interpretation of Elder Kesler on the language of this text, we would be forced to believe that Christ will come once in His own glory, then go back and come again in His Father's glory, and go back a third time, and then return again in the glory of His holy angels. No one but triune immersionists would so interpret the Scriptures.

There is but one coming in three glories, just like there is one immersion in three names. There is no evasion of this fact. The language is parallel. Elder Kesler will tell you that the case is not parallel. He cannot deny the construction of the language, but their writers try to evade its force by saying that the case is not parallel. The claim, as no doubt he will, that Christ got into these three glories before He came. True, and this makes the case exactly parallel with that of baptism as recorded in the commission. I will now read from the "Doctrine of the Brethren Defended," by R. H. Miller: "The two Scriptures could be made parallel if the persons were in the Father and in the Son and in the Holy Spirit before they are baptized, and then baptize them afterward." Good for Miller. This is my position exactly. Through salvation and the operation of the Spirit of God, people are first inducted into the Holy Trinity, then afterward baptized in the name of the Trinity and just so Christ first receives the glory mentioned and then comes by one action in the glory of Himself, and of His Father, and of the holy angels. This is one coming in three glories, and there is one immersion in three names. This will completely answer any argument that the Elder may bring up on this text, and I will not refer to it again.

Again, Col. 2:2: "To the acknowledgment of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ." Here we have language parallel with the commission, and it signifies but one action, one acknowledgment and one mystery. To suit Elder Kesler's theory, you would have three mysteries and three acknowledgments. The Bible is against it.

Next, 1 Thess. 5:23: "I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." Here, again, we have but a single action. One preserving of three parts.

John 3:5: "Born of water and of the Sprit." This is spiritual birth, or what Jesus termed being born again or born from above. I ask, how many times are we born again? How many actions does it require? There is but one birth into the kingdom of heaven. Yet that one birth is expressed in parallel language with the commission: "Born of water and of the Spirit."

1 John 2:24: "If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye shall continue in the Son, and in the Father." Does this require two distinct, separate, independent continuing? Will Elder Kesler please tell this intelligent congregation how a person can continue, then cease to continue, and again commence continuing, and thus alternately continue to discontinue, first in the Son, and second in the Father? When he has solved this, then he has established his triple baptism and I am ready to yield the argument. Upon such an incomprehensible enigma rests the practice of my friend's church.

Sixth. Three characters distinguished by three names---Father, Son, and Holy Spirit---do not necessitate a repetition of action. On this fact I squarely plant my feet. Right here the doctrine and practice of Elder Kesler's church falls to the ground. I will give a clear proof text. 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." Here are three characters distinguished by three names---Abraham, Isaac and Jacob---just like the commission. Elder Kesler in his reply to this may speak of the active transitive participle and the intransitive verb, but that is not the point. The point I make is, that in this text we have three characters distinguished by three names,just lie the commission, and there is but a single action. (Here Mr. Riggle placed three objects on the table to represent Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. He then brought some objects from the East and West and by one action set them down in the midst of the three representing the three characters---Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. He next illustrated his point by using the three Moderators to represent Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Taking his chair he came from the East and sat down with the one representing Abraham, then arose and went back East and came and sat down with the one representing Isaac, then he arose again and went East, after which he returned and sat down with the one representing Jacob. In doing this he said:) This perfectly illustrates Elder Kesler's idea of the commission. Is there anyone here who believes that there will be three risings and three sitting with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob. in that everlasting kingdom? Certainly not. I will now read from Elder James Quinter in the Quinter-McConnel Debate, page 72: "I have not argued that in every case where there is an ellipsis to be supplied there must necessarily be a repetition of the action; whether such is the case or not is to be inferred from other circumstances." Good for Quinter. Thus I show from one of his own brethren that Elder Kesler's position is not well grounded. (Here Mr. Riggle illustrated his point by taking his chair and, coming from the East, he sat down once in the midst of the three moderators saying:) "And shall sit down with Abraham, and with Isaac, and with Jacob, in the everlasting kingdom." There will be but one action; and, in like manner, there is but one action in Christian baptism.

In this connection, let me here state a fact. Because there are three characters, three personalities, three offices, in the eternal Godhead, and these three are actively engaged in the great work of human salvation, does not imply a repetition of action in that work nor in baptism and symbol which represents it. Let me illustrate. In an association there are three leading officers, a president, a secretary and a treasurer. These three offices are held by different persons called by different names. There is a clear distinction between them individually and officially, but unity and association. Now, when a man becomes a member of this association, he recognizes the official authority of each of these. Question: Must he perform the same initiatory act three times in order to do this? Must he sign his name to an instrument three times in order to recognize the authority of the president, and of the secretary, and of the treasurer? Certainly not. The signing of his name once is all that is necessary. But one act. So with baptism One act recognizes the authority of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Elder Kesler spent considerable time tonight reading the testimony of certain modern historians. I am perfectly willing that he shall occupy his time reading from these histories, while I read from the Bible. The rules of the debate, which we both signed, state that "The Bible shall be the standard of evidence." I prefer to go back to the fountain head rather than come down the stream several hundred years, as the Elder is doing. However, in my regular line of negative arguments I will make full reply to what he has read from history.

Seventh. The grammatical construction or structure of the language used in the baptismal formula does not necessarily mean three actions. Here is an argument upon which I squarely plant my feet, and I am sure that Elder Kesler can never shake it. It completely removes the main pillar upon which rests the practice of three immersions in Christian Baptism. The Elder's church stake all here. If this fails them they have no proof elsewhere for their practice. To give you an idea of how much importance they place on this point, I will read from Elder Miller, in "Doctrines of the Brethren Defended," page 109: "Our fourth argument to prove trine immersion we draw from the grammatical structure of the language used in the formula of baptism. * * * On this argument the contest is to be made so far as the meaning of our language is concerned. If the language of the commission means three actions we are right, and if it means but one action we are wrong." You see that the grammatical construction of the language of this single text is the main prop they lean upon for their teaching and practice. If this fails them, down goes the whole fabric of triune baptism. Right here is where I will prove their practice wrong.

I will now give examples of language, the structure parallel with that of the commission, and but one action is required in every case.

(1) I preach to you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. ONE SERMON.

(2) I present to you the doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. ONE PRESENTING.

(3) When I receive my commission, I was endowed with the authority of the Father, and of Christ, and of the Holy Spirit. ONE ENDOWMENT.

(4) In the baptism of the Holy Ghost I was anointed with the power of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. ONE ANOINTING.

(5) Conversion is the work of the Father, and of Christ, and of the Holy Spirit. ONE work.

(6) The instant of my sanctification, I was inducted into the glory of the Father, and into the glory of the Son, and into the glory of the Holy Spirit. ONE induction.

(7) The new birth inducted me into the love of the Father, and into the love of Christ, and into the love of the Holy Spirit. ONE induction.

(8) When I became a Christian I embraced the doctrine of the Father, and of Christ, and of the Holy Spirit. ONE embracing.

(9) At that time I accepted the salvation of the Father, and of Christ, and of the Holy Spirit. ONE accepting.

(10) The air I breathe is composed of nitrogen 79%, oxygen 20%, and argon and carbon dioxide 1%. So at the time of respiration I inhaled nitrogen, and oxygen, and argon and carbon dioxide, ONE act.

(11) I once held a baptismal service in the Allegheny River, and baptized the converts into the water, and into the river, and into the Allegheny. ONE act.

(12) A child was born into our family, and into the state of Pennsylvania, and into the Union. ONE birth. Doest this require three births, a triple action, first into the family, a second into the state, and a third birth into the Union? Never. So by one spiritual birth are we brought into relationship with each person in the Trinity, and one act in baptism publicly testifies to this fact.

(13) A balloon ascended in the fog, and in the rain, and in the cloud. ONE ascension.

I will now give a number of simple illustrations in the language of the commission and prove a single action in every one of them. (Here Mr. Riggle displayed a tablet made of three sheets of paper: a white sheet and a blue sheet and a yellow sheet.) I hold in my hand three sheets of paper, a white sheet, and a blue sheet, a, and a yellow sheet. These three sheets of distinct colors represent the three persons in the Trinity, their different manifestations and offices. Pasted together these distinct sheets make one tablet, just like the three persons in the Trinity constitute one eternal Godhead. There is a beautiful analogy between the illustration I am using and the eternal Godhead or Holy Trinity. The carbon sheets represent the connecting link between each person in the God head. "These three are one." I see Professor McHatton of the Oswego High School is here. I will now ask Professor McHatton to please write his name on the first page of the white sheet, and of the blue sheet, and of the yellow sheet. (Here Mr. Riggle. passed the tablet to Professor McHatton, who by one action wrote his name on all three sheets, and handed the tablet back to Mr. Riggle. Mr. Riggle then asked the Professor, How many times did you write your name, and how many actions did it require? The Professor answered, "But once, I used but one action." Here Mr. Riggle displayed the tablet to the congregation and showed that the Professor's name by a single action was written upon the first page of each sheet.) You see, friend, that I have used the exact language or rather parallel language with that found in the commission, and a single action has fulfilled it perfectly. Just as the Professor by one act wrote his name upon the first page of the white sheet, and of the blue sheet, and of the yellow sheet, so by one act are we brought in touch with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and one act in baptism fulfills the language of the commission perfectly.

(Next Mr. Riggle displayed a glass one-third filled with mercury, one-third with water and one-third with oil. He then remarked:) I want to give Elder Kesler all the benefit I can on his contention for a clear distinction between each person in the Godhead. You will notice I here have three distinct elements in one vessel. Mercury, being heaviest, is at the bottom, and the oil, being the lightest, is at the top. This gives him the benefit of his position as to the distinctiveness of the Trinity, but you will notice that all three are in one vessel just like there are three persons filling three offices in the Trinity, all in one Godhead. Now, I will by one action dip my pencil into the layer of oil, and of water, and of mercury. (Here Mr. Riggle by one act dipped his pencil into the glass containing all three elements.) In doing this I use parallel language with that of the commission, and you can all see that a single action fulfills it perfectly. In the same manner, one action brings us into the Trinity, and one action in baptism witnesses the fact.

I will now give you an illustration that I cannot demonstrate here as the weather is not cold enough. Suppose I fill a glass two-thirds full of water, next I place in the glass a thin layer of ice, and upon this I place enough snow to entirely fill the glass. The snow being the lightest will be on top. Here are three different forms of the same substance in one vessel. This is just like the Godhead. The analogy and parallel cannot be questioned. Now, I dip my pencil into the layer of snow, and of ice, and of water. I do this by one action, and by so doing I fulfill language that is parallel with that of the commission. In the light of this fact the Elder's contention fades into oblivion.

I have here three sheets of paper of different colors. I hold them up where you can all see them. You will notice they are fastened together at one end. These three sheets pasted into one tablet is just like the Godhead,"three in one." I now, by one act, stick a nail through the sheet of white paper, and of blue paper, and of yellow paper. In doing so, I use analogous language with that of the commission and a single action fulfills it. (Mr. Riggle demonstrated his point with the tablet of three sheets and the nail.)

Again, space is eternal and everywhere, just like God. There is space in this tabernacle. There is space in the hole at the top, and there is space in the sky outside. Three different forms of the same thing. This is just like God. There is an exact similarity in this illustration and that of the Trinity. Now, suppose I take a gun and shoot through the space in this tent, and in the hole through the top, and the sky outside, how many actions would this require? But one action, of course. And yet here I have an illustration analogous to the Trinity, and use language parallel with that in the commission, and a single action fills the requirement perfectly.

I have here a glass of milk. It is 100% pure milk. This glass of milk is composed of three elements-water, butter fat and sugar or salts. It is 87.% water, 4% butter fat and 8.6% sugar. Here we have three parts in one element---milk. This is exactly analogous to the three persons in the Trinity, "Three in one." Now, then, by a single act I dip my pencil into that glass of milk, and in so doing that one act immerses the pencil into the water, and into the butter fat and into the sugar. (Here Mr. Riggle demonstrated his point by dropping his pencil by one act into a glass of milk.) You will notice that in the illustrations I am giving there is an exact and beautiful parallel with that of our induction into the Holy Trinity and the external rite of baptism which publicly testifies to it. You will also notice that a single action fulfills the language.

A ray of pure white light is made up, you know, of red light, and of yellow light, and of blue light. The combination of these three produces one clear white light. The combination of Father, Son and Holy Spirit constitutes one eternal God in exactly the same manner. Suppose I suddenly Suppose I suddenly step, by one act, from a dark room into a ray of pure white light; that one act inducts me, baptized or immerses---if you please---into the red light, and into the yellow light, and into the blue light. In the same manner, by one act, we are baptized into the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. An act done in the white light is done in the red light, and in the yellow light, and in the blue light. Just so, an act performed in the name of Jesus Christ includes the names of the other two who constitute the Trinity.

(Here Mr. Riggle lit a candle and said:) The flame of that light is composed of atoms of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen. These three make one flame. This is exactly analogous with the eternal Godhead. These three---Father, Son and Holy Spirit---constitute one God. I now insert my pencil into that one flame by a single act, and by doing so I insert the pencil into the carbon, and into the hydrogen, and into the oxygen. I use the language of the commission in performing this single act. It is utterly impossible to inset my pencil into the carbon, and into the hydrogen, and into the oxygen that compose that flame of light by three distinct acts. And just as truly it is impossible by three acts to be inducted into the Trinity.

The rainbow---one bow---is made up of seven distinct colors: red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo and violet. Were it possible to be immersed into the beautiful rainbow one immersion or one dip would baptize us into the red, and into the orange, and into the yellow, etc. One act would induct us into all the distinct colors, just the same as one act brings us into the three persons of the Holy Trinity.

I hold in my hand a watch---one timepiece. In it composition we have wheels, mainspring, dial, hands etc. These hold different offices (so to speak) and perform different work, just like the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Separate these different parts as my friend, Elder Kesler, would the Godhead, and I have no watch, nor more than he has a true conception of God. His teaching and practice reduces the one eternal God to separate individualism. But you see all the distinct parts taken together compose one watch. So with God. All the fullness of the entire Godhead dwells in Christ. By one act I put the entire watch, wheels, mainspring, dial and all in my pocket. In like manner by one divine act we are "filled with all the fullness of God." One action in baptism testifies to this.

I have here a glass of pure water. It is composed of two substances---hydrogen and oxygen. I now, by a single act, dip my pencil into this glass of water and in so doing I dip it into the hydrogen and into the oxygen.

The sun emits the heat, and the light, and the life of our solar system. Suppose I suddenly step our of a dark room into the clear sunshine. By that one act I am baptized in the heat, and in the light, and in the life of the universe.

Radium produces three distinct rays---that is radium produces a clear light made up of three distinct rays---alpha 90%, beta 8.5% and kappa 1.5%. By one act I step into the clear light produced by radium and instantly, by that single act, I am baptized into the alpha, and into the beta, and into the kappa. This is exactly analogous to Christian baptism by a single act in the name of the Trinity. I will close by referring to the doxology. Elder Kesler and his church, no doubt, sing this universally, "Praise Father, Son and Holy Ghost." Does this require three acts of praise? No, indeed. By a single act of praise all three persons of the Trinity are honored, and in exact parallel with this, by a single act of immersion all three are honored.

(Time.)

The Riggle - Kesler Debate
[ Selected ]

Elder Kesler's Twentieth Speech
Friday Evening, September 24

Gentlemen, Moderators, Brethren and Friends:---I want to start in this speech where my opponent left off. He called your attention to certain Scriptures. He says Jesus spake to the multitude and to His disciples. Now he wants to know whether there were two acts in this speaking. I will refer him to the fact that this was one sermon in two parts, and when this book comes out you will read it. Part one includes verse 1 to 12 that He spake to the multitude, and from verse 13 to 36 He spoke to the disciples. Two acts clearly and conclusively by his own illustration. The Lord spake unto Moses and Aaron. Again we have one discourse, but in two parts. Part one is from verse 1 to 20, and part two is from verse 21 to 33. One discourse in two parts. Just like our baptis is one baptism in three parts. His own illustration turns him down and sustains our position. They were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. I referred to this in an argument on his proposition where we showed you that when the baptism in the cloud and in the sea took place, that the cloud went from before their face and stood behind them, and that was one act, and then the children of Israel passed through the sea, that was another act, then the cloud followed them, and the Egyptians followed, and when the Egyptians were in the sea the Lord Jehovah looked forth through the pillar of the cloud upon the Egyptians. The next act we have of that cloud it had come from behind these people and stood between them and the wilderness and the children of Israel looked toward the wilderness and beheld the glory of the Lord in the pillar of cloud and of fire. If he gets one act out of that, he will deceive me.

Now, his arguments 1 and 2 will be covered, I think, in my line of work, and I will proceed where I left off.

I was reading from Mr. Orchard, on page 26, and you remember now he is writing on baptism in the second century, that means from the year 100 up to 200, and he says: "It does not appear by any approved authors that there was any mutation or variation in baptism from the former century." Now, he was a Baptist, and he baptized just like my worthy opponent baptizes, but he was honest enough to say that there is no author that states that there was any change from the baptism in the day of Christ and the apostles until the second century. In the second century there has been no change from that of the first century, and coming down to the third century we find on page 35 of Orchard's History, "The most respectable historians affirm that no evidence exists as to any alteration in the subject or mode of baptism during the third century." In the third century they had baptism just like they had in the second century, and in the second century they had it just like they had it in the first century. He brings up my author that I gave, Mr. Clement, and he wants me to take his book and read what Mr. Clement says about it. If he comes up and denies what Mr. Clement has said he denies what Wyberg, a prominent historian, says, and I will ask him to read just what Clement did say on baptism, and that will straighten the matter out. I will read from Mr. James Chrystal, in Baptism Modes, page 61. He was an Episcopalian. The Episcopal Church previously baptized by trine immersion, but they have changed now. Mr. Chrystal was an Episcopalian and he couldn't get trine immersion in his own church by succession, so he went over to Greece, and got baptism at the hands of a Greek Bishop in order that he might get what he considered apostolic baptism, and then he came over to America and started a church. I want to read from his history in the language of Tertullian, when my friend says is the first man that ever wrote on baptism. "To begin with, baptism: when we are about to come to the water, we do in the church testify under the hands of a chief minister, that we renounce the devil, and his pomp, and his angels. Then are we thrice immersed, pledging ourselves to something more than the Lord prescribed in the gospel." De Corona, Chapter 3, Oxf. trans. I presume my friend will come up and criticize on the strength of the word "pledge." If he does, we will be ready for that issue. "He (Christ) gave, as His last command, that they should immerse into the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, not into one person. For we are immerse not once, but thrice, at the naming of every person of the Trinity." Adv. Praxeam, Cap. XXVII, 30 De Dapt., cap. XIV. Now we have Mr. Tertullian's own statement for it. Again, we want to read from another author, Mr. Cathcart, Baptism of the Ages. He is on my friend's side of the question. He baptized just like Elder Riggle baptizes, and I want to read. Page 15: "Trine immersion was the general practice of the Christians from the end of the second till the close of the twelfth century. The proof of this statement is overwhelming." That is Mr. Catheart's first statement. Page 168: "For we sinking our heads in the water, as if in some grave, the old man is buried; and the whole man, having sunk entirely down, is concealed. Then, we emerging, the new man rises again. For as it is easy for us to be immersed and to emerge, so it is easy for God to bury the old man and bring to light the new. This is done three times." Here he is giving you the language of Chrysostom, who was one of the old church fathers and lived right back in the primitive age of the church that we are talking about. "For as it is easy for us to be immersed and to emerge, so it is easy for God to bury the old man and to bring to light the new. This is done three times." "The ancient deacons led the man to be baptized into the fountain up to the neck in the water,and if the candidate was a woman the deaconesses placed her in the same situation, and the act of baptism after this consisted simply in sinking the head of the person in the water three times in the name of the Holy Trinity." Page 198. He has give you here Mr. Tertullian again. Elsewhere in his work Tertullian says of baptism: "But first in the church, under the management of the Bishop, we bear some testimony that we have renounced the devil and his pomp and angels. Then answering somewhat more fully than the Lord appointed in the gospel we are immersed three times. Our Savior commanded us to immerse into the Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit; and not into one person, and not once, but three times. At each name we are immersed into each person." Again, we read from page 200. This was written in the year 256, about the middle of the third century, right back in the primitive age of the church. "The true doctrine of our holy mother, the Catholic Church (not the Roman Catholic, in that day it meant the general church) has always been with us, my brethren, and especially in the article of baptism, and the trine immersion wherewith it is celebrated, our Lord having said: Go ye and baptize the Gentiles in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, etc." Then, again speaking of Tertullian we read, "Tertullian, sixty years before in Cathage, wrote about baptism: We are immersed three times." Page 201. My friend gets up here and tells you that he knows more about the language and teaching of the Savior's great commission than the Greek scholars that lived in the primitive age that tell us they practiced trine immersion and that they got it from the formula of the Lord Jesus Christ. "He (Christ) gave as His last command, that they should immerse into the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, not into one person. For we are immersed not once, but thrice, at the naming of each person of the Trinity." This is copied from Chrystal's Mode of Baptism, as the statement of Tertullian, who especially and emphatically declares that Christ gave trine immersion as His last command. These Latin scholars in the early days of the church had no trouble reconciling the idea of "one baptism and three immersions," and they actually baptized that way, and they got it from the commission of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is for you to decide whether my worthy opponent, who know about as much Greek as I do, whether he knows more about the commission than these Greek and Latin scholars that lived in the early age of the church. We will read from Schaff, in the History of the Christian Church. You will see that these men are not on our side of this discussion, but they are honest men and will tell you the truth in this matter. In the first century, from 100 to 200, "the usual form of baptism was immersion." "This is inferred from the general custom of the ancient church, which prevails in the East to this day. The oriental and the orthodox Russian churches require even a threefold immersion in the name of the Trinity and deny the validity of any other. The longer Russian catechism thus defines baptism a sacrament in which a man who believe, having his body thrice plunged into water in the name of God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, dies to the carnal life of sin and is born again of the Holy Ghost to a life spiritual and holy. "Marriott in Smith and Cheethan, 1, 1610, says: "Triple immersion, that is thrice dipping the head while standing in the water, was the all but universal rule of the church in the early times," and quotes in proof Tertullian, Cyril of Jerusalem, Chrysostom, Jerome, Leo I., etc. I read again from Vol. 2, of Mr. Schaff's History, pages 247 and 248: "The teaching of the twelve apostle (Zech. 7) enjoins baptism after catechetical instruction in these words: Baptize into the name of the Father, and into the name of the Son, and into the name of the Holy Ghost; in living (running) water. But if thou hast not living water, baptize into other water, and if thou canst not in cold then in warm. But if thou hast neither, pour water on the head thrice into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost." Before the act the candidate was required in a solemn vow to renounce the service of the devil that is, all evil, giving himself to Christ, and confess the sum of the apostolic faith in God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The apostles creed, therefore, is properly the baptismal symbol, as it grew in fact out of the baptismal formula. This act of turning from sin and turning to God, or of repentance and faith on the part of the candidate, was followed by an appropriate prayer of the minister, and then by the baptism itself, into the triune name with three successive immersions in which the deacons and deaconesses assisted. The immersion consisted in thrice dipping the head of the candidate who stood nude in the water. Schaff's History of the Christian Church, Vol. 2, pages 247, 248. This is in the second century that they baptized just like Mr. Cowan said was the usual way in the first century, trine immersion, but effusion was sometimes permitted when immersion was inconvenient, but it was always applied three times, by the triple act. Mr. Schaff again, "Before the act, the candidate was required in a solemn vow to renounce his service of the devil," then he was baptized into the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This act of turning from sin and turning to God on the part of the candidate was followed by baptism into the triune name with three successive immersions in which the deaconesses assisted. These historians come up and sustain my position clearly, but my friend comes up here and tells us that these men are mistaken in the matter. Through his learning and knowledge his know more about it than all of them. He may refer to the idea of being baptized nude, but that doesn't destroy the fact of three immersions. I read from one author that they had the ladies baptized in one side of the font and the men in the other. The women took care of the ladies, and the men took care of the men, so the propriety of decency was strictly observed.

The church in the apostolic times baptized into each name of the Trinity. Matt. 28:19: "Baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." Three names in the Trinity. Matt. 3:16, 17: "And Jesus, when He was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo the heavens were opened unto Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting upon Him and , lo, a voice from heaven saying, This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." Matt. 17:5: "And, behold, a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased: hear ye Him." The Father and the Son are distinct just as much as any two in this congregation. 1 John 5:7: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." They are just as distinct as any three individuals in this congregation. Three persons into which we are baptized. Name here in this commission represents the divine person. Name of the Father means the Father, name of the Son means the Son, and name of the Holy Spirit means the Holy Spirit. Psa. 343:3: "O magnify the Lord with me, and let us exalt His name together." 111:9: "He sent redemption unto His people: He hath commanded His covenant forever. Holy and reverend is His name." 148:13: "Let them praise the name of the Lord: for His name alone is excellent: His glory is above the earth and heaven." Matt. 10:22: "And ye shall be hated of all men for My name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved." Matt. 19:29: "And everyone that hath forsaken houses or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for My name's shake, shall receive an hundred fold, and shall inherit everlasting life." Luke 21:12: "But before all these, they shall lay their hands on you, and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues, and into prisons, being brought before kings and rulers for My name's sake." In all these passages name represents the divine persons themselves. So that baptism is not merely into the name but into the divine persons themselves, and thus Christians dwell in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in the sense in which they are three. 1 Thess. 1:1: "Paul and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the Church of the Thessalonians which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace be unto you and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ." 1 John 2:24: "Let us therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which we have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye shall continue in the Son, and in the Father." Gal. 5:25: "If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit." Rom. 8:9" "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now, if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His." Gal. 3:27: "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." Rom. 6:3, 4: "Therefore we are buried with Him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." Matt. 28:19: "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Since we get into them by baptism it takes a triple action.

Argument 3. The word our Savior used to express the form of baptism indicates repetition of action. Baptizo is frequentative, and carries the idea of repetition. Bapto, to dip, to plunge, to immerse. Bapto means just simply to dip, to plunge or to immerse, and instead of baptizo being what my friend tells you, it bears the same relation to bapto that the word dipping does to dip, or striking to strike. Strike means one stoke, and striking means a repetition of action. Bapto means one action, and baptizo means a repetition of action. Baptizo means a frequentative action, and is so rendered by the following authors who either define it as a frequentative or state that it has a frequentative nature and carries the idea of repetition: Chrystal, Wilke, Buttman, Rost, Stephens and Vossius, Burton, Bretschneider, Bullion, Prof. Berry, Dr. Robinson, Grimm, Gree, Funk and Wagnalls, Passow, Komma, Gaza, Richardson's Lgd, Diet. (Eng.), Hasting's Bible Dict., Liddell and Scott, Amer. Ed., and Donegan (21 in all). God's means of Grace, Yoder, pages 151-154. Twenty-two in all. We have here twenty-two authors. I told my worthy opponent that if he will give one author that says it means to dip only once, we will surrender the argument.

e. The use of the word baptizo by our Savior and the apostles to indicate the form of baptism certainly goes far in determining what that form is, especially since they might have used bapto, which means to simply dip, which means a single action. They could have used a word that means a single act. But bapto was never used by the Savior or the apostles to indicate the act of baptism. If they had used that world we wouldn't be contending for the form from the meaning of the word.

f. Dip the chair into the tank of stain, and into the tank of filler, and into the tank of varnish so that it can be stained and fixed ready for the market. Told in the city and in the country. Baptizo indicates the repetition and the prepositional adverbial phrases the number of repetitions.

g. Englis as well as the Greek follow this rule. Strike, striking. Pound, pounding. Dip dipping.

(Time.)

_________________________

Elder Riggle's Twentieth Speech
Friday Evening, September 24

Mr. Chairman, Brother Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen:---In my closing speech, under argument five, I was giving a number of texts that in their construction are parallel wit that in the commission, as found in Matt. 28:19; and in each case but a single action is expressed. I referred to Matt. 23:1, where it is said, "Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to His disciples." Also Num. 4:1: "And the Lord spake unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying." I showed that in each of these there was but a single action. God spake but once to Moses and Aaron, and Jesus delivered but one sermon, and at the same time spake to the multitude, and to His disciples. Elder Kesler referred to this by saying that in each case there was but one sermon, but he thinks that it was in two parts. The facts are but one sermon in each case was delivered; and He spake to all of them at the same time. A single action, then, fulfills the language.

My next reference was 1 Cor. 10:1, 2. Here the Israelites passed but once through the sea at which time Paul tells us they were UNDER THE CLOUD. This was a symbolic grave from which they emerged on the wilderness side, symbolizing a resurrection. The point I made was this: They passed through this symbolic grave but once. There was but one action. Paul calls this baptism. If we, then, accept the testimony of this inspired writer, baptism is a single action. The only reply that the Elder could make to this was a feeble attempt to deny that the Israelites, while passing through the sea, were under the cloud. But Paul's own language refutes the Elder's contention. At the very time that they passed through the sea the apostles says they were "under the cloud."

My next reference will be Luke 9:26: "For whosoever shall be ashamed of Me and of My words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when He shall come in His own glory, and in His Father's, and of the holy angels." Here we have a parallel text with the commission. Like that, it is an elliptical sentence. Completed it would read: "When He shall come in the glory of Himself, and in the glory of the Father, and in the glory of the holy angels." This is the way you will find it in the direct from the Greek. Now, then, if there are three immersions taught in the commission, there are three comings of Christ in this text. I ask you people here tonight, does this text teach three actions? Why, certainly not. Here are three glories mentioned: The glory of the Father, and the glory of the Son, and the glory of the holy angels. If we were to accept the interpretation of Elder Kesler on the language of this text, we would be forced to believe that Christ will come once in His own glory, then go back and come again in His Father's glory, and go back a third time, and then return again in the glory of His holy angels. No one but triune immersionists would so interpret the Scriptures.

There is but one coming in three glories, just like there is one immersion in three names. There is no evasion of this fact. The language is parallel. Elder Kesler will tell you that the case is not parallel. He cannot deny the construction of the language, but their writers try to evade its force by saying that the case is not parallel. The claim, as no doubt he will, that Christ got into these three glories before He came. True, and this makes the case exactly parallel with that of baptism as recorded in the commission. I will now read from the "Doctrine of the Brethren Defended," by R. H. Miller: "The two Scriptures could be made parallel if the persons were in the Father and in the Son and in the Holy Spirit before they are baptized, and then baptize them afterward." Good for Miller. This is my position exactly. Through salvation and the operation of the Spirit of God, people are first inducted into the Holy Trinity, then afterward baptized in the name of the Trinity and just so Christ first receives the glory mentioned and then comes by one action in the glory of Himself, and of His Father, and of the holy angels. This is one coming in three glories, and there is one immersion in three names. This will completely answer any argument that the Elder may bring up on this text, and I will not refer to it again.

Again, Col. 2:2: "To the acknowledgment of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ." Here we have language parallel with the commission, and it signifies but one action, one acknowledgment and one mystery. To suit Elder Kesler's theory, you would have three mysteries and three acknowledgments. The Bible is against it.

Next, 1 Thess. 5:23: "I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." Here, again, we have but a single action. One preserving of three parts.

John 3:5: "Born of water and of the Sprit." This is spiritual birth, or what Jesus termed being born again or born from above. I ask, how many times are we born again? How many actions does it require? There is but one birth into the kingdom of heaven. Yet that one birth is expressed in parallel language with the commission: "Born of water and of the Spirit."

1 John 2:24: "If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye shall continue in the Son, and in the Father." Does this require two distinct, separate, independent continuing? Will Elder Kesler please tell this intelligent congregation how a person can continue, then cease to continue, and again commence continuing, and thus alternately continue to discontinue, first in the Son, and second in the Father? When he has solved this, then he has established his triple baptism and I am ready to yield the argument. Upon such an incomprehensible enigma rests the practice of my friend's church.

Sixth. Three characters distinguished by three names---Father, Son, and Holy Spirit---do not necessitate a repetition of action. On this fact I squarely plant my feet. Right here the doctrine and practice of Elder Kesler's church falls to the ground. I will give a clear proof text. 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." Here are three characters distinguished by three names---Abraham, Isaac and Jacob---just like the commission. Elder Kesler in his reply to this may speak of the active transitive participle and the intransitive verb, but that is not the point. The point I make is, that in this text we have three characters distinguished by three names,just lie the commission, and there is but a single action. (Here Mr. Riggle placed three objects on the table to represent Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. He then brought some objects from the East and West and by one action set them down in the midst of the three representing the three characters---Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. He next illustrated his point by using the three Moderators to represent Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Taking his chair he came from the East and sat down with the one representing Abraham, then arose and went back East and came and sat down with the one representing Isaac, then he arose again and went East, after which he returned and sat down with the one representing Jacob. In doing this he said:) This perfectly illustrates Elder Kesler's idea of the commission. Is there anyone here who believes that there will be three risings and three sitting with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob. in that everlasting kingdom? Certainly not. I will now read from Elder James Quinter in the Quinter-McConnel Debate, page 72: "I have not argued that in every case where there is an ellipsis to be supplied there must necessarily be a repetition of the action; whether such is the case or not is to be inferred from other circumstances." Good for Quinter. Thus I show from one of his own brethren that Elder Kesler's position is not well grounded. (Here Mr. Riggle illustrated his point by taking his chair and, coming from the East, he sat down once in the midst of the three moderators saying:) "And shall sit down with Abraham, and with Isaac, and with Jacob, in the everlasting kingdom." There will be but one action; and, in like manner, there is but one action in Christian baptism.

In this connection, let me here state a fact. Because there are three characters, three personalities, three offices, in the eternal Godhead, and these three are actively engaged in the great work of human salvation, does not imply a repetition of action in that work nor in baptism and symbol which represents it. Let me illustrate. In an association there are three leading officers, a president, a secretary and a treasurer. These three offices are held by different persons called by different names. There is a clear distinction between them individually and officially, but unity and association. Now, when a man becomes a member of this association, he recognizes the official authority of each of these. Question: Must he perform the same initiatory act three times in order to do this? Must he sign his name to an instrument three times in order to recognize the authority of the president, and of the secretary, and of the treasurer? Certainly not. The signing of his name once is all that is necessary. But one act. So with baptism One act recognizes the authority of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Elder Kesler spent considerable time tonight reading the testimony of certain modern historians. I am perfectly willing that he shall occupy his time reading from these histories, while I read from the Bible. The rules of the debate, which we both signed, state that "The Bible shall be the standard of evidence." I prefer to go back to the fountain head rather than come down the stream several hundred years, as the Elder is doing. However, in my regular line of negative arguments I will make full reply to what he has read from history.

Seventh. The grammatical construction or structure of the language used in the baptismal formula does not necessarily mean three actions. Here is an argument upon which I squarely plant my feet, and I am sure that Elder Kesler can never shake it. It completely removes the main pillar upon which rests the practice of three immersions in Christian Baptism. The Elder's church stake all here. If this fails them they have no proof elsewhere for their practice. To give you an idea of how much importance they place on this point, I will read from Elder Miller, in "Doctrines of the Brethren Defended," page 109: "Our fourth argument to prove trine immersion we draw from the grammatical structure of the language used in the formula of baptism. * * * On this argument the contest is to be made so far as the meaning of our language is concerned. If the language of the commission means three actions we are right, and if it means but one action we are wrong." You see that the grammatical construction of the language of this single text is the main prop they lean upon for their teaching and practice. If this fails them, down goes the whole fabric of triune baptism. Right here is where I will prove their practice wrong.

I will now give examples of language, the structure parallel with that of the commission, and but one action is required in every case.

(1) I preach to you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. ONE SERMON.

(2) I present to you the doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. ONE PRESENTING.

(3) When I receive my commission, I was endowed with the authority of the Father, and of Christ, and of the Holy Spirit. ONE ENDOWMENT.

(4) In the baptism of the Holy Ghost I was anointed with the power of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. ONE ANOINTING.

(5) Conversion is the work of the Father, and of Christ, and of the Holy Spirit. ONE work.

(6) The instant of my sanctification, I was inducted into the glory of the Father, and into the glory of the Son, and into the glory of the Holy Spirit. ONE induction.

(7) The new birth inducted me into the love of the Father, and into the love of Christ, and into the love of the Holy Spirit. ONE induction.

(8) When I became a Christian I embraced the doctrine of the Father, and of Christ, and of the Holy Spirit. ONE embracing.

(9) At that time I accepted the salvation of the Father, and of Christ, and of the Holy Spirit. ONE accepting.

(10) The air I breathe is composed of nitrogen 79%, oxygen 20%, and argon and carbon dioxide 1%. So at the time of respiration I inhaled nitrogen, and oxygen, and argon and carbon dioxide, ONE act.

(11) I once held a baptismal service in the Allegheny River, and baptized the converts into the water, and into the river, and into the Allegheny. ONE act.

(12) A child was born into our family, and into the state of Pennsylvania, and into the Union. ONE birth. Doest this require three births, a triple action, first into the family, a second into the state, and a third birth into the Union? Never. So by one spiritual birth are we brought into relationship with each person in the Trinity, and one act in baptism publicly testifies to this fact.

(13) A balloon ascended in the fog, and in the rain, and in the cloud. ONE ascension.

I will now give a number of simple illustrations in the language of the commission and prove a single action in every one of them. (Here Mr. Riggle displayed a tablet made of three sheets of paper: a white sheet and a blue sheet and a yellow sheet.) I hold in my hand three sheets of paper, a white sheet, and a blue sheet, a, and a yellow sheet. These three sheets of distinct colors represent the three persons in the Trinity, their different manifestations and offices. Pasted together these distinct sheets make one tablet, just like the three persons in the Trinity constitute one eternal Godhead. There is a beautiful analogy between the illustration I am using and the eternal Godhead or Holy Trinity. The carbon sheets represent the connecting link between each person in the God head. "These three are one." I see Professor McHatton of the Oswego High School is here. I will now ask Professor McHatton to please write his name on the first page of the white sheet, and of the blue sheet, and of the yellow sheet. (Here Mr. Riggle. passed the tablet to Professor McHatton, who by one action wrote his name on all three sheets, and handed the tablet back to Mr. Riggle. Mr. Riggle then asked the Professor, How many times did you write your name, and how many actions did it require? The Professor answered, "But once, I used but one action." Here Mr. Riggle displayed the tablet to the congregation and showed that the Professor's name by a single action was written upon the first page of each sheet.) You see, friend, that I have used the exact language or rather parallel language with that found in the commission, and a single action has fulfilled it perfectly. Just as the Professor by one act wrote his name upon the first page of the white sheet, and of the blue sheet, and of the yellow sheet, so by one act are we brought in touch with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and one act in baptism fulfills the language of the commission perfectly.

(Next Mr. Riggle displayed a glass one-third filled with mercury, one-third with water and one-third with oil. He then remarked:) I want to give Elder Kesler all the benefit I can on his contention for a clear distinction between each person in the Godhead. You will notice I here have three distinct elements in one vessel. Mercury, being heaviest, is at the bottom, and the oil, being the lightest, is at the top. This gives him the benefit of his position as to the distinctiveness of the Trinity, but you will notice that all three are in one vessel just like there are three persons filling three offices in the Trinity, all in one Godhead. Now, I will by one action dip my pencil into the layer of oil, and of water, and of mercury. (Here Mr. Riggle by one act dipped his pencil into the glass containing all three elements.) In doing this I use parallel language with that of the commission, and you can all see that a single action fulfills it perfectly. In the same manner, one action brings us into the Trinity, and one action in baptism witnesses the fact.

I will now give you an illustration that I cannot demonstrate here as the weather is not cold enough. Suppose I fill a glass two-thirds full of water, next I place in the glass a thin layer of ice, and upon this I place enough snow to entirely fill the glass. The snow being the lightest will be on top. Here are three different forms of the same substance in one vessel. This is just like the Godhead. The analogy and parallel cannot be questioned. Now, I dip my pencil into the layer of snow, and of ice, and of water. I do this by one action, and by so doing I fulfill language that is parallel with that of the commission. In the light of this fact the Elder's contention fades into oblivion.

I have here three sheets of paper of different colors. I hold them up where you can all see them. You will notice they are fastened together at one end. These three sheets pasted into one tablet is just like the Godhead,"three in one." I now, by one act, stick a nail through the sheet of white paper, and of blue paper, and of yellow paper. In doing so, I use analogous language with that of the commission and a single action fulfills it. (Mr. Riggle demonstrated his point with the tablet of three sheets and the nail.)

Again, space is eternal and everywhere, just like God. There is space in this tabernacle. There is space in the hole at the top, and there is space in the sky outside. Three different forms of the same thing. This is just like God. There is an exact similarity in this illustration and that of the Trinity. Now, suppose I take a gun and shoot through the space in this tent, and in the hole through the top, and the sky outside, how many actions would this require? But one action, of course. And yet here I have an illustration analogous to the Trinity, and use language parallel with that in the commission, and a single action fills the requirement perfectly.

I have here a glass of milk. It is 100% pure milk. This glass of milk is composed of three elements-water, butter fat and sugar or salts. It is 87.% water, 4% butter fat and 8.6% sugar. Here we have three parts in one element---milk. This is exactly analogous to the three persons in the Trinity, "Three in one." Now, then, by a single act I dip my pencil into that glass of milk, and in so doing that one act immerses the pencil into the water, and into the butter fat and into the sugar. (Here Mr. Riggle demonstrated his point by dropping his pencil by one act into a glass of milk.) You will notice that in the illustrations I am giving there is an exact and beautiful parallel with that of our induction into the Holy Trinity and the external rite of baptism which publicly testifies to it. You will also notice that a single action fulfills the language.

A ray of pure white light is made up, you know, of red light, and of yellow light, and of blue light. The combination of these three produces one clear white light. The combination of Father, Son and Holy Spirit constitutes one eternal God in exactly the same manner. Suppose I suddenly Suppose I suddenly step, by one act, from a dark room into a ray of pure white light; that one act inducts me, baptized or immerses---if you please---into the red light, and into the yellow light, and into the blue light. In the same manner, by one act, we are baptized into the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. An act done in the white light is done in the red light, and in the yellow light, and in the blue light. Just so, an act performed in the name of Jesus Christ includes the names of the other two who constitute the Trinity.

(Here Mr. Riggle lit a candle and said:) The flame of that light is composed of atoms of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen. These three make one flame. This is exactly analogous with the eternal Godhead. These three---Father, Son and Holy Spirit---constitute one God. I now insert my pencil into that one flame by a single act, and by doing so I insert the pencil into the carbon, and into the hydrogen, and into the oxygen. I use the language of the commission in performing this single act. It is utterly impossible to inset my pencil into the carbon, and into the hydrogen, and into the oxygen that compose that flame of light by three distinct acts. And just as truly it is impossible by three acts to be inducted into the Trinity.

The rainbow---one bow---is made up of seven distinct colors: red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo and violet. Were it possible to be immersed into the beautiful rainbow one immersion or one dip would baptize us into the red, and into the orange, and into the yellow, etc. One act would induct us into all the distinct colors, just the same as one act brings us into the three persons of the Holy Trinity.

I hold in my hand a watch---one timepiece. In it composition we have wheels, mainspring, dial, hands etc. These hold different offices (so to speak) and perform different work, just like the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Separate these different parts as my friend, Elder Kesler, would the Godhead, and I have no watch, nor more than he has a true conception of God. His teaching and practice reduces the one eternal God to separate individualism. But you see all the distinct parts taken together compose one watch. So with God. All the fullness of the entire Godhead dwells in Christ. By one act I put the entire watch, wheels, mainspring, dial and all in my pocket. In like manner by one divine act we are "filled with all the fullness of God." One action in baptism testifies to this.

I have here a glass of pure water. It is composed of two substances---hydrogen and oxygen. I now, by a single act, dip my pencil into this glass of water and in so doing I dip it into the hydrogen and into the oxygen.

The sun emits the heat, and the light, and the life of our solar system. Suppose I suddenly step our of a dark room into the clear sunshine. By that one act I am baptized in the heat, and in the light, and in the life of the universe.

Radium produces three distinct rays---that is radium produces a clear light made up of three distinct rays---alpha 90%, beta 8.5% and kappa 1.5%. By one act I step into the clear light produced by radium and instantly, by that single act, I am baptized into the alpha, and into the beta, and into the kappa. This is exactly analogous to Christian baptism by a single act in the name of the Trinity. I will close by referring to the doxology. Elder Kesler and his church, no doubt, sing this universally, "Praise Father, Son and Holy Ghost." Does this require three acts of praise? No, indeed. By a single act of praise all three persons of the Trinity are honored, and in exact parallel with this, by a single act of immersion all three are honored.

(Time.)

_________________________