The Riggle - Kesler Debate PART THREE

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 THREE

The Riggle - Kesler Debate

Elder Kesler's Ninth Speech
Saturday Evening, September 19

Gentlemen, Moderators, Brethren and Friends:---I must say to you that if affords me pleasure again this evening to arise before you to continue my line of work in this discussion. I want to call your attention right now before I forget it to a thought that my worthy opponent gave, a statement he made when he introduced the subject of the Millennium reign of Christ. There was on more point of difference between us that he wanted to mention before he begins to set up his general line of argument. I want to refer you to the fact that his position is that he is identical with the New Testament Church in practice. I want to say to you with all candor that everything so far as I see yet that he has presented that we do not all believe is the subject of open communion. Is that all the practice he has in his church? Is he going to let this discussion go down before the people and tell us that all the practice he has in his church is open communion? There are some other very vital points in which we differ, and I told you the other evening that I was aware of the fact that he was going to spend just as little time as he possibly can. Don't you people around here know that they practice the single backward action in baptism? Isn't that his practice? He is going to let this discussion go down in history without putting up a single argument to show the practice to be in identity with the New Testament Scriptures. I want to read a few questions I have for Elder Riggle to answer:

1. Name one orthodox body of Christians 100 A. D. to 1500 A. D. who baptized by single immersion.

Now, I want to say, with all due respect to you Church of God people in this community, if there is such a thing as this, isn't this man able to do it? If there was any such thing during all this period, an orthodox body of Christians from 100 A. D. to 1500 A. D. that practiced baptism like he does, don't you think he ought to be able to find that body of people? He is going to let this discussion go without answering that.

2. One such body that baptized adult persons by the backward posture 100 A. D. to 1600 A. D.

He has been telling you that the Church of God has never ceased to exist, and surely if there was such a people during that 1600 years that baptized in the way that he baptizes he ought to be able to find it somewhere. I know he is an historian, and if he can't do it, my friends, will you, the members of the Church of God, go away from this discussion satisfied? Will you be satisfied with the mighty man, the champion of your church? He is afraid to get up before you people and show his identity with the New Testament Church in the mode of baptism, show that it has come down from the apostolic time. Will you be satisfied?

3. Name one author (theologian, historian or writer) who ever used Matt. 28:19 to prove single immersion?

Just find one author back in the primitive age of the church from 100 A. D. down to the reformation that used the only formula that Jesus gave (Matt. 28:19), to tell us how to baptize, to prove the practice he teaches. I believe, in justice to you people, he ought to do that. I don't believe you will be satisfied unless he answers the question.

4. Give on Bible quotation containing the same parts of speech expressing like relations with the formula (Matt. 28:19) that expresses a single act.

5. Since you cannot find your form of baptism for 1500 years after Christ, did the gates of hell prevail against Bible baptism?

* * * * * *

1. Are alien sinners justified by faith only?

It seems he is going to dodge the doctrine of the church on this subject. He is going to dodge justification and sanctification. I expected him to get up in defense of your position in this discussion. Is he going to dodge the issue when he believe justification by faith and sanctification by faith only, and salvation by faith only? Is he going to let this discussion go down in history without defending his position here? Is he afraid to debate in this discussion just like he writes in this little book? It seems he is a little afraid. I saw from the start he was going to dodge every issue he could in the discussion, and he has certainly done it.

2. Are they saved by faith only?

3. Are God's people sanctified by the Spirit who refuse to obey Him?

4. Can one be righteous without doing works of righteousness?

5. Can on maintain sanctification, holiness and righteousness farther than he lives a sanctified, holy and righteous life?

6. Are not these comparative terms?

I would like for him to answer these questions and return them tomorrow evening in the opening session. I believe I will have to show you since we took issue with him on the building of the church on the day of Pentecost. I have to take time while I haven't time. I believe it becomes necessary for me to take time to show you that the church of the Lord Jesus Christ did exist before the day of Pentecost. I am presenting an argument here that Christ chose officers. Luke 6:13 we have where Jesus met with His disciples and spent the whole night in prayer and the next morning He called to Him His disciples and of them He chose twelve whom He named apostle. John 15:16: "Ye have not chosen Me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain." Luke 10:1 where He selected the seventy and sent them out to preach. God created the first office that the church ever had. Then He filled that office with officers. He chose twelve and called them apostles and then He chose seventy and called them disciples. God set some in the church, first apostles, secondly prophets, pastors, teachers, etc., and so right here we find that His apostles were set in the church in an official capacity long before the day of Pentecost. Eph. 4:11, 12: "And He gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ." Acts 6:2-4 tells where seven men were chosen to attend to certain work and business in the church. Acts 1:23-26, we find the church chose Matthias to the apostolic office. We find that He went right along with the apostles. Gifts of tongues were not in the church until the day of Pentecost. The apostle tells us that He set the apostles first, prophets next, pastors, teachers, etc. They were in the church before the day of Pentecost. Apostles were set in the church as Paul tells us.

Just one more argument before I proceed further. It is Christ's family relation. He was the head of the church. Col. 1:18, 19: "And He is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things He might have the preeminence. For it pleased the Father that in Him should all fullness dwell." 1 Cor. 12:13, 27: "For by our Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit." "Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular." Christ had a body while He was yet in the world. Deut. 18:18. He was the lawgiver. "I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, kike unto thee, and will put My words in His mouth; and He shall speak unto them all that I shall command Him." Isa. 55:4: "Behold I have given Him for a witness to the people, a leader and commander to the people." Acts 1:2: "Until the day in which He was taken up, after that He through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom He had chosen." Matt. 28:20: "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." We have the head and the lawgiver. He was the head of the church, and He gave the laws. There was a king and a kingdom and laws. The head, the body and the members of it in Jesus' day. John 15:1-6: "I am the true vine, and My Father is the husbandman. Every branch in Me that beareth not fruit He taketh away: and ever branch that beareth fruit, He purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit. Now ye are clean through the Word which I have spoken unto you. Abide in Me and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in Me. I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in Me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit, for without Me ye can do nothing. If a man abide not in Me, he is cast forth as a branch and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned. If ye abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you." Matt. 21:33-42: "There was a certain householder which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country: and when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it. And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another. Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise. But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, they will reverence my son. But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, 'This is the heir, come let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance.' And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard and slew him. When the Lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will He do unto those husbandmen? They say unto Him, He will miserable destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render Him the fruits in their seasons." Here we have the vine, the vineyard, and the branches, Christ being the vine, the vineyard the church, and the branches, His people. Luke 12:32: "Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the Kingdom." John 10:14-16: "I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am know of mine. As the Father knoweth Me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down My life for the sheep. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear My voice; and there shall be on shepherd meaning the Lord Jesus Christ; the fold meaning the church, and the flock, His people. John 3:29, we have the bride, the bridegroom, and the children. We have the shepherd, the fold, and the flock; the bride, the bridegroom, and hte children. Then we have the fold and the family. The fold meaning the family or the Kingdom church of our Lord Jesus Christ. John 15:19: "If ye were of the world, the world would love His own; but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you." Then again, their names were written in heaven. Luke 10:20 "Notwithstanding, in this rejoice not, that the spirit are subject unto you; but rather rejoice because your names are written in heaven." Here are men and women that were in the church at the time our Savior was on this earth, and yet he tells us there "was no church until Pentecost." I want to remark in justice to myself, I want you to see the disadvantage in which we are placed in this discussion. Part of the time my worthy opponent is taking notes, and part of the time he is looking around at the stenographers, and part of the time they are taking notes, and part of the time they are not. I am just wondering how he is going to get Scriptures to refer to.

In regard to the symbols, the type, and the shadow, I gave some Scriptures to prove my position, and I asked my worthy opponent to come and tell us whether I am right, and whether the type or figure, and shadow, and the signs, do not precede the thing signified, and he just simply turned these Scriptures right down, and he referred to Brother Kurtz and Brother Miller. I told you last night that the words "ceremonial," "symbol," and "emblem" are human words that are read into the Bible. It doesn't make any difference whether Brother Miller or Brother Kurtz uses them. I will just leave the record and you can examine it when it comes out in print.

I am going on to present some more argument against the church of my worthy opponent. It is not identical with the New Testament Church in the doctrine of the new birth. His doctrine on this point is erroneous. He ought to come right out and take a position on the new birth, and tell you people that our doctrine of the new birth is thus and so. That is what he ought to have done. One of our rules has been that the question in debate, or the point at issue, should be so clearly stated that there cannot be any mistake in regard to the issue. He has just been telling us something upon which all Christian people in the world are agreed. He ought to get right down to the points of doctrine where we differ. I know you people can see how he just lets me lead our, and I am on the negative side. Instead of coming out like a man, like the champion in his church, and challenge me to meet him he is simply afraid.

He teaches that the Holy Spirit quickens into new life and a new kingdom, even the Kingdom of Heaven. Page 116 of his book, "Christian Baptism," note 1: "We become members by birth." We are going to talk about the new birth. I asked him to tell us what the new birth is, but he hasn't done so. You will see him come back at me, after I present my negative position, in the affirmative. I never was in a debate where I have had to come out on the affirmative when I am on the negative. It didn't expect it of him.

1 Cor. 4:15: "Though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many Fathers, for in Christ Jesus have I begotten you through the gospel." 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, says the seed is the Word of God. He says it is the Spirit of God. I wanted him to answer this question, but he just dodged it and hands every paper back unanswered. He is making zero on every paper. Psa. 119:25: "Quicken Thou me according to Thy Word." Verse 50: "For with Thy Word hast Thou quickened me." 93rd verse: "I will never forget Thy precepts; for with them Thou hast quickened me." I have been trying to get him to come out and take his position, but he waits until I get in the front and then he will come back at me tomorrow night.

1 Pet. 1:23, about the new birth: "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the Word of God, which liveth and abideth forever." John 1:11-12: "He came to His own, and His own received Him not. But as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name, which were born not of blood nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of men, but of God." John 3:5: "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God." He says "water" means "Word," and that is the way he does. He just simply cuts out of God's Word and puts in such words as accommodate him. To be born of God means to be begotten by God's Word, and to be quickened by God's Word, and it mans to be born by God's Word, including baptism "of water and of God's Holy Spirit," and I want Elder Riggle to give me one verse that says the alien sinner is quickened into new life and Kingdom by the Spirit. I have been asking that question all the time. If he cannot, he ought to quit fooling the people by making them believe it.

Were any in the New Testament Church said to be born again who had not been baptized? I asked that time and again. Were any said to be born again who were not baptized? If he cannot answer it, he ought not to preach it any more. How can one be "born of water and of the Word" without baptism, which is a part of the Word? If John 3:5 does not mean baptism, what does it mean?

The world, the unsaved, cannot receive the Spirit of God. John 14:15-17: "If ye love Me ye will keep My commandments, and I will pray the Father for you and He shall give you another Comforter that He may abide with you forever. Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth Him not, neither knoweth Him; but ye know Him for He dwelleth with you; and shall be in you." "The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God for they are foolishness unto him." 1 Cor. 2:14.

Argument 9. His doctrine of baptism, church membership, and salvation is erroneous. He teaches salvation without repentance. Page 99 of his book gives about twelve passages of Scriptures that men are saved by faith. I haven't time to read them all. He teaches we are save by faith, and there is no repentance mentioned, no baptism, therefore he teaches salvation by faith. That cuts out repentance. He teaches salvation by faith and repentance. Pages 100, 110, 117 of his book. Then, according to his theory, a child of the devil can be saved without baptism, but a child of God goes to hell without it. "Through Him, that is Christ, guilty sinners may approach the Father, and upon the condition of repentance and faith, receive pardon and be fully reconciled to God." This is the doctrine of the New Testament. Again we read: On page 110 of his book we have, "to willfully disregard and set it (baptism) aside is to be finally damned." Just think of it. He is teaching that a child of God will go to hell without baptism. Again, he teaches one may be justified and have his sins "actually remitted" by faith without repentance and yet not be saved. Page 104 of his book we will read a little. You remember the statement he made. We see here that he teaches one may be justified and have his sins "actually remitted by faith" without repentance, and yet not be saved. Page 104. "Whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of sins." This he (Cornelius) most certainly had received by faith. But he was seeking the fullness. He was not fully saved. Though justified, he needed the sanctifying grace to complete the perfect salvation provided in Christ's atonement. And while Peter was speaking, "The Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the words." Then answered Peter, "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. This proves clearly that water baptism is not a prerequisite to the actual remission of past sin. The man has his sins "actually remitted" and yet he is not a saved man, according to my friend. I showed to you that when Cornelius had given the story himself, that he should send for Peter and he would tell him words whereby he should be saved, and the first part of the word Peter told him was that of baptism, and my friend comes up and tells us that he is first partly saved. Think of the argument of a man being partly saved. When God saved my soul He saved it, not only saved it partly. When a man is saved he is saved. My friend gets up here and tells us he was partly saved. He needed "sanctifying grace" to finish up the work. My friends, when God saved you He saved you, and didn't just half way save you. He saved you if He saved you at all. He teaches conversion without the Holy Spirit. You remember here on page 105 we want to read. Here he is talking about Paul. "Ananias addressed him as Brother Saul. He was a converted man." Paul stood on Mars Hill and addressed the Jews as "brethren" but that doesn't prove that they were converted. But my friend says, Saul was converted. If so he was converted without the Holy Spirit. Think of a man being converted without the Holy Spirit.

(Time.)

_______________

Elder Riggle's Tenth Speech
Saturday Evening, September 19

Mr. Chairman, Brother Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen:---I certainly was reminded tonight of a Scripture where the apostle said that men can do nothing against the truth"but for the truth." How many of you people think he answered my arguments on the resurrection and the Millennium reign? Instead of answering them, je just passed them by without evening making any reference to them. This has been his method of procedure throughout the entire debate thus far. Instead of coming out squarely and fairly and replying to the truths presented, he has spent most of his time on something irrelevant to the subject in debate.

I am sure that the members of the Church of God are more than satisfied with my defense of our doctrine and practice. With all due respect to Elder Kesler, I must say he has spent his entire last speech in something that has no bearing on the subject in debate. Of course, when he cannot answer my arguments, it becomes necessary for him to fill up his time in some manner. I made one remark in my opening speech that answers all he has said. It was this: "The New Testament Church began under the labors of John the Baptist, and continued under the labors of Christ during His personal ministry, and its complete organization in its perfected state dates from Pentecost." You see I have maintained from the very beginning that the church existed during the days of Christ's incarnation; but its complete organization as a distinct institution dates from Pentecost. My respondent read a great many Scriptures which I most heartily believe and have always taught, but they have no bearing on the subject now in debate.

My fist five speeches covered thoroughly our position on the church question as to Origin and Name. The next four dealt with doctrines in which we differ from the church of my respondent. I have three speeches left on the practice of the church. He spent considerable time in his last speech making capital and attacking me because I have not yet presented our position as to the practice of the church. The Elder got ahead of himself. If he will just hold still he will find that I have prepared to fully cover the ground. I expect to defend every point in my proposition. You see I have three speeches left yet.

He asked for proof that the Spirit quickens into life. I will simply quote the language of the apostle. "It is the Spirit that quickeneth." It is easily seen that he is not satisfied with the results of this discussion thus far. He is continually going back to points that were thoroughly discussed several nights ago. For example, he again brings up Cornelius. The case of Cornelius certainly hurts him for it stands in square contradiction to his teaching. You see Cornelius was both converted and sanctified---received the Holy Ghost---before water baptism.

I now come to the fourth and last division of the proposition: PRACTICE. This I will divide under two headings: Single immersion, and the Lord's Supper.

Eighteenth. This will be my eighteenth argument in defense of my proposition. Single immersion was the primitive practice.

I will present a number of arguments in defense of this one.

(1) My first argument in defense of our practice of single immersion is based upon Eph. 4:5. "One Lord, one faith, one baptism." Baptize is by all Lexicographers rendered "to immerse." On this point Elder Kesler and I are agreed. Baptisma, the Greek word for baptism in the above text, then must mean immersion.

"Batisma---An entire immersion belongs to the nature of baptism. This is the meaning of the word." Bretchneider, Greek Lexicographer.

"Baptisme---Immersion."---Bass, Greek Lexicographer. "Batisma---To be baptized in water signifies no other than to be immersed in water."---Beze, eminent Translator of the New Testament.

"Batisma---Baptism is nothing else than the Word 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.

Elder Kesler and I are agreed that baptism means immersion. The above standard authorities on this point cannot be questioned. The word employed by the apostle in the above test to express his thought is "baptisma"; and this word, the great scholars of the world agree, means immersion. But Elder Kesler and I differ as to how many immersions. He teaches three immersions. His church practices three immersions. Trine immersion means three immersions. I earnestly contend for one immersion. In the above test Paul says, "ONE immersion." Truth contradicts the practice and doctrine of the Elder's church. I stand on the side of truth. As I told you before, great men sometimes differ. Elder Kesler is considered a great man in his church. Paul also was a great man. These two great men widely differ on this important point. The apostle says, "One Lord one faith, one immersion." Elder Kesler say, One Lord, one faith, three immersions. Which will you accept. I stand with the apostle, on the side of truth, and I challenge successful contradiction. I feel like I am in good and safe company. The following translations which lie here upon my table: The Emphatic Diaglott, Rotheran's Translation and Campbell's Translation, all render this text: "One Lord, one faith, one immersion."

Paul did not say there is one ordinance of baptism, but one immersion fulfills the ordinance. Question: How can there be three immersions in one immersion, three dips in one dip, and three dippings in one dipping? When he explains this, probably he will be able to show us three Fathers in one Father, three Lords in one Lord, three bodies in one body, and three faiths in one faith. While in every other text in the Bible where the word baptism is found Elder Kesler's church readily admits that it means immersion; but to admit this, in Eph. 4:5, would utterly overthrow their practice. So when they come to this text they make a shift and say that it should be translated dipping instead of immersion. The reason they do this is very apparent. But you see that Lexicographers, scholars and translators, that I have already given, differ with Elder Kesler on this and render baptisma, in Eph. 4:5, immersion, the same as in all other texts. However, when it comes to this text Elder Kesler will tell you that dipping is best. This is to escape the force of the truth contained in the Scripture itself. He will tell you that the term dipping many sometimes imply more than one act. Even if I were to grant his contention (which I do not), the term dipping would be qualified by "one." "One dipping," and not three dippings. (Here Mr. Riggle illustrated his point by dipping his pencil once into a glass of water, and thus demonstrated that one act fulfills the language of the text. After this he dipped his pencil in the water three times to represent three immersions as practiced by Elder Kesler's church, and remarked:) Right here is where my respondent is at variance with the apostle Paul.

Just as truly as there is but one God, the eternal Father, one Lord Jesus Christ, one Spirit and one faith, there is but one immersion. This text clearly sustains our position for the single action in baptism.

(2) My second argument in defense of our practice is based on the meaning of the word baptizo.

I maintain tonight that baptizo in itself does not mean repeated action. If so, it proves too much for Elder Kesler. According to his interpretation of the commission there must be a baptizo in connection with each person in the Trinity, each name in the God-head. That is, to base his practice upon the language of Matt. 28:19. Now let me read the commission in this light and see how it sounds: "Baptizing them repeatedly in the name of the Father, and baptizing them repeatedly in the name of the Son, and baptizing them repeatedly in the name of the Holy Ghost." If the Elder will contend for repeated action in this word which Jesus chose to express the great Christian ordinance of His church, you can readily see that it will prove too much for him and destroy the meaning of the commission itself. Upon this fact I base an argument that baptizo does not imply a repeated action; and since that is true, a single action perfectly fulfills the meaning of the word. I will apply this rule to a number of other texts to show you that the idea of repeated action is not contained in the word. Matt. 2:11: "He shall baptize you (repeatedly) with the Holy Ghost and with fire." 1 Cor. 10:2: "And were all baptized (repeatedly) unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea." 1 Cor. 1:13: "Were you baptized (repeatedly) in the name of Paul?" Gal. 3:27: "As many of you as have been baptized (repeatedly) into Christ, have put on Christ." You see to attach the idea of repeated action to the word baptizo will destroy the meaning of the Scriptures. This being true, a single action fulfills the meaning of the word. Every text in the Bible that has any bearing on this ordinance teaches that there can be but one immersions, but one action. Baptizo is the singular form of this Greek word, which baptismos is the plural form. The former is always used in connection with the New Testament rite of baptism, while the latter is used in connection with the "divers washings" of the old covenant. The practice of the Elder's church would apply better under the Old Testament than it does under the New.

Out of nearly one hundred Greek Lexicons and Greek Classics, I find but three that claim that repeated action is contained in the word baptizo. Two of these are Donnegan and Lidell and Scott. Ninety-seven out of one hundred of these authorities stand in my favor and against Elder Kesler's position. Among the late authorities I give Baxter's Greek Lexicon, Green's Lexicon, Parkhurst Greek Lexicon, Robison's Greek Lexicon, Hastings' Bible Dictionary, Hastings' Encyclopedia of Religious Ethics, Encyclopedia 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.

In Administering this sacred ordinance, we do exactly as these classic writers render, that is, we simply dip or immerse, and by so doing in the single action we perfectly fulfill all there is expressed in the word itself. In Greek literature we frequently read of sunken ships being baptized. Was this repeatedly? NEVER. Will my respondent tell us that these ships were repeatedly immersed? By a single plunge they went down. Yet Greek writers call this baptism. Then it is baptism now. The great Titanic disaster is a fair sample. By one mighty plunge it went down to the bottom of the sea. I will now bring forward a good witness to sustain and confirm my argument. It is the testimony of Elder James Quinter, a much quoted authority in my respondent's church. In fact, he is considered a standard authority among them I read from the Quinter-McConnel Debate, page 23. Elder Quinter says, "I admit here that this idea of frequency of action does not always enter into the meaning of the word. * * * That this thought was not always and inevitably connected with it, I frankly admit; consequently and argument based upon that point alone would not be conclusive." Again on page 87 of the same book, Quinter says, "The Greek word baptizo * * * is undoubtedly often used in reference to a single action." Good. So much for Elder Quinter of the Brethren Church.

(3) My third argument is based upon the fact that the apostolic church understood the commission to teach but a sing action.

The apostles to whom Jesus personally delivered the great commission of Matt. 28:19 did not understand it in the same sense that Elder Kesler and his church does. Their practice proves this. It is very doubtful whether they used the exact formula of Matt. 28:19 when they administered baptism. In not a single instance recorded did the apostle use the triune name in the formula. I will now give the proof. Act 2:38: "Be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ." Acts 8:16: "They were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." Acts 10:48: "And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." Acts 19:5: "When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." You see the apostles baptized disciples in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, yet they fulfilled the commission according to their understanding of it, and they were the ones who received it direct from the lord. Note well this fact. I am inclined to believe that they had a better understanding of the commission than Elder Kesler has, or in fact any of us today. In their practice, single immersion fulfilled the commission. Unmistakable this was the practice of the primitive church. If, as Elder Kesler teaches and practices, to baptize in the name of three persons implies a triune action, then to baptize in the name of one person implies one action, or single immersion. By the force of his own argument the first apostle of Christ practiced single immersion. This is a fact, ad truth, and he cannot overthrow it. The position I occupy and the arguments I present on this important point will stand the test of a thorough, logical and Scriptural investigation.

The Father, Son and Holy Spirit have but one name---God. God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost. Just a point here If at the close of this service tonight we sing the good old Doxology, the same closing hymn that Elder Kesler and his church have often sung, in which we have, "Praise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost," I ask: How many acts of praise does this require to honor all three persons in the Trinity? But one, of course. One act of praise honors all three, and just so one action in baptism honors each person in the Godhead. My respondent will reply to this argument, no doubt, by saying that the disciples baptized in or by the authority of Jesus Christ and not into His name; but I will refute this before he gets to it. In Acts 8:16 and Acts 19:5 the Greek word rendered "in" our common version is eis---into. It is thus rendered in the American Standard Version. "And when they heard this they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus." "Were immersed into the name of the Lord Jesus"---Emphatic Diaglott, and Totheram's Translation. This completely overthrows the practice of triune immersion, and proves beyond doubt that single immersion was the apostolic practice. Let me impress this fact. The first apostles baptized believers into the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. In harmony with this fact, I call attention to Col.2:9; speaking of Christ, it is here said, "For in Him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." Now since the fullness of the Godhead---Father, Son and Holy Spirit---all dwell in Christ and one act inducts us into Him and into His name, then it follows that a single act inducts us in the entire Trinity. Since baptism is a public testimony of this fact there can be but one action. I defy him to deny this fact.

Throughout the debate thus far I have presented my arguments in regular order as 1, 2, 3, 4, etc., and sustained them with a multitude of decisive texts of Scripture that he could not overthrow. And just so it will be with my present arguments in defense of single immersion.

(4) My fourth argument is based on the fact that baptism symbolizes the inward work of salvation.

I have already read from Elder Kurz of the Brethren Church where he frankly admits this fact. He says if it means anything, it is to symbolize a burial and a resurrection. I were here quote in this connection the great Methodist Reformer John Wesley: "Baptism is an outward sign of an inward work." Good. These two men, Kurtz from the Brethren Church, and John Wesley, clearly sustain my position. I believe Wesley had the true conception of baptism

From this fact I deduct the logical conclusion that single immersion fill the requirement perfectly. Under this heading I refer once more to 1 Pet. 3:20, 21. The saving of eight souls in the ark during the flood was a figure of our salvation from sin. Baptism is a like figure. Figurative means emblematical. Baptism is a figurative salvation. Now, then, our induction into Christ and His blessed name is not the work of man but is positively the work of the Holy Spirit. This is clearly proved by reference to 1 Cor. 12:13. By a work of divine grace the soul is baptized into Jesus Christ, and at the same time into His name and into the kingdom of heaven. This is a Spiritual work. The idea that a literal man with his literal hands can in literal water baptize the soul or spirit into Christ who is a Spiritual being, is preposterous in the extreme. There is no appeal from the fact that salvation is a spiritual work and the Sprit of God alone can effect it.

Now the point I wish to make here is this: Water baptism is an emblem of this inward work, and outward testimony to this fact. It is a figurative induction into Christ. In other words, in baptism we publicly confess His name, take upon us His name before the world, and emblematically are baptized into His name. There is but one induction into Christ through the Spirit, and one immersion in water testifies this fact.

Since in Christ dwells all the fullness of the Godhead substantially, Christ in the Father, and the Father in Him, then one act must include the Father and the Holy Spirit. In Col 3:17 we read: "And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus." Each person of the Trinity is inclusive of each other. To immerse in the name of the Father exclusive of the name of the Son is unscriptural. It is impossible to act in the name of one person in the Trinity and not in the name of the other two.

Elder Kesler cannot from the simple construction of the commission prove three actions in baptism. I am prepared to give you many examples and illustrations in the same grammatical structure as that found in the commission, and in all of them but a single action is required.

Let us suppose that there is a business firm in this town by the name of Beck, and of Clark, and of Jones. They are conducting a business in the mercantile trade. I go over to the firm to purchase a suit of clothes, the price of which is twenty dollars. I buy the clothes of Beck and pay him the price, twenty dollars. This is one action. But afterward I begin to think there are three persons in this firm, therefore, like my friend, Elder Kesler, I reason that three separate actions will be required. So I go to Clark and pay him twenty dollars, after which I next go to Jones and also pay him twenty dollars. You see by this triune action I pay sixty dollars for a twenty dollar suit. This is parallel with Elder Kesler's practice. He is paying three times the amount required. You see to do business in the name of one person of the firm includes the whole firm. One act is all that is required. You cannot do business in the name of one of these persons without including the other two. Just so with the Trinity. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit constitute the heavenly firm. They are doing business here on earth. Any act performed in the name of Christ includes the entire Godhead. In this firm, Christ holds first place of importance, for the text I read in Col. 3:17 teaches that everything must be done in His name. This sustains the apostolic practice of one action in baptism, performed in the name of Jesus Christ.

I have presented to you four logical arguments in defense of our practice, which I fell confident he cannot overthrow.

(Time.)

_______________

Elder Kesler's Tenth Speech
Saturday Evening, September 19

Gentlemen, Moderators, Brethren and Friends:---I an sure it is getting a little more interesting now, he is getting down to business at last. My moderator called my attention and said I called him Mr. Riggle once. I didn't mean to do that if I did.

I want to continue my arguments on baptism. His position is erroneous. Then I will get around to the speech you have just listened to. I stopped with saying he teaches conversion without the Holy Spirit. (Conversion without the Holy Spirit.) The great Apostle Paul was stricken down by the way, and I want to read to you just what he ways about this man. "Notice Ananias addresses him as Brother Saul." "He was a converted man." When Ananias was sent to him for the express purpose that he might receive the Holy Ghost, and when he did this the scales fell from his eyes and he saw the light and arose and was baptized. My worthy respondent teaches that a man is converted without the Holy Ghost. The reasoning that cuts out baptism cuts out repentance and the Holy Spirit in salvation. The reasoning that makes the Holy Spirit agent and faith essential, makes confession and repentance and baptism essential. Hence the terms of remission and salvation were the terms of membership, and the new birth, all including baptism in the New Testament Church. This is contrary to the teaching of my worthy opponent in this discussion. Hence his position is falling step by step. In apostolic times no one claimed to belong to the church but those who were baptized, but all who were baptized belonged to the church. No one claimed to be a Christian until he was baptized. That was the doctrine and preaching of the apostolic church, contrary entirely to the doctrine of the church my worthy opponent represents. His identity is falling link by link. I have shown that his doctrine is out of harmony with the New Testament teaching. Will Elder Riggle give one person in the New Testament Church who claimed salvation and membership without baptism? If not he ought to stop preaching it. He referred to the thief on the cross; he referred to Cornelius when the Spirit came on him, and he referred to Paul. He just claimed they were members of the church without one vestige of proof to it. There is now one verse in the Scriptures that claims that this man Cornelius was a member of the church before baptism, or that Paul was a member before he was baptized, and I don't think he ought to contend that the thief was, because he says there was no church until the day of Pentecost. Were any recognized as members in the apostolic church who were not baptized? If not, should we? In the New Testament Church they were "cleansed through the Word." John 15:3: "Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you." Eph. 5:26: "That He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word." How can any one be cleansed through the word without obeying the word, including baptism? How sanctified and cleansed with the washing of water by the word." What is washing of water by the word if not baptism? My friend has failed to show it. Now my tenth argument. His doctrine concerning baptism is especially erroneous. In the New Testament Church they were baptized for the remission of sin. Mark 16:16: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." You know my worth opponent's position is, and as he has said in his book, page 100, baptism is for those who are already saved. I ask him to tell us if Jesus told the truth in that verse. He wants you to believe that Jesus said, "Go and preach the gospel, and he that believeth and is saved shall be baptized. He must pervert the truth in order to sustain his position in this. In Acts 2:38 we read, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." He tells you we get the gift of the Holy Ghost before baptism. In their first sermon to the unsaved after the death of our Lord Jesus Christ the apostles are telling men and women to be "baptized for the remission of their sins." I asked him to tell us what baptism is for and he will not tell us. In Matt. 26:28 Jesus says: "For this is My blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the remission." Acts 2:28: "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the Holy Ghost." Will he take Matt. 26:28 and Acts 2:38 and tell us that Jesus saved men and then shed His blood because He had done that wonderful work for them? When we have Scriptures in the very identical language and expression and terms, they cannot be interpreted differently without a perversion of the Scriptures of eternal truth. Our position is that baptism is "for the remission of sins," his position is "because sins had been remitted." Elder Riggle teaches that it is for those that have already had the remission of their sins. Pages 89, 112 and 116. He teaches the new birth inducts into the kingdom, church, and on page 121, "Baptism is a public induction into the name of the Holy Trinity." Now he tells us that the Holy Spirit inducts into the body, the church. Baptism inducts into Christ, the head. Thus he teaches one way to get into the head, Christ, and another way to get into the body, the church. He says you get into the body by the Holy Spirit, and get into the head by baptism. He teaches one way to get into the body and another way to get into the head. He tells you that you can be saved and in the church and still not be in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and that one may be a Christian out of Christ. Nothing could be more erroneous than this, my friends. He teaches, "Guilty sinners receive pardon and are fully reconciled to God, on repentance and faith." and are thus made the children of God, but for them to disobey in baptism means condemnation. Page 100. He thus teaches "pardoned," "reconciled," "children of God" (according to his theory) will go to hell without baptism. Awful isn't it? If you have repented of your sins, and you have faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and have been fully reconciled to God for you sins and have been made a child of God, then without baptism down to hell you go according to the teaching of my worthy opponent. He wants you to get the idea that it is awful for guilty sinners to go to hell without baptism. But when he tells you that God's children will go to hell without baptism, it is erroneous and contrary to the Scriptures of eternal truth, hence his position goes down step by step. He teaches that "baptism testifies spiritual resurrection" before burial. Page 65 of his book. They have a spiritual resurrection before the old man of sin had been buried. He teaches "death to sin and the world" before baptism, page 105 of the same book. "Sins washed away in the blood," page 107 in his book. I do not have time to read from the book. He emphatically states in his speeches that baptism testifies these things---a "spiritual resurrection before burial." "Washing from the guilt and sin." They are "Washed away in the blood." Then if all this hasn't taken place, when you are baptized, your baptism testifies a lie. I believe in the importance of baptism. But I never have believed in it that strong. Just simply take a man down to the water and baptize him and that testifies that his sins are washed away, according to the teaching of my worthy opponent. I say, then Elder Riggle had better go down to the river and continually baptize them if he believe baptism testifies these wonderful things, and if it doesn't do it, by his theory baptism testifies a lie. If this be true, then all these who are baptized possess all these wonderful things. He dare no affirm this, affirm the result of his own teaching. Elder Riggle refutes his own teaching. He says on repentance and faith you will receive remission and salvation, page 99. "Upon the conditions of repentance and faith you receive pardon and will be fully reconciled to God." Page 119. Everyone who truly believe on Christ is immediately pardoned and has eternal life, page 101, and yet, "without baptism such will be damned." My dear friends, may God help you to see the right and see the erroneousness of this man's teaching. On one page he tells you that baptism is essential, on the nest page he will tell you you will be damned without it, all because he refuses the plain teaching of Scripture on baptism. Can a saint go to heaven without it? Can a sinner be saved without baptism? He refuses to answer. He teaches salvation without repentance on page 99, and gives a number of Scriptures that men are saved by faith. Repentance is not named, and hence he teaches salvation by faith without repentance. One way to get into Christ, the head, and another way to get into the church, the body. He teaches God's children go to hell without baptism, pages 110 and 117. Finally his teaching refutes itself by the ridiculous absurdities in which it involves him by rejecting the plain teaching of the Bible on baptism.

Christ the door. John 10:9. We get into Him by baptism. Rom. 6:4: "Therefore we are buried with Him by baptism into death." Gal. 3:27: "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." Acts 2:41: "Then they that gladly received His word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls."

Again, Christ the door. You get into Christ, the door, by baptism just as the Bible says, and in the same act you get into the church. Elder Riggle has them in the church before they enter the door. Page 89. He says when we get in the church we are in the kingdom, page 112, and in baptism we get into the Trinity, page 121. So he gets them into the building, the house, before he gets them into the door. That is the absurdity of his teaching. I would like to reach his argument on single immersion, but his doctrine of consciousness of the pardon of sins is very erroneous. Paul says,"In every nation he that feareth Him and worketh righteousness is accepted with Him." Acts 10:34, 35. Elder Riggle says works have nothing to do with it. Fully saved by faith. Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." Mark 16:16. Elder Riggle says that baptism is for those who are already saved. Page 100. Paul say, "He that cometh to God must believe that He is" Heb. 11:16. Elder Riggle comes up here and says the sinner con come to God on repentance without faith. Indeed must so come. Peter said, "Repent and be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins." Acts 2:38. Elder Riggle says that believers who already have the remission of sins must be baptized. Pages 99, 100. James says, "Whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed." James 1:25. Elder Riggle says works and deeds have nothing to do with it. His identity is falling step by step, and every passage of Scripture condemns him. When one fact condemns him every fact in this great universe condemns him, and these facts are certainly refuting his position, and certainly destroy his position, and every other fact and every other truth stands up against the church of my friend according to his own theory. "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." Rom 6:17, 18. Elder Riggle says, he that is already made free from sin shall be baptized and shall obey the form of doctrine. There is so much difference between him and the apostle Paul and Peter and Christ, that he cannot be identical with the New Testament in his teaching and doctrine.

Again, John said, "He that saith I know Him and keepeth not His commandments, is a liar and the truth is not in him." Elder Riggle says you can know Him without keeping His commandments. Jesus said, "If any man do His will he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of Myself." John 7:17. Elder Riggle says you can know Him by faith without doing His will. Again, Peter says, "Repent and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out." According to Elder Riggle they are blotted out by faith. According to Elder Riggle's theory faith is conversion. John said, "We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren." "By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep His commandments." 1 John 2:14; 5:2, 3. Elder Riggle says that we know we have passed from death unto life by faith, while John says we know it by a love of God that is manifested by keeping God's commands.

The Bible teaches repentance, faith, baptism and conversion, and teaches all the commands of the Lord Jesus Christ. Here are ten plain Scriptures that prove the doctrine that my worthy opponent teaches is erroneous, texts which he cannot harmonize with his doctrine, and hence his doctrine is positively wrong, and his position fails. I will try to get to his last speech.

Five sources of knowledge: Hearing, seeing. feeling, tasting, smelling. How does Elder Riggle know he has pardon and is accepted of God? Did he hear anything that told him so? Did he see anything that told him so? Did he feel anything that told him so? Taste anything that told him so? Smell anything that told him so? He says this knowledge comes by faith. The Bible says it comes by obedience, works, including faith, repentance, confession, baptism and all other duties and commands given by Jesus Christ.

Now, then, man cannot do anything against the truth, but for the truth, and I am sure, my dear friends, he has tried to do something against the truth. Truth shall rise again. "Truth crushed to earth shall rise again. The eternal years of God are hers. But error wounded writhes in pain, and dies amid her worshipers."

He said the church began with John the Baptist, but he positively stated there was no church before the Day of Pentecost. The Spirit of God is going to quicken men from the dead by and by. Rom. 8:9: "If the Spirit of Him that raised Christ Jesus from the dead dwelleth in you, He that raise up Christ shall also quicken your mortal body by His Spirit that dwelleth in you." By the same spirit He will quicken this mortal body by and by. By and by in the resurrection He will quicken us from the dead and raise us up by the Lord Jesus Christ.

Single immersion. Eph. 4:5: "One Lord, one faith, one baptism." In order to accommodate his theory he makes it read, One Lord, one faith, one dip. It must read One Lord, one faith, and one dip to satisfy the position of my friend. He can't render it so, and no man on earth has ever rendered it so. One Lord, one faith, and one dip is his idea, and that is what he has to read into it in order to sustain him, but it fails to read that way. He has to go back to the Emphatic Diaglott, and has to admit that the literal rendering of it is, One Lord, one faith, one dipping. Let us think about that issue a little Suppose a little boy comes home and is all perturbed and stirre up. His mother asks him, "What is the matter?" and he says, "The teacher gave me a licking." When he gave him a "licking" did he just give him one lick? In this discussion Elder Riggle, if I do not mistake the facts, is going to get a whipping, but it takes several speeches to do it. My dear friends, you can settle the matter for yourselves. The rendering is one dipping. If you had an ironing to do, would you just run the iron over the clothes once? I you made two pounds of butter at one churning, would it take just one stroke of the churn to do it? Why, a little school-girl know that a present particle like "dipping" denotes repetition of action. I don't know id he is a grammarian or not, but any little school-girl knows that. It is one dipping and not one dip.

One Lord is composed of Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and so his identity in baptism fails completely. One "dipping," one "churning" one "ironing," one "licking" and great many othere like that, show there must be repetition.

Singular. Baptize repeatedly in the name of the Father, repeatedly in the name of the Son and repeatedly in the name of the Holy Spirit. With all dur respect to him, I don't know whether he is a grammarian or not, but the fact is that: He has looked through a great number of lexicons, and but three of them say baptize means repetition of action, and the balance of them rendere it immerse with no reference to the number of actions. I ask him did he ever read that it says immerse once? I want to tell you again. He didn't find but three that rendered it a repetition of action. Well, he didn't look far enough. I found twenty-one that rendered it a repetition of action, or that baptize is used to express the idea of repetition. Chrystal (Hist. of Baptism, pages 157-8), Wilke, Buttman, Rost, Stephens and Vassius, Burton, Butschneinder, Bullio, Dr. Robinson, Prof. Burn, Grimm, Green, Funk and Wagnalls, Passow, Komma, Gage, Richardson (Lgd. Dict. Eng.), Hastings' Bible Dictionary, Lidell and Scott (Amer. Ed.). and Donegon, "God's Means of Grace" by Yoder, pages 151, 154. If he will find just one author, one lexicon, that comes up and says that baptizo expresses only a single act, then I will forfeit the twenty-one for the one that he will give.

Again, baptize with the Holy Ghost and fire. Repeated action. Baptism of the Holy Ghost. Now, then, again, with reference to repetition or a number of actions. Baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. According to the language we have three prepositional adverbial phrases, and these phrases limit the number of actions. He spoke of the sinking of the Titanic. You all know that before a ship goes down it it dips first stern and then aft, and then after successive dipping and plunging she goes down, and that is just the way his position is sinking, is out of harmony with the teaching of the subject. He quotes from Brother Quinter that baptizo does not always necessarially imly a repetition of action. Brother Quinter was an honest man, honest with the truth. If baptizo always implies a repetition of the act, we would have to dip repeatedly into the Father, and repeatedly into the Son, etc., as Elder Riggle would have you believe. But here was a command that requires repetition and baptize being a frequentative, was selected to express the action, as not other single word could. Elder Riggles tells us that there are only three in a hundred of his authors that rendered the word repetition of action. Again, he says the Bible did not teach one action. He destroys his own argument. Why does h not use one of those texts in Acts where he quoted a number of different places for his formula for baptism? Why doesn't he use it. If he practices what he preaches, then there would be some force in his arguments.

(Time.)

_______________

Elder Riggle's Eleventh Speech
Monday Evening, September 20

Mr. Chairman, Brother Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen:---A few remarks in my respondent's speech will require attention.

Instead of meeting my arguments he spent most all of his time referring to my book"Christian Baptism, the Lord's Supper and Feet-washing"; and, with all due respect, I must say his talk presented a line of things of which I have never heard. Time and again he stated things which I have never taught, neither from the pulpit nor in any of my written works. He frequently referred to Elder Riggle's book to a certain page where he claimed I taught certain things, and the facts are, I taught no such thing. He also frequently crossed himself in his references to my book.

One of the rules in "Hedge's Rules of Controversy," which governs this debate,is that one speaker shall not misrepresent the other. I would have called a point of order last night had it not been that out of due respect and courtesy for his age I let the matter pass. My book have gone by the thousands all over the world and I would be glad to take orders right here from any who desire to read it, and then you can see clearly how he has misrepresented my teaching.

Next he mentioned about twenty-one authors whom he says claim that baptize means to immerse. I notice that but a couple of them are Greek Classics and Lexicographers. He was careful to avoid stating that these say that the word means to dip repeatedly. The value of testimony depends upon the competency of the witness who testifies on the point in question. Instead of appealing to common authors I gave you a large number of the very best Lexicographers and Greek Classics. All these define baptizo simply "to dip, to immerse." Then a single action fulfills this meaning.

Again, he demands me to produce a Lexicographer of Classic writer who states that baptizo means single immersion. This is certainly a strange demand. I can produce ninety-seven standard Greek Classic writers who define baptizo simply "to dip, to immerse." Any scholar knows that unless repeated action is stated and the numerals given as to how many, such language can imply but one action.

I quoted from Elder James Quinter, a standard author of the Brethren Church, who frankly acknowledged that baptizo often means a single action, and that no argument favoring repeated action can be predicated upon the meaning of that word. In reply to this, Elder Kesler said, "Brother Quinter was an honest man." Good. Then we must conclude that for a man to take the opposite position is a betrayal of dishonesty.

As I expected, when the Elder came to Eph. 4:5, he renders baptism by dipping. You remember I gave a list of the best Lexicographers in the world, and a number of scholars as Zeza and Luther, also three standard translations, and they all define baptisma "Immersion." Elder Kesler admits that this is its meaning in every other text in the New Testament, but when he comes to Eph. 4:5, to give it its true rendering would overthrow his practice, hence he makes a shift and contends that in this single text it means dipping. Anyone at a glance can see the inconsistency of his position. He differs from all the standard authors I have given. I am rather inclined to accept their testimony in preference to his. I made the point, and again wish to impress it, that there cannot be three immersions in one immersion, three dips in one dip or three dippings in one dipping. As I told you last night, when he can explain this, he will have proved that ther are three Fathers in one Father, three Lords in one Lord, three Spirits in one Spirit, and three faiths in one faith. If Paul's testimony is to be credited, then as truly as there is but one Father, one Lord, one faith, and one Spirit, there is but "one IMMERSION."

You remember I made the point that in Greek literature sunken ships were said to be baptized; and this could only be by single action or plunge. I referred to the Titanic as an example. No doubt you all remember his reply to this. He said that before the Titanic went down it dipped several times "fore and stern." (Here Mr. Riggle took a pencil and illustrated Elder Kesler's idea and remarked), I wonder if this is the way he baptizes his converts? If that is the kind of dipping he believe in, he ought to join the effusion crowd. Not a single one of those dippings was a baptism, and right here by his own illustration his entire contention fails him. Those dippings of the Titanic, fore and stern, were only partial immersions. In Pennsylvania, were I formerly lived, they have a bird that follow the streams and occasionally it plunges its head under the water. It is called a dipper. You see, dipping may be both partial; hence I contend it does not express clearly the thought of baptism. Immersion is the better term. Permit me to impress the point that not until the Titanic made its final plunge down, and was completely submerged, could it be said it be immersed or baptized. And this was by a single action. By one mighty plunge it went to the bottom of the sea. Just so in the Christian ordinance. One immersion clearly expresses the thought contained in the word itself and fulfills its meaning.

I will now proceed with my regular arguments. I have already presented in defense of our action four logical arguments, well sustained with a number of facts and Scriptural texts. I clearly proved that single immersion was the primitive mode, and the apostles administered baptism in this manner.

(5) My fifth argument is based on 1 Pet. 3:20-21. Here it is clearly stated that the salvation of Noah and eight souls is a type of our salvation from sin. Last night I made the point that Noah and his family entered the ark before the water came, and this is a type of our entering into Christ before baptism. Now, I ask how many times did Noah and his family enter the ark? You know there was but one entering in. In like manner, there is but one entering into Christ for salvation.

After Noah and his family had entered into the ark by the door, there was no necessity for them to go out and come in again for the second time or action, and then down and out and in again, requiring a third action. Did it require three actions to enter the ark? I think not. None but those who believe like Elder Kesler would so contend. One action took them in. Baptism is a like figure. This prove conclusively that there is but a single action in the ordinance. (Here Mr. Riggle used an illustration as follows: He took a glass of water, and before it he placed a box representing the ark. He then placed his pencil into the box by one act, to illustrate how Noah and his family by one action entered into the ark.)

(6) My sixth argument is based upon baptism in type. I call attention to 1 Cor. 10:1-2: "Moreover, Brethren, I would not that y should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea." I well here read, as a commen on this Scripture, from "Biblical and Historical Researches," by J. B. Wampler, a triune immersionist of the Progressive faction of the elder's church: "The waters were unto them a wall on their right hand and on their left." The cloud was over them. "And the angel of God which went before the camp of Israel removed and went behind them. And it came between the camp of Egypt and the camp of Israel; and there was a cloud, and the darkness yet gave it light by night, and the one came not near the other all the night. And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the Lord caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all the night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided."

"This typical grave in which the Israelites were buried, and from which they were resurrected on that memorable morning, cause Brother Paul to call it 'Baptism unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea.' As they were buried with Moses in that baptism, so are we in the antitypical baptism buried with Christ, and arise from the watery grave to walk in newness of life." Page 45. Here is a clear type of New Testament baptism. Israel went down into the Red Sea with the great walls of water on both sides of them and the cloud over them. Paul says, "They were all UNDER the cloud." Thus they were baptized in this symbolic grave, from which they emerged on the wilderness side. Now, the point: How many actions did this require? Did they go down into this symbolic grave, then go back to Egypt again, and enter the Red Sea a second time, and they after this return to Egypt and enter the sea a third time? Emphatically no. By one action they passed through this typical grave, by one action they came out of it on the wilderness side, which was a symbolic resurrection. Paul called this a baptism "into Moses, in the cloud and in the sea." You will notice the language Paul here uses is parallel with that of the commission found in Matt. 28:19. There was but one action. This baptism of Israel in the cloud and in the sea was a symbol of Christian baptism in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. According to the figure, in the antitype there can be but one action. This fact clearly sustains our practice.

(7) My seventh argument is predicated upon symbolical baptism. Matt. 3:11: "He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire." The outpouring of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, and later upon the household of Cornelius, was called baptism. The Spirit was poured out in such copiousness that they were actually submerged or baptized in the divine element. The entire house was fill with the glory of God. Jesus called this baptism. Now, the point: How many actions were required? How many times was the Holy Spirit poured out? On Pentecost, how many times were the hundred and twenty immersed in this divine and spiritual element? There is but one answer. ONCE. Since this baptism in symbol required but one action, there can be but one action in the literal rite. I deduct this logical conclusion, that if one action in the symbol constituted a New Testament baptism, and Jesus himself say it did, then a singe action in the literal rite must constitute New Testament baptism. By the baptism of the Holy Ghost, the church collectively were immersed by a single action, and this symbolical baptism must be analogous with the literal rite. The triune God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, all come into the sanctified temple by one action; and the church becomes the habitation or dwelling place of God. Just one act accomplishes this, and in the literal rite of baptism in water there can be but one act to agree with this inward work.

(8) My eighth argument is based upon the fact since baptism is but an outward testimony or figure, it must agree with the thing it symbolizes. This one truth alone completely overthrows Elder Kesler's doctrine and practice, and proves that single immersion is the New Testament rite. I will present this argument under a number of headings.

First. Our induction into Christ. Question: How many acts does it require to induct a soul into Christ? On our part. Does it require three distinct acts of faith on the part of a penitent sinner to induct him into Jesus Christ? No indeed. One act is all that is required: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved." So, in the symbol---baptism---there should be but one act. On the Lord's part. Does it require three distinct separate actions of the Holy Spirit to place us into the body of Christ? No; just one act. One action in baptism testifies this blessed truth. A repetition of action would testify a falsehood.

Second. Our conversion. For emphasis on this point, allow me to repeat that baptism is an outward sign of an inward work. It represents our salvation from sin. This salvation is the work of God (2 Tim. 1:8-9), and the work of Christ (Matt. 1:21), and the work of the Holy Spirit (John 3:5). Though it is the work of the three persons in the Trinity, it is one work. Conversion requires but one action of the Trinity. Being a single act, it can therefore be appropriately represented only by single immersion. This single immersion is in the three-fold name of the Godhead just as truly as the single conversion it symbolizes is the work of the divine Trinity. If we were converted three times, once by each person of the Trinity, then trine immersion in three separate names would properly represent it. Elder Kesler teaches that the washing of regeneration in Ti. 3:5 is water baptism, or triune immersion. According to his logic you would have a triune washing---washings, or three washings. This would be equivalent to three regenerations. The elder's theories lead to all kinds of inconsistency. How can there be one washing in three washings, or three washings in one washing? Surely this is law, and not gospel. Under the old covenant they had "divers washings."

Third. Spiritual birth. We enter the kingdom of grace through spiritual birth, are "born of the Spirit." This spiritual birth is symbolized by the rite of water baptism. Elder E. L. Miller admits this in his book, "Doctrine of the Brethren Defended," page 64, which I now read: "We would observe that no two things could well be more unlike each other than sprinkling and a birth, and no two things could well be more alike than a BIRTH and a rising our of the water in which we have been buried. This is the idea that strikes the mind with so much force that it makes the argument carry conviction almost intuitive to the mind of every unprejudiced reader." Good. According to Miller, baptism represents a birth, and this fact strikes the mind with so much force that it makes the argument carry conviction. Elder Kurtz, in his book, page 40 says that baptism is a symbol of the resurrection "of the new creature in Christ Jesus." Here, then, is a beautiful analogy between spiritual birth and water baptism. In the one a new being or creature is brought forth into the spiritual world or kingdom of grace; in the other, we bury the person in the liquid symbolic grave, and raise them out of the same to testify to a bringing forth. Note the fact that two great writers of the Brethren Church admit this truth. Question: How many times must we be born again to become the sons of God? How many births does it require? One fleshly birth brings us into the spiritual world or Kingdom of God; and one immersion perfectly symbolizes this birth. Three immersions would require three births. Let me impress this wonderful fact: One action of the Spirit, one birth, brings us into relationship with the Father, and with the Son, and with the Holy Ghost. One immersion in water represents this fact. Allow me to give you an illustration: While I lived in the state of Pennsylvania, a child was born into our family, and into the state, and into the Union. I have stated this in the language of the commission as found in Matt. 28:19. How many births did this require? There was but one birth. And just so in salvation, through one spiritual birth we are brought into relationship with the Father, and with the Son, and with the Holy Spirit. One act brings us into all three. One immersion only can represent this truth.

Fourth. Our death to sin. Rom. 6:3-5: "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into His death? Therefore, we are buried with Him by baptism into death; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of His death, we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection." In this text we have salvation and baptism beautifully set forth, and both are said to be into death. First, through the instrumentality of the Spirit, we are baptized into Jesus Christ, into His death, and this is said to be a planting in the likeness of His death. Now, therefore, or because of this induction into Christ by the Spirit, we are buried with Him by baptism. This is the literal rite. This liquid grave in which we are laid is certainly a figurative death, and testifies to a real death that has already taken place. (Here Mr. Riggle, by one action, placed his pencil into a box, to illustrate our induction into Christ. He did this by one act, after which he dipped the pencil by one act into a glass of water, to illustrate our induction into Christ by one act of the Spirit, and to show the analogy between this and our burial in baptism.) I will not explain what the apostle meant by the expression, "Planted in the likeness of his death." My respondent will tell you that this means a forward action in baptism. Nothing of the kind is hinted at. Hoe did Christ die? He bore His own cross to Calvary. This was the Roman custom. The criminal must bear his own cross to the place of execution, then be nailed upon it and die. Jesus did this very thing. After they nailed Him to the cross they raised it up and planted it in the earth, and there upon it He died a natural, physical death. And just so the Master taught us that whosoever would come after Him must deny himself, take up his cross and follow Him. Always, when Jesus used this language, he followed it with these words: "Whosoever shall lose his life for My sake shall find it." Losing our life was always connected with bearing the cross. Here is the meaning. Just like Christ bore His literal cross to Calvary, and was there nailed upon it, and then it was raised up and planted in the earth, and upon it he died; so we, in a spiritual sense, must take up our cross, be nailed upon it, and die. Paul understood this when he said, "I am crucified with Christ." And again, "I glory in the cross of Christ; whereby I am crucified unto the world and the world unto me." We must die to sin and the world, and this means an actual crucifixion of ourselves, our desires, and lusts. This is what the apostle means by being planted in the likeness of His death. Christ died a physical death, while ours is a spiritual death. But here is the point: How many times did Christ die? "He died unto sin once." Just so in conversion, there is one death to sin. In the rite of baptism, then, there can be but one death and one burial in the figure. Three immersions would signify three deaths. This is preposterous.

Fifth. Our quickening into life. Baptism not only represents a burial, but also a resurrection. After we have laid the candidate into the liquid symbolical grave, then we raise him out of the same, which represents a quickening into life, a resurrection. All sinners are dead. "Dead in trespasses and in sins." Salvation raises a sinner from this dead state into a condition of spiritual life. Eph. 5:14: "Awake, thou that sleepest, and raise from the dead." Eph. 2:5, 6: "Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ (by grace are ye saved), and hath raised us up together." In this manner the sinner is made alive, that is, resurrected by the Word and Spirit of God into a state of spiritual life. In baptism we testify in a striking manner this wonderful truth. But here is the point: There is one resurrection, one quickening into life. In testifying to this fact in baptism, there can be but one rising out of the water. Trine immersion, or three immersions, destroys the purpose for which baptism was instituted.

Sixth. Christ's death, burial and resurrection. In Rom. 6:4, the apostle teaches that baptism is a beautiful figure of Christ's death, burial and resurrection. We are buried in baptism and raised out of the watery grave "like as Christ was raised from the dead." Baptism is a public testimony of our belief in the death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. We testify to it in this figure. In "Doctrine of the Brethren Defended," by Elder Miller, pages 61, 62 and 63, he admits this fact. I only wish I had the time to read it. Since Christ died but once, was buried but once, and was resurrected but once, to testify in the rite of baptism requires but one action.

Seventh. The unity of truth demands that there be but one action in baptism. There is one God, one kingdom one church, one name, one head, one faith, one government, one great salvation, one atonement, one door, one foundation, one bond one unity---love, one hope, one heaven at last, and one immersion in baptism.

Eighth. Our future resurrection. In 1 Cor. 15:29, we read: "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? Why are they then baptized for the dead?" The Corinthian brethren had been swerved aside from the truth concerning the resurrection. It seems many of them believe that there would be no future resurrection. The apostle gave them a lengthy and masterly argument in favor of this fundamental truth of the resurrection of the dead. In our text he reasoned like this: If there be no resurrection, why do you testify to it in baptism? Why do you publicly go through the figure of a burial and a resurrection if there is no such a thing? Why are ye thus baptized? Yes, my friends, in this sacred Christian rite we testify to the church and would our implicit faith in the final resurrection of the dead. I ask, how many times do we bury our dead? How often will they be resurrected? How many actions will there be? There is but one burial, for we lay away our loved ones in the grave but once. And just as truly there will be but one final rising from the grave at the time of Christ's coming. By a single act the numberless dead will come forth. How wonderfully in baptism is this truth testified to; and single immersion alone fills the requirement. The triune immersionists, to be consistent, should bury their dead three times, and teach a triune resurrection. I have now given a large number of Scriptural reasons why single immersion, as practices in the Church of God, was the true apostolic and primitive mode.

(Time.)

_______________

Elder Kesler's Eleventh Speech
Monday Evening, September 20

Gentlemen, Moderators, Brethren and Friends:---I must admit that you have listened to a very earnest and very sincere discourse, I verily believe. I believe that my worthy opponent is sincere in what he is talking to you about, but I am sorry, my dear friends, that I have to say to you that I don't believe that he has the truth on the subject. One other thought I want to present right now, that is with reference to Elder Riggle, he has been about the hardest man to get to lead out on his subject from the beginning up until about now that I have ever met, I believe, but my first speech last evening stirred him out of the nest, and we have made it lively for you ever since, and I presume it will be lively from now on. You remember he gave some criticism last evening on the word baptizo, and he refers to it again this evening, and now he says I failed to say that these twenty-one authors said that baptizo means to dip repeatedly---a repetition. I tell him now that they do. I will tell him, further than that, I will give him these twenty-one if he will just give one lexicon, or one translator, that says that baptizo means to dip once. And again, you remember, that he said three out of his one hundred means to dip repeatedly. Now, I want to ask him if he believes that baptizo ever means to dip repeatedly, and if he says no, then I will ask him why he uses an argument against the position that sometimes it means to dip repeatedly, then I will ask him if he ever does dip repeatedly. He is trapped anyway he takes to answer the question. He takes something that he does not believe as an argument against the Church of the Brethren, and hence he is condemning himself. He never does dip repeatedly. Give one author that translates Eph. 4:5 one dip. We had something on that,. and now he comes back with it again. In the Emphatic Diaglott, Mr. Wilson translates the word baptizo, on dipping, and Mr. Luther renders it one dipping, so Mr. Wilson and Mr. Luther are agreed. They stand on my side of the question, and against my opponent in this discussion. You remember those word I gave you---one "churning," one ironing," one "licking," one whipping," and so on; he doesn't refer to them. The facts are, some Greek words, and some English words, carry the idea of repetition. They carry the very same thought and idea of repetition. All Greek words do not do so; neither do all English words, but baptizo carries the idea of repetition of action. Here was a work to be done that carried the thought or idea of repetition, and Jesus selected the word to do it that carried out the idea of repetition, and stands against the arguments of my opponent in this debate.

Again, you remember, he referred last night to a place in Acts where they baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Now, I want him to practice what he preaches. Instead of baptizing into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Elder Riggle says they baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, hence only one act, that it takes one act to baptize into Christ. Very well, then, if to baptize into the name of the Lord Jesus Christ it takes one act, and if one act is required to get into Christ, how many actions will it take to get into the Father? How many actions will it take to get into the Holy Spirit? If it takes and act to get into Christ, it takes an act to get into each one of the others just the same. Again, he says that one act admits into the entire Godhead, that in Christ dwells the fullness of the Godhead, and because of that fact one act baptizes into the Godhead, and he can't get around the fact that to get into Christ you must be baptized into Him. I showed you from his boo here that he says baptism inducts into the name of the Trinity, and now he is coming around and says that it takes one act to come into Christ. I will ask him whether the Father was baptized in Jordan; whether the Father was crucified on the cross; whether the Father rose from the dead; and I will ask him if he believes the Holy Spirit was baptized in Jordan; if the Holy Spirit died on the cross; if the Holy Spirit was buried and rose again. I want to know if he rejects the Trinity. The facts are that he will reject the Trinity rather than surrender his opposition to the one form of baptism taught by the Lord Jesus Christ. To evade the argument he will just hide behind his theory, and say the Lord Jesus Christ is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Your intelligence will not let you believe that the Father is not separate and distinct from the Holy Spirit and the Son, and the Holy Spirit is just as separate from the other two.

Baptism testifies so many things. He had about a half dozen Scriptures, and I think he has added some more to it, and says baptism testifies all these wonderful things. It is only an assertion. You will see, when the book comes out, that he doesn't give us a single Scripture that baptism testifies these wonderful things. If baptism testifies all these things, then all of these things are obtained in baptism, and if they are not, baptism testifies a lie. All of these wonderful things testifies to as he tells us, God alone can do, so far as that matter is concerned.

Figurative baptism. 2 Peter, 3:20. I want to ask him, now, with reference to the ark, if it takes only one act to get into that ark? I was sorry I had to take the negative of the wonderful speech he made. I don't know whether the man is a sincere, honest man or not. I want him to tell us just how many apartments there were in the ark, and in which one of these apartments Noah dwelt in the ark at the time of the flood. The Bible says there were three stories in the ark, and as they were in one of these apartments, how many acts does it take to get from one to the other. If you have three rooms in your house and I come to the outside and go in, that takes me to one room. How do I get to the next room? When I get into that room, that is another act. Then how do I get into the third room? When I go into that room it takes another act. I want him to tell us if they went into the ark backwards. Now, then, he gave me and illustration of Beck, and of Clark, and of Jones. I don't know if that firm is in this town, and don't remember whether he said it is or not, but I think he did. I don't know if there is a firm by that name in this town, or in any town in the world, but if he will give me their letter-heads or bill-heads, and they write their firm name like that, I will surrender the argument. He gave this as an illustration, and if he will give me a bill-head or a letter-head and say that thus and so was sold to the firm of Beck, and of Clark, and of Jones, or any other three names, and they write their firm name like he writes it here, I will surrender the argument, and if he can't do it, he ought to surrender his argument.

There are some people in this congregation that know grammar. I don't know whether my opponent does or not. In the English language we have it like this. The commission says baptize "into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," like he words the firm name. That commission might read this way: "Baptize them into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost." You know we have these two forms in English. Let us transpose these, and take the commission from the prepositional form and use the regular English possessive form,"Baptize them into the Father's, and the Son's, and the Holy Ghost's name." In this instance there is separate possession, and the sign of possession is annexed to each noun. You grammarians know I am telling the truth. "Baptize them into the Father, Son and Holy Ghost's name." That would mean joint possession, and put the sign of possession to the last name only. In that case you would have joint possession and a single act. "In the Father's, and the Son's, and the Holy Spirit's name." The sign of possession is attached to each name because there is separate possession, and requires an act for each name. He will not meet that argument. You see if he does. "Why not baptize backsliders?" he asks. Well, why doesn't he regenerate his backsliders over? Why doesn't he have them "born again" over when they backslide? It would be just as necessary to have them born again as to baptize them again.

His argument on the resurrection. Rev: 20:4. John saw thrones, and they sat on them. "And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the Word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand were finished. This is the first resurrection." Elder Riggle would say it began in the morning age of the church, because he says the church never ceased to exist, and he is representing that church, and he said, further, we are reigning and ruling over Satan now. I want to know when that reign began. If it began about two thousand years ago, it seems to me that the one thousand years ought to be about up. We are in that time now, and I would add, if it began almost tow thousand years ago, isn't that thousand years about up? Are disembodied spirits reigning with Elder Riggle? I want to know if these disembodied spirits are reigning now. He is reigning over Satan. He says he is reigning over Satan now. If Satan is bound now, God pity us when he is turned loose. John wrote about thirty years after the other writers, and these texts that Elder Riggle read from Christ and others were not in John's way. John wrote about thirty years after all these other writers, and he knew what he was writing about. Rev. 20 clearly tells us that there is to be a millennium with Christ and his people on the earth. Those texts he quoted didn't bother John in the least. He knew all about them, hence he teaches us a millennium reign of a thousand years.

Single baptism. I stated things he never did teach in his book or otherwise. I don't believe I have emphatically denied any statement Elder Riggle has made in this discussion, but when you get the book you will see I gave you the book and page where you will find the very thing I said last night, and when it comes out it will be for you to decided whether or not I told you what Elder Riggle did not teach. Brother Quinter said baptism often means a single act. I will have him read over again and see if Brother Quinter made such a statement. The Emphatic Diaglott and Mr. Luther render Eph. 4:5 one dipping. He "proved that single immersion was practiced in the primitive church." He read certain Scriptures, and then he asserted that they practice single immersion without the proof. His position is going down step by step.

Argument 5. 1 Pet. 3:21: "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." You remember the criticism how many apartments there were in the ark which represents the Godhead, that will settle the question as to how many acts it takes. 1 Cor. 10:1-2: "Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea." I will now use his illustration. A baptism in the cloud and in the sea. He read the Scriptures that when the Israelites were going away from Egypt they stopped here by the Red Sea. He read out of the Bible that the cloud went from before their face and stood behind them. Would that be an act? And it gave light to the Israelites. "Now the cloud went from before their face and stood behind them and gave light to the Israelites and darkness to the Egyptians. God told Moses to speak to the children of Israel that they go forward. The children of Israel went forward through the Red Sea. Is that another act? Very well, then what? Now comes the cloud, and it is said that the Lord looked upon the host of the Egyptians through the cloud. Where was the cloud? God looked down through the pillar of the cloud upon the Egyptians and took off their chariot wheels, and the Israelites were safe on the other side of the sea. Then what? Then we have another action. Following the narrative, you will find that the cloud had gone before the Israelites again, and the record says that the Israelites "looked" toward the wilderness and beheld the glory of the Lord in the pillar of the cloud." Three stages, or actions. Symbolic, or whatever he wants to call it, it is as clear as it can be.

Indwelling of the Spirit of God in your hearts. John 14:15: "If ye love Me, keep My commandments. And I will pray the Father and He shall give you another Comforter, that He may abide with you forever." Does that mean the Father? Jesus said he was going to give us the Sprit. The Spirit will come into your heart. That is one act. "He that hath My commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth Me: and he that loveth Me shall be loved of My Father, and I will love him, and will manifest Myself to him." "If a man love Me, he will keep My words, and My Father will love him, and We will come unto him, and make Our abode with him." When the Father comes in, is that the Son? When the Son comes in, is that the Holy Spirit? Every argument he makes he is snowed under. It takes three acts to get the Trinity into the heart. By his "outward symbol of induction" into Christ he labors in vain. He seems to think in triune immersion we get into Christ three times. It doesn't tell you to baptize into Christ three times. It tell you to baptize into Christ, and it takes one act to baptize into the Father, and it takes one act to baptize into the Son, and it takes one act to baptize into the Holy Spirit. Every argument is just falling one by one.

Another argument he gave here was of conversion. Conversion is one act, he says, and baptism is the sign of that action. He reads from Brother Miller, page 64, and wants to know how many births it takes. There is only one birth, and so in the new birth he says there must be one act. He tells us that baptism, immersion, represents a great many things. Baptism is a burial, in and of itself doesn't represent anything. What does the Word say? "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the Word of God, which liveth and abideth forever." Born of the Word, that is one act; we are to be born of the water, that is another act; we are to be born of the Spirit, that is the third act. Three elements and three instrumentalities by which we are to be born again. The Word, the water, and the Spirit. Whatever angle you may look at it, his arguments just fall one by one when the light of God's eternal truth is made to shine on them.

The child born into the family, into Pennsylvania, and into the Union. I am surprised that an intelligent man, as I think Elder Riggle is, would bring up such things to sustain his position. Did not the good mother of that child live in Pennsylvania before the child was born? Certainly. He was only born into the family, so to speak. But he was in the state, and in the Union, before he was born. If he had to be born into all of these states, it would take three acts, but there was only one act to get that little child into the family. I am surprised that an intelligent man would put up such argument as this.

(Time.)

_______________

Elder Riggle's Twelfth Speech
Monday Evening, September 20

Mr. Chairman, Brother Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen:---Just a few points in my friend's closing remarks will require attention. He has again brought up the matter of dipping repeatedly. It would seem from his argument that he believes in repetition, for he certainly brings up again and again the very points that we have fully covered. In my last two speeches, I have clearly proved by unanswerable arguments and clear, concise evidence that the idea of repeated action is not contained in the word baptizo. This is the singular form of the word. Baptismos is the plural form. I have clearly shown from the many texts where baptizo is found that to apply the idea of repeated action would destroy the meaning of the Scripture, and in the commission itself it would prove too much for Elder Kesler. "Baptizing them (repeatedly) in the name of the Father, and baptizing then (repeatedly) in the name of the Son," etc. Anyone can see that the notion of repeated action is not conveyed in the word. Again, he asks me to read from Elder Quinter. Most gladly will I comply with his request. Elder Quinter testifies in my favor, and against Elder Kesler's position. On page 23 of the Quinter-McConnel debate, from Mr. Quinter's second address, I read: "I admit here that this idea of frequency of action does not always enter into the meaning of the word." "That this thought was not always inevitably connected with it I frankly admit; consequently an argument based upon that point alone would not be conclusive." From page 87, Mr. Quinter's sixth address, I read: "The Greek word baptizo * * * is undoubtedly often used in reference to a single action." This is certainly a frank admission from their standard author; but Elder Kesler tells us that the reason Quinter acknowledged this was because he was "an honest man." Will my respondent then manifest the same honesty? If so, we will hear no more of his trying to establish "dip repeatedly" and "repeated action" in baptizo.

We have also heard considerable about one dipping in connection with Eph.4:5. I have before me three translations, and Campbell's Translation, all of which render this text "one immersion." I made the point that Elder Kesler readily admits that in every other text in the New Testament where baptisma is found in the original it means immersion; but when it comes to Eph. 4:5, to so render it refutes his practice, so he cries "dipping." When he establishes three immersions in one immersion, and three dippings in one dipping, then he will have three Gods in one God. Paul stands square against the elder's practice by affirming that there is but one immersion. But, as I have already said, were I even to admit his contention (which I do not) that dipping is the proper rendering, it would prove nothing for him, for the word is qualified with "one." To suit him is should read: "three dipping.: (Here Mr. Riggle gave his pencil one dipping in a glass of water, after which he gave it three dippings to show the difference.) He may get up here and quibble just as much as he has a mind to, but he cannot shake my position on this point.

The same act which brings us into Christ brings un into the Godhead entire. I stand in defense of this truth, Elder Kesler to the contrary notwithstanding. Since in Christ dwells all the fullness of the Godhead substantially, it follows that when we are engrafted into Christ, this brings us in touch and relationship with each person of the Trinity. It, as he teaches, the first dip places you in the Father, and your are not yet in Christ nor the Spirit, suppose you die before you receive the second dip, what would be your condition? According to his teaching you would be in the Father, but not in Christ, nor in the Spirit. Would such a person be lost? How can a person be lost while in the Father; and yet how can they be saved outside of Christ and the Spirit? What kind of a spiritual sate would such a man be in? Oh, the inconsistency of such a doctrine and practice. The three persons in the Trinity are one, and you cannot separate them in this manner. Let me give you a simple illustration---the sunshine: Like the Trinity, it contains in itself the light, and the heat, and the life of our solar system. Suppose I suddenly step our of a dark room by a single act into the beautiful, clear sunshine. Instantly, by that one act, I am submerged, immersed, baptized, if you please, into the light, and into the heat, and into the life of the universe. This is parallel with the language of the commission, and is fulfilled by one act.

The only means of approaching the Father is through Jesus Christ, for the apostle tells us that it is "through Him that we have access by the Spirit unto the Father."

Elder Kesler asked, "Did Noah go into the ark backward?" I answer by asking him, Did they come out of the ark backward? There is as much reason in the one as the other. I have a nut here that I would like Elder Kesler to crack, and when he cracks this I will have some more for him. I plunge my hand into a basket of apples, and of pears, and of plums. Will Elder Kesler please tell this congregation, from the grammatical construction of this sentence, whether there is one basket with three kinds of fruit, or three baskets each containing one kind of fruit. When he has determined this from the strict structure of the language, then I will have something more for him.

He endeavored to answer my question as to rebaptism, but failed. You see, since baptism is the only door into their church, the only means by which a person can be saved, then when a person backslides and endeavors to come back into the church, how do they receive him? The apostle tells us that backsliders are in a worse condition than the alien sinner. The Brethren must have two door into their church---one for the sinners and one for backsliders. He has not answered this. His failure to do so shows the inconsistency of their doctrine.

Next, the children of Israel baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea.pent considerable time trying to show that when the children of Israel passed through the sea they were not under the cloud. Probably he knows more than Paul about this. The apostle again differs with the elder, as he also does on many other points. I will just give the account as Paul gives it, and that will be a sufficient answer to all he has said. "Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were UNDER THE CLOUD, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea." 1 Cor. 10:1-2. (Here Mr. Riggle illustrated his point by holding a large book over a glass of water, the water representing the Red Sea and the book representing the cloud that they were under, and showed that in this manner they passed through the sea by a single action. He further illustrated the inconsistency of three actions by showing that they did not pass back and forth from Egypt to the wilderness side three times.)

My respondent says that it takes three acts to bring the Trinity into our hearts. The is positively erroneous. The apostle tells us that the church is "the habitation of God through the Spirit." Since in Christ dwells all the fullness of the Godhead, then to accept Christ into our hears by a single act of faith, the entire Trinity moves into the sanctified temple. One act accepts the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. On Pentecost, in the person of the Holy Ghost, Christ and the Father came into the church. This was all accomplished by a single act.

I made the point that one act a child was born into my family, and into the state of Pennsylvania, and into the Union. To this he replied, "Was not the mother and child in the state and Union before its birth?" Surely this is evasive and ridiculous in the extreme. I ask, Will he insist that that child was a member of the family, and a citizen of the state, of the Union, before it was born? Right here his whole doctrine and practice falls flat. By a single act, one birth, that child was brought forth and made a member of our family , and of the state, and of the Union. You see, I use parallel language with that found in the commission, and a single act fulfills it perfectly.

I will now come to the second part of the fourth division of this proposition, under the head of PRACTICE. What constitutes the Lord's Supper?

Nineteenth. My nineteenth and final argument to sustain the proposition is based upon the fact that the bread and wine taken in commemoration of Christ's death constitute the New Testament Lord's Supper. I call attention to 1 Cor. 11:20-26: "When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's Supper. For in eating everyone taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the Church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which He was betrayed took bread: And when He had given thanks, He brake it and said, Take, eat; this is My body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of Me. After the same manner also He took the cup, when He had supped, saying, This cup is the New Testament in My blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of Me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till He come."

The Corinthian brethren kept the ordinances that were delivered to them, only that they added to the real Lord's Supper the eating of a full meal and called it the Lord's Supper. This caused the apostle to rebuke their practice by telling them plainly that in coming together to eat this full meal."This is not to eat the Lord's Supper." From this we are to understand that the Lord's Supper is not the eating of a full meal. Note well the apostle's language: "What, have ye not houses to eat in?" Are they not to come together and eat a meal that will satisfy hunger? This is the apostle's answer: "If any man hunger; let him eat at home." Next the apostle clearly shows them just what constitutes the real Lord's Supper as He delivered to them. "For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you." Then follows the account of its sacred institution, and the only elements mentioned to be received are the bread and the cup.

By carefully studying the commemorative institutions of the Bible, you will find the following points clearly defined:
1. The element used.
2. The thing to be done.
3. The persons to do them.
4. The time to do them.
5. The place to do them.
6. The purpose for which they are done.

With reference to the Lord's Supper, we have clear answers to all these points.

1. The elements are bread and wine. 1 Cor. 11:20, 23-26; 1 Cor. 10:16-17.
2. The thing to be done is to eat and drink these elements.
3. The persons to do this are true Christians---those worthy.
4. The time to do this is toward evening, expressed by the term"supper."
5. The place to do it is in the public assembly of the saints.
6. The object in it is to show the Lord's death till He comes.

Question: If the bread and wine, commanded by Christ to be taken in remembrance of His death, is not the Lord's Supper, what does constitute that supper? I ask the elder to point out the chapter and verse where any other elements are named to be taken.

I will now call attention to Acts 2:42: "And they continued steadfastly in the apostle's doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers." All commentaries and scholars of any note agree that this has reference to the communion ordinance which Christ instituted and commanded. You will notice that there is not the slightest reference to the eating of a full meal.

Again, I call attention to Acts 20:7: "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them." Again, in verse 11: "When He, therefore, was come up again, and had broken bread and eaten, and talked a long while, even till the break of day, so he departed." From these texts and examples we have the primitive practice, that is, the practice of the apostles themselves. Is there a hint of a full meal being eaten? Not at all. The Lord's Supper, as they observed it, is spoken of merely as the breaking of bread which, of course, included the cup. This is exactly the manner in which Jesus instituted the rite. He took a loaf and brake it and gave it to them, after which he gave them the cup, both to be received in remembrance of His death. On pages 185, 186 and 187 of the "Doctrine of the Brethren Defended," by R. H. Miller, will be found an argument that I wish I had time to read. He is trying to refute the position held by the disciples or Christian sect, that the Lord's Supper must be eaten every first day of the week. In this Miller, in referring to Acts 20:7-11, positively says that there was no full meal eaten at this time. He here presents and elaborate argument on the language both these verses, and clearly shows, to use his own words, "that the words in both cases were used to indicate the communion, and not the eating of a full meal." In trying to refute the practice of the disciples, this writer of the Brethren Church here admitted something that is utterly fatal to their practice. It proves that the apostles did not eat a full meal in connection with the communion service.

Elder Kesler's church makes an argument on the Greek word deipnon. They say it means a meal---a supper. Granted. But her is the point: How much must a person eat? What is the Scripture statement as to how much we are to eat to constitute the Lord's Supper? I like facts, and here is fact: The only thing our Lord commanded to be eaten was "bread," and the only thing commanded to be drunken is "the fruit of the vine." The Lord never said how much. The apostle however, plainly tells us that in eating the Lord's Supper we must not eat enough to satisfy hunger. "IF ANY MAN HUNGER LET HIM EAT AT HOME." To eat a full meal without hunger is gluttony.

Because the elements---bread and the blood of grapes---signify so much, the greatness of this supper eclipses all the meals, feasts, and great suppers that were ever eaten. It stands above all else as the one great DEIPNON of the gospel.

In confounding AGAPE---the love feast---with DEIPNON---the Lord's Supper---Friend Kesler and his church makes a very serious blunder. The feast of charity is never called deipnon, or the Lord's Supper, and the Lord's Supper NEVER called agape, or love feast. Note well this fact. It clearly sustains our practice, and Elder Kesler's full meal for the Lord's Supper stands refuted.

In the few moments of time that remain in this my closing speech on the affirmative side, I will give a brief summary of the arguments presented.

FINAL SUMMARY.

In defense of my proposition I have brought forth the following facts and truths. To sustain our identity with the Hew Testament Church in ORIGIN I presented fourteen arguments, based upon sound logic and Scripture. These stand unanswered and unrefuted. In this summary I will condense these as follows:

1. The Old Testament and New Testament Churches on earth are distinct. The former was typical of the latter. The first contained the literal seed of Abraham; the latter the spiritual seed. There was a lapping over of dispensations. The Old ended at the cross, the New began under the labors of John and Christ's personal ministry. But as a distinct New Testament institution, as far as pertained to the earthly phase, it was fully organized on the day of Pentecost.

2. Since the New Testament Church was fully organized on Pentecost, and was destined to continue throughout all ages, all later institutions, which include that which my opponent represents, cannot be the New Testament Church.

3. This church is divine, was built by Christ, hence all churches that have been built by man should be discarded for this one.

4. Christ built but one church. The New Testament recognizes but one; therefore there is no excuse for the sect which Elder Kesler represents.

5. The New Testament Church is the body of Christ, hence includes in its membership all the saved. This is the whole, and no sect. By holding membership in this divine body alone, and in no other, we hold membership in the true church, and in no sect.

6. I have clearly proved that the church I represent is identical with this New Testament Church in membership. In that God alone through the Holy Spirit adds members to the divine ecclesia; or, in other words, we are made members of the New Testament Church by virtue of salvation. As a people, we hold no other means of church membership but true Christian life and experience. Any institution that salvation does not make us members of cannot be the New Testament Church. This includes the Church of the Brethren. Through salvation I was made a member of this divine and spiritual body, have never joined any other, therefore stand before you a member of and representative of the New Testament Church, which is of divine origin.

7. I presented a number of facts why the Church of the Brethren cannot be this church; and in doing so clearly presented the difference between the position I occupy and that of Elder Kesler on this important question. Among the points presented was the difference as to the date of the organization of both bodies. The place of organization. The manner of organization. The universality of the church I represent as compared with the Church of the Brethren. The difference in membership, and the condition of membership. Christ, being the door into the New Testament Church. Triune Baptism, the door into the Church of the Brethren. Positively no identity between the two as to organization.

8. I proved by the Word of God that the church of God is a complete and perfect organization, but in its general and local sense, and this organization is identical with that contained in the New Testament. And that this organization and perfect government do not constitute us a sect no more than the primitive church.

9. I proved that without sects the church I represent is visible in her membership, worship, work, organization, officers, preaching and discipline today the same as in apostolic times. I have clearly proved that by renouncing all human creeds and doctrines of men, and by abiding in Christ only, accepting, teaching and practicing all things contained in the New Testament, and by holding it only as the creed and perfect discipline of the church, we stand identical with the New Testament Church in origin. These arguments were clearly sustained by not less than sixty decisive texts of Scripture. With all the effort put forth by my respective opponent, he has not been able to shake the arguments presented nor the impregnable rock and position I occupy.

NAME.

1. I clearly proved by both prophecy and the words of Jesus that the church was named by the mouth of the Lord.

2. As the family of God, it was named after the Father.

3. As a bride, the wife of Christ, it was named after her husband. By sound logical reasoning, I clearly proved that but one name could fill the requirement---The Church of God. I gave thirteen clear texts to prove that this is the only name, as a church, found in the New Testament. To confirm this I read from the writings of prominent men in my respondent's church, where they acknowledge this title to be the true Scriptural name for the church. This argument has not been refuted.

DOCTRINE.

I presented three great fundamental doctrines of the Church of God wherein she differs from the Church of the Brethren.

1. Oneness, as against schisms and division. I clearly showed by this how Jesus prayed for and died to effect a perfect unity among the people of God.

2. That divisions, sects and schisms among God's people are condemned in the New Testament Scriptures in the strongest terms.

3. I showed that, in harmony with the New Testament principle, the church was one in primitive times.

4. I proved by Scripture that a great apostasy was foretold, during which time people would be scattered into various sects and divisions. I showed how this was all brought about, and how God's people have been led to join these various bodies, and thus became scattered.

5. I clearly proved by the Word of God that in the evening time, just before Christ's coming, it was clearly predicted in Scripture that there would be a gathering of God's people back to the primitive state of unity, purity, and power, and that this work has been under way for many years, and that we have the pure church restored by hundreds of thousands being thus today gathered into the one fold of Christ. This truth I sustained with nineteen clear tests of Scripture. My position stands unrefuted.

Under this heading of "Doctrine" I also presented the difference between the Church of God and Elder Kesler's church as to the design or purpose of baptism. I clearly proved that salvation is a spiritual work, and that through repentance and faith all sinners have access to God through Jesus Christ; that baptism is but a ceremonial washing, a figurative salvation, a public testimony of an inward work. In presenting this truth I gave no less than forty-seven tests of Scripture, and refuted the position my friend Elder Kesler holds, namely, that baptism is a saving ordinance, and that no one is saved in the eternal Godhead only those who have received the rite of triune immersion.

The third point of difference in doctrine between the Church of God and the Church of the Brethren is the two resurrections and the millennium reign. I presented this in my first speech last night. A clear argument against the notion of two literal resurrections with an intervening thousand years, and against the idea of Christ setting up a literal kingdom and reign on earth after his second advent. To this last argument Elder Kesler has made no reply.

Fourth, and finally, as to the PRACTICE of the Church of God, I have presented a large number of logical Scriptural arguments in defense of our practice of single immersion, and the observance of the sacred communion supper, as constituting the Lord's Supper. I am sure that all these arguments will stand and have stood against the attacks that have been made against them. So I will leave the question with you, and trust that at the cost of all things you will buy the truth and sell it not.

(Time.)

_______________

Elder Kesler's Twelfth Speech
Monday Evening, September 20 Gentlemen, Moderators, Brethren and Friends:---I arise before you to close the discussion of the positions that we have had to discuss for about six evenings, and I will have to notice briefly a few things that my worthy opponent stated in his last speech. In the last speech in the negative the speaker is limited. He can't produce new arguments, but he can meet arguments that have been previously presented. He says repeated action is not in baptizo. Turns down his own authors. You remember, he gave three authors himself that said that baptizo carried out the repetition of action, and he gets up in his second speech and say that baptizo does not carry the idea of repetition. If he turns down the three, why not turn down the ninety-seven? Eph. 4:5. Three authors that say Eph. 4:5 is one immersion. I ask him if these three authors were not single immersionists like himself? Mr. Wilson, who wrote the Emphatic Diaglott, was a single immersionist, but he was honest enough when he gave us his literal translation to say that it was "one dipping." Mr. Luther says it was "one dipping." He must admit that Mr. Wilson is correct when he says "one dipping." These authors he gave are single immersionists. They naturally want to render it one immersion if they could do so with any sense of dignity as scholars. These are the authors that he is giving you to say that Eph. 4:5 means "one dip." But yet he has failed to find even that author that says "one dip." These three are one. One what? One Godhead. If he will point out a positive Scripture that tells us to "baptize into the name of this one Godhead," then we surrender the argument. There is one Godhead. It is composed of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and when Jesus told us to baptize He didn't say baptize into the Godhead, but He said baptize "into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," and hence he is not helped in his argument in this point. Suppose one shall get a dip into the Father and die before he gets dipped into Christ? Then what shall become of the fellow? Well, let us see. Suppose he sits down to the communion table and he partakes of the loaf, and he dies before he partakes of the cup. Has he communed? Now, he says when he baptizes by a single act into the name of the Father, and he dies before he gets into the name of the Son and the Holy Spirit, he is baptized all the same. If he dies before he partakes of the cup, has he actually communed? When you lead that young lady up to the altar, and the minister said the ceremony that made you both one, didn't he come up and say something like this: "Do you take the young lady to be your lawful and wedded wife, and covenant that you will love, cherish, and protect her as long as you both shall live?" Suppose you died before she answered yes, were you married? You see it takes both parties. Every instance he brings up is going down, and every point is just falling down and down. He says, did they come out backward, and you laughed considerably. no, sir; I don't think they did. I think they came our forward. Very well, what does baptism mean? It signifies motion from without to within. In his book, page 27, he says the preposition it signifies a motion from without to within. The Bible says, we are to baptize into Christ we are not told to go into him backward. When they went into the ark that signified the act of baptism, and when these people went into the ark, they didn't turn around and go in backward. They went in forward. Baptism was indicated by the going in, and not the coming our. He wants you to understand that we get into Christ by emersion, which means to take out of. Coming our of the ark is emersion. That doesn't put you into anything, but just like he tells you it means an entering from without to within, and that is what it took to get them into the three apartments in the ark, and that is what it takes to get into the Holy Trinity, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, taking three actions to get into three individuals. Did they go into the Red Sea backward? Elder Riggle's illustration, "I plunge my hand into a basket of apples, and of pears, and of plums." I want to say to you, my friends, I don't like to criticize his grammar, but his illustration certainly is erroneous. He plunges his hand into a basket of apples, and of pears, and of plums---one basket. He words it wrong in his illustration. I don't know whether he knows grammar of not, but when he plunges his hand "into the basket of apples, and of pears, and of plums"---three baskets---is one way of saying it, and he plunged his hand into a basket of apples, pears, and plums---one basket---that is another. In the first instance, it takes three acts by the laws of language. If he does not accept this, I will submit it to a committee of three grammarians and let them decide the contention for us. Paul said, "I would not have you ignorant how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea." They were not actually under the cloud when they were in the sea. Let me give you a parallel sentence. Suppose Paul was talking to you people and said: "I would not have you ignorant, brethren, how that our congregation all were under the tent, and all went home in their carriages last evening." Now, were you under the tent when you went home? Now, I have a sentence that is parallel to the one where he says they were under the cloud: I would not have you ignorant that we were all under the tent, and went home in our carriages last evening. You were not under the tent when you went home; neither were they under the cloud when they went through the sea. The language does not convey that idea at all. You remember, he read right out of the Bible that the cloud went from before their face and stood behind them; that was one act. Then the Israelites passed through the sea. That was another act. The Jehovah looked forth upon the Egyptians through the cloud. So, the cloud was over the Egyptians, and not over Israel; then the cloud passed over the Israelites again to lead them. This was the third act. Trinity. He denied it. I expected him to deny it. I gave you three positive statements from the Lord Jesus Christ showing you that it takes a separate and repeated act to get the Trinity into our hearts. I expected him to deny it, but that doesn't prove that it isn't so. You will notice this when you read the book. Lord's Supper. 1 Cor. 11:20. Paul cites them right back to the original supper given by the Lord Jesus Christ. I will just say this in Paul's own language: "When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's Supper. For in eating everyone taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the Church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which He was betrayed took bread: and when He had given thanks He brake it, and said, Take, eat; this is My body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of Me. After the same manner also He took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the New Testament in My blood: this do yet as oft as y drink it in remembrance of Me." "Had supped" is intransitive, and means to eat the evening meal, or to eat supper. The Lord had a supper, and there was nothing wrong in their having a supper. The manner in which they ate was wrong. Then Paul tells them: "Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another." I asked him a number of questions during this debate, about fifty-four in all, and I asked him a number on the communion. You will find them in the book, and it will show you what the result has been. In the that I gave him there were about fourteen questions. He attempted to answer about one, so we gave him a credit of 7 1/7 percent on that batch of questions. I gave him about fourteen more, but none of them was answered, so that gave him zero. Then I gave him sixteen more, and none of them were answered, and that gave him zero---zero equals zero. The next time we gave him ten, and he didn't try to answer them. Ten unanswered equals zero. I know that Elder Riggle was under obligations to answer these questions so you could see right what he said about them. He just simply couldn't answer them without condemning himself, so the book will show that the man was either afraid, or he wasn't able to answer the questions---one or the other. The great man, the champion of his church, couldn't answer fifty-four questions given by an humble minister of Jesus Christ, goes down in history. With all his intelligence and learning he can't answer a few little Bible questions on his practice and teaching. He gave in his last speech, along with other statements, Acts 2:40 and Acts 20:7. He told of the wonderful things he is going to do by and by. I will now give a summary of my arguments in the negative: 1. Origin of the church. That, I believe was his first subject. Christ built a New Testament Church, and if I got it correctly, he gave you eight Scriptural references. All Protestant people believe this. Are they, therefore, identical with the New Testament Church? If this argument proves anything, it proves just as much for the rest of us as it does for my friend, because all Protestant people believe that Jesus Christ built the church, and hence it would prove that they are therefore the Church of God, which proves too much for him, and therefore logically proves nothing, and he didn't gain anything out of his first position. 2. Unity of the church. There is one body. I showed you that all Protestant people in the world believe that there is one body---the body of Christ. I think he gave four Scriptures to sustain this position. All Protestant sects believe in the unity of the church. Do they thus prove their identity with the New Testament church? I proves just as much for you and me as it does for him, and therefore he gets zero on that. 3. Origin. Church originated in the year 32 A. D., but he says there was no church until Pentecost, and I gave him two strong arguments on that point and he passed them by with very little notice. He gave three Scriptures to sustain this position. Suppose it was organized on the day of Pentecost, what does it prove for his church? Suppose it was organized in the time of Christ, or the day of Pentecost, it wouldn't prove anything for him, but when we prove that there was a church before Pentecost, then he doesn't get far enough back to get into the family, and he never has been in the family of God. 4. Nature of this institution. Divine institution. He gave about five Scriptures brought to prove it. All Protestant sects believe it. Will he prove our identity with the New Testament Church by saying this? No. But he wants you and me to believe that because we believe just like he believes, that the nature of the church is divine, that his is the true church, and all the balance are sects. The only conclusion that you can reasonably take from his argument proves nothing for him. 5. Membership. God adds the members to His church. About three Scriptures that sustain this position. All Protestant sects believe this, and are they therefore identical with the New Testament Church? So it proves just as much for us as it does for my opponent---proves nothing for his position, giving him zero again. 6. Character of this institution. It is a glorious church. About two Scriptural references. All Protestant institutions believe that it is a glorious church. Will he admit their identity with the New Testament Church? He will assert---assertions only---that he is the true church, and all the balance of us are sects. Link by link his position is going down---getting zero on every point. 7. Name. Church of God. Says Scripture gives one name. By his reasoning when one fact is against him, every other fact is also. His statements in his opening speech that when you establish one fact, then every other fact in the universe sustains that fact. I proved to you by the laws of language that his citations did not convey or imply a name, but only showed the ownership and authorship of the church, and did not imply the name at all. He has a legal name, but not a Scriptural name. The church of God went twenty years without a name, according to his theory. Came twenty years too late for a name (1 Cor. 1:2)> He never tried to answer that. He can't even get back to Pentecost. 8. Origin. The origin of his church is no better than other sects. I told you that D. S. Warner was the builder of this church in 1877. 1845 years too late. The Church of God never ceased to exist, he says, but he can't find it from 100 A. D. to 1877 A. D. He denied that Mr. Warner built this institution, and I asked him to come out like a man and tell us who was the builder of his church, and he is either afraid or ashamed to tell you people just when they came out of the sects, or when the sects passed from them, and he didn't dare do it. He knew he would convict himself if he did. Suppose he didn't, does that prove his identity with the New Testament Church? His church is a sect, the same as any other. Proven by Mr. Warner and Mr. Webster: "A sect is a religious body separated from other sects in view of special doctrines." A denomination, he is "separated from all other churches," just like all other churches are separated from all other churches," just like all other churches are separated from one another. That settles the thing. He can't trace his organization beyond 1877. I wanted him to tell us who ordained him, but he is ashamed or afraid to, and he would not do it. I showed you that his sect came right our of the Winebrennerian Chruch, and the Winebrennerians came out of the Reformed Church, and the Reformed Church came out of Rome, and so they came from the same place the other churches came from that came out of Rome. The church. Elder Riggles says Jesus built the New Testament Church. Very well, let us see. I will give a few condensed arguments in the form of syllogisms. When the major and minor premises of a syllogism are proven to be correct the conclusion, when legitimately and logically drawn, shows that it is an argument that cannot admit any refutation. 1. "Churches that believe Jesus built the New Testament are sects." Riggle. 2. The church Elder Riggle represents believe that Jesus built the church. 3. There fore, the church that Elder Riggle represents is a sect. Again, "The New Testament Church never ceased to exist since A. D. 33." The church Elder Riggle represents had no existence till 1877 A. D. Therefore, it is not the New Testament Church. 1. "We lose membership when we sin." Elder Riggle. 2 "To join and live in a sect is a sin." Elder Riggle. 3. Therefore, to join and live in any sect except the Elder Riggle represents, you forfeit your membership in the Church of God, and cannot be members of both at the same time, as Elder Riggle teaches. 1. "Sects belong to the devil." So says Elder Riggle. "Some of God's people are in the sects," Elder Riggle admits. 3. Therefore, some of God's children belong to the devil. That is where his teaching leads to. 1. "All save people belong to the Church of God." Elder Riggle. 2. "But some of God's people belong to the sects." Elder Riggle. 3. Therefore, the sects are the Church of God, logically so. 1. "All saved people belong to the Church of God." Elder Riggle. 2. Elder Riggle fails to find the Church of God he represents until 1877. 3. Therefore, there was no saved people until 1877, according to this reasoning. 1. Argument of name. No Scriptural name. I proved that by the laws of language he has no name. His assumed name is borrowed and appropriated. His theory opens the way for as many names as Christ has titles. His position is certainly going down fast. 2. Argument on the origin. Here I met him on his origin of his church, and showed it to be no better than other churches. He came out of the Winebrennerian Church, and Mr. Warner built the church in 1877. Elder Riggle was either afraid or ashamed to tell when they cast off the sects, or they separated from them. He admitted the true Church of God never ceased to exist, but for the life of him he could not trace it from 100 A. D. to 1877 A. D., and yet he says the church never ceased to exist, and here presents it. 3. His church is a sect the same as other sects. I proved by Mr. Warner and Mr. Webster that he is a sect by the very same method and reasoning that others are, by the meaning of the word. By its "special doctrines" and by "dissenting from an established church." 4th argument. Its builder. Jesus is not the builder of this institution. God add to the church through agency. I made him admit that God works through human instrumentality. He failed to show one line of succession through baptism, ordination, or otherwise that in any way connected him with the New Testament Church. Hence his argument goes down, and his position buried forever. He lacks a builder and a foundation. 5th argument. On the church government. He cannot maintain unity and church discipline, rid the church of evil doers, without a government similar to others. No society or institution can prosper without systematic organization. He has no centralizing power to unify them in matters of discipline, hence he lacks identity in government. 6. Organization. New Testament Church had officers for every church. New Testament chose officers through the agency of the church. It is presumptuous for a man to rise up and call himself a presbyter, elder, minister or deacon and force himself upon the church, and then demand ordination from their hands. So the officers are not Biblically authorized in his institution. Gets his church built too late. His argument on the subject is erroneous."Church built on the day of Pentecost," says Elder Riggle, then not a soul was saved or had spiritual life until Pentecost. He tells us we must get into the church to have spiritual life, and then says there was not church until Pentecost. The New Testament Church had a conference to unity them in matters of work and discipline. Elder Riggle has no such conference. (Time.)

The Riggle - Kesler Debate
[ Selected ]

PROPOSITION II

The Church of the Brethren, of which I, B. E. Kesler, am a member, and which I represent, is identical with the New Testament Church in origin, name, doctrine and practice.

B. E. Kesler affirms.

H. M. Riggle denies.

Elder Kesler's Thirteenth Speech
Tuesday Evening, September 21

Gentlemen, Moderators, Brethren and Friends:---We are now come to where the discussion takes a new turn. I have been in the rear in the previous part of the discussion, but now it becomes my duty to lead out and present to you the position of the Church of the Brethren as a body of religious people, and in doing so I shall endeavor to present it to you in as plain and as simple a way as possible by your prayers and by the help of God's Holy Spirit; and I am expecting that this position is going to be tested with all the ability my worthy opponent will be able to bring against it. So I want to remind you of the statement made in the opening speech that an argument to be of force in establishing the 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. If prophetic, the application must be so obvious as to leave no room for doubt. If we make an argument based on prophecy it must point so directly to the question that there is no room left for doubt, and if historic, the statement must be so plain as not to be misunderstood. I would remind you again, my dear friends, that assertion and denial is not argument, that in order to meet an argument when it is presented, our rules say, that every argument shall be answered and the evidence produced shall be examined with candor. I hope we shall proceed in the smooth and even way during this discussion as we have in the past. I want to congratulate you and my worthy respondent on the nice manner in which the discussion has been carried on. Some people get the idea that when we meet for a discussion that we are met for a quarrel. I am sure that I have had the most pleasant and kind feelings toward my worthy respondent, and I hope he has toward me. I believe he has. I believe the most pleasant feelings exist between us. I am expecting the position of the Church of the Brethren to be tested with all the power my respondent can bring to bear upon it. That is his business and, on the other side, I shall try to present it with all the force and power and clearness I shall be able to do.

I have before you a representation of the New Testament Church, embracing her doctrines and her teachings. These I expect to go over briefly, and some of these my respondent will not question, because we are agreed on a number of the teachings of our respective churches, and wherever there happens to be a difference I am expecting him to raise the issue. So I have before us, as I stated, representation of the New Testament Church---her doctrines.

Love to God and love to man. Matt. 22:37-40: "Thou shalt love the Lord they God with all they heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." Now the position of the Church of the Brethren is that we cannot have this love that characterizes or designates us the children of God unless we keep God's commandments. We have a statement here from our Savior designating the kind of love that it takes to designate us the children of God. This will be developed later on.

We have the Golden Rule. Matt. 7:12: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets."

The Lord's Prayer. Matt. 6:9-13. This is also recorded in Luke 11:2: "When ye pray say our Father which are in heaven, etc."

The Savior's law of trespass recorded in Matt. 5:23: "Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee; leave there thy gift before the altar and go thy was; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift." Again in Matt. 18:15-21: "If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican." This is the Savior's law, and is carried out in the Church of the Brethren.

The Great Commission. Matt. 28:19, and Mark 16:16: "Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature." The Brethren Church is a missionary church.

Faith. 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." Also Jude 1:3: "That ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints." Then again, we have repentance. Luke 3:8, where John told the disciples to bring forth fruits meet for repentance. Acts 17:30, God commandeth all men everwhere to repent.

Confession. Matt. 3:6: "And were baptized of Him in Jordan, confessing their sins." Matt. 10:32: "Whosoever therefore shall confess Me before men, him will I confess also before My Father which is in heaven." Triune Baptism. Matt. 3:16, 17, where the Savior was baptized in the river Jordan. Matt. 28:19: "Baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." 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."

Laying on of hands. Heb. 6:1-4: "Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, of the doctrine of baptism, and of laying on of hands and of the resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. And this will we do if God permit." Acts 8:15:-17, where Philip went down to Samaria to preach the gospel, and after the apostles heard that Samaria had received the word, they sent Peter and John who prayed that they might receive the Holy Ghost, for as yet He had fallen upon none of they only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Acts 19:6, where Paul met the twelve disciples at Ephesus and found that they had not yet had hands laid on them and he laid hands on them and they began to speak with tongues.

Feet-washing. Ex. 30:18-21, where the laver was placed in front of the tabernacle and water was put in it. Here the priests were to wash their hands and feet when they went into the tabernacle to minister. There will be no contention here, as my friend's people practice feet-washing. John 13:14, 15: "If I, then your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given you and example that ye should do as I have done to you." 1 Tim 5:10, showing that it was carried out in the apostolic church.

Lord's Supper. Luke 22:20, where Jesus brake bread and blessed it and gave it to His disciples and likewise also the cup after supper. John 13:4; 1 Cor. 11:25: "He riseth from supper, and laid aside His garments, and took a towel and girded Himself." "After the same manner also He took the cup, when He had supped, saying, This cup is the New Testament in My Blood; this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of Me."

Communion. Matt. 26:26: "And as they were eating, Jesus took bread and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples and said, Take, eat, this is My body." Mark 14:22, 23.

Holy kiss. Rom. 16:16. "Salute one another with an holy kiss." 1 Pet. 5:14: "Greet ye one another with a kiss of charity."

Prayer veil. 1 Cor. 11:4-16: Too lengthy to read now.

Anointing the sick. Jas. 5:12-16: "Is any among you afflicted? let him pray. Is an merry? let him sing psalms. Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: and the prayer of faith shall save the sick and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him."

Christian duties. 2 Pet. 1:5-9: "And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; and to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; and to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity, for if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ."

The Christian graces. Gal. 5:22: "The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law." Then, again, we have justification, sanctification, righteousness, holiness, perfection. We haven't room for the Scriptures.

Temperance. Acts 24:25. Paul reasoned of righteousness, temperance and judgment to come.

Nonconformity with the world. Rom. 12:1, 2: "And be ye not conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind." 1 Tim. 2:9: "In like manner also that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array." 1 Pet. 1:14: "As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance."

Nonlawing. 1 Cor. 6:1-8. The Church of the Brethren do not go to law one with another.

Nonsecrecy. John 18:20: "I speak openly to the world, and in secret I have said nothing." 2 Cor. 6:14-18: "Be not unequally yoked together with unbelievers," etc.

Nonwarring. 2 Cor. 10:4" "For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong-hold." Matt. 26:52, where Jesus said, "Put up again thy sword into his place, for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword." John 11:47, 48: "And Rome shall come and take away both our place and nation," for they thought all the world would believe on Him, and because He taught peace, His subjects would not fight.

Nonswearing. Matt. 5:34-37" "Swear not at all. Thou canst not make one hair white or black." James 5:12: "Above all things swear not."

Nondivorcement. Matt. 5:32.

Then, following that, we have the great doctrine and principle of unity. John 7:11, where Jesus prayer that His people might be one. Eph. 4:1-6: "I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, with all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling: One Lord, one faith, one baptism. One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through you all, and in you all." I will now give you some arguments on the establishment of the New Testament Church, and the first position here is the church, its establishment.

The kingdom or Church of Christ originated in the mind of God. Zac.6:12: "Thus speaketh the Lord of hosts, saying, Behold the man whose name is the Branch; and he shall grow out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the Lord; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne, and he shall be a priest upon his throne; and the counsel of peace shall be between them both." Dan. 2:44: "In the days of these kings (referring to the kings in the old country, the Babylonian, the Medopersian, the Grecian, and finally the Roman) shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever." Its establishment shows a gradual work. Matt. 13:31, 32.

It was first manifested in the world under the ministry of John the Baptist. Luke 1, where they said this child shall go before the face of the Lord to give knowledge and salvation unto His people by the remission of their sins.

It was formerly built and organized by Christ. Luke 6:12, 13. He chose twelve whom He called apostles. Mark 3:13-15. You remember that my opponent in his position took a fire stand that the Church of Christ was organized and built and established on the day of Pentecost. The church was built during the personal ministry of our Lord Jesus Christ before the day of Pentecost, then his position is wrong. When one fact stands against his position every other fact in God's great universe stands against it.

Origin of the church. Isa. 35:8-10: "And an highway shall be there, and a way, and it shall be called the way of holiness; the unclean shall not pass over it; but it shall be for those: the wayfaring me, though fools, shall not err therein. No lion shall be there, nor any ravenous beast shall go up thereon, it shall not be found there; but the redeemed shall walk there." Zech. 12:13: "Thus speaketh the Lord of hosts, saying, Behold the man whose name is the Branch, and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the Lord, and he shall bear the glory and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne, and the counsel of peace shall be between them both." Again, Daniel 2:44: "And in the days of these kings, etc." Isa. 9:6, 7: For unto us a child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulders: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth ever forever." Now I want to call your attention to the fact in this matter. It is positively stated by the prophet He shall build the temple of the Lord. Now you remember what I said about the prophetic argument, if the argument be prophetic, its application must be so obvious as to admit of no doubt in its application. Here it says someone is a branch. Who is this branch? You turn to Isaiah and other prophets were the Lord Jesus Christ has this title, a Branch. It cannot mean anything else than the Lord Jesus Christ, and it is positively stated that He shall build the temple of the Lord and He shall bear the glory of it, and He should if He built it. The government shall be upon His shoulders, and He shall be a ding. He is also a priest at the same time, as the prophet said.

Jesus built and organized the kingdom.

1. By ordaining preachers. Mark 3:13-15: "And He goeth up into a mountain, and calleth unto Him whom He would: and they came unto Him. And He ordained that they should be with Him, and that He might send them forth to preach, and to have power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils." Luke 6:12, 13: "And it came to pass in those days, that He went out into a mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to God. And when it was day He called unto Him His disciples: and of then He chose twelve, whom also He named apostles." John 15:16: "Ye have not chosen Me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in My name, He may give it to you." Here and now we have the first office created that the church ever had. That is the apostolic office. Jesus spent the night in prayer to God, His Father, and then He called together the multitude of people and chose twelve whom He named apostles. Created the first office the church ever had, and filled it with officers---apostles.

2. He organized by assigning these officers territory. Matt. 10:5, 6: "These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

3. By giving them the commission. This commission is contained in the Scripture I just quoted. He gave them commission and territory in which they were to work.

4. He organized the kingdom by giving them work. Matt. 10:7: "And as ye go, preach, saying,the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Mark 3:14: "And He ordained twelve that they should be with Him, and that He might send them forth to preach."

5. He organized the kingdom by giving them power. Matt. 10:8: "heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give." Luke 10:19: "Behold I give you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you." These are the Scriptures that we bring to sustain the argument that Christ organized, built and established the kingdom. Now a few thoughts in connection with the above Scriptures.

1. We have a company of disciples and preachers ordained and given a commission, assigned territory and work and given power and authority to do that work. All these examples are found right here and now, Moor of the essential and leading facts of organization are found here then are to be found any place else in the Bible. If my friend thinks it was built on the day of Pentecost, it is up to him to show that there was a church built on the day of Pentecost, and to show that these Scriptures are not correctly applied and to show that the first office the church ever did have was not created right here and now and that it was not filled with officers; that they were not given a commission and power to do the work assigned them. These men here and now received all the power they ever received except the power to speak in tongues which they got on the day of Pentecost. This together with the fact that Jesus was to build the church establishes the fact that Jesus did build the kingdom or Church of Christ. If Jesus , in person, could build one church, He could, of course, through His people build another. I want to read some of the history of the Church of the Brethren. I am reading now from the History of the Church of the Brethren, pages 37-40: "Finally in the year 1708, eight persons consented together to enter into a covenant of good conscience with God, to take up all the commandments of Jesus Christ as an easy yoke, and thus to follow the Lord Jesus, their good and faithful Shepherd, in joy and sorrow, as his true sheep, even unto a blessed end. These eight persons were as follows, namely five brethren and three sisters. These eight persons covenanted and united themselves together as brethren and sisters into the covenant of the cross of Jesus Christ to form a church of Christian believers. And when they had found, in authentic histories, that the primitive Christians, in the first and second centuries, uniformly, according to the command of Christ, were planted into the death of Jesus Christ by a three-fold immersion into the water-bath of Holy baptism, they examined diligently the New Testament, and finding all perfectly harmonizing therewith, they were anxiously desireous to use the means appointed and practiced by Christ Himself, and thus according to His own salutary counsel, go forward to the fulfillment of all righteousness. Now the question arose who should administer the work externally unto them? One of their number, who was a leader and speaker of the Word in their meetings, had visited, in sincere love, different congregations of Baptists (Taufgeinnten) in Germany, most of which admitted that holy baptism, when performed by an immersion in water and out of love to Christ, was indeed right; but they would also, besides this, maintain that pouring of a handful of water might also do very well, provided all else would be right. The conscience of them, however (the brethren), could not be satisfied with this, They therefore demanded of him, who led in preaching the Word, to immerse them, according to the example of the primitive and best Christians, upon their faith. But he, considering himself as unbaptized, required first to be baptized of someone of them before he should baptize another."

(Time.)

__________________

Elder Riggle's Thirteenth Speech
Tuesday Evening, September 21

Mr. Chairman, Brother Moderators, ladies and Gentlemen:---It is a great pleasure for me to appear before you again, and this time the laboring oars are in the hands of my opponent. As I take the negative of this proposition I want to assure you that I do so holding the tenderest feelings of Christian love toward Elder Kesler and the members of his church. It is not these people that I oppose, but certain practices and doctrines which they hold that I am fully satisfied are unscriptural and erroneous.

My first reference will be to the chart. Elder Kesler mentioned twenty-seven different things which he says they believe and teach. Twenty-five of these the Church of God, which I represent, teaches and practices. On only two of the points, as he has them written our on the char, do we differ: that is trine immersion and the full meal for the Lord's Supper. The rules of this debate require that each respondent shall set forth in a specific way only those points in which we differ.

When the Elder mentioned triune baptism and the full meal supper as belonging to the New Testament Church, he assumed this, and I am sure he will be unable to prove it. Under the former proposition I abundantly proved that single immersion was the apostolic practice, and that the communion of bread and wine constitutes the New Testament Lord's Supper. In most of the things he said tonight we are agreed. In fact, he stated very little for me to oppose, but I have believe and thought these things before I ever heard of Elder Kesler.

My friend spent considerable time and read many texts both from prophecy and the New Testament to prove that the church is divine. We, as a church, accept, teach and practice this truth by holding to this divine church and to no other. I emphatically deny that the Church of the Brethren is this New Testament Church. Here is the parting of the waves, the point at issue between us. He may read Scripture after Scripture, but that does not prove anything in his favor unless those Scriptures bear direct on the point in debate and he puts them in practice in his daily life.

He says the church was being built during Christ's personal ministry and read a number of texts which state that Jesus had apostles at this time. On this last statement we are agreed. Those who have attended this discussion throughout and have listened attentively to the arguments presented will remember that I clearly proved that the church began under the labors of John and continued during the ministry of Christ. But you see there was a lapping over of dispensations. The Old Testament Church stood until Christ's death. The first covenant with its temple, law, observances and church stood together, and this typical dispensation properly ended at the cross. Thus, while the Old Testament Church was yet standing, and the first covenant was in force, the new was being introduced. Here is where Elder Kesler and I differ. I maintain that the complete organization of the Christian Church, as a distinct institution, dates from Pentecost. On this point I appeal to Jesus' own words. Matt. 16:18: "Upon this rock I WILL BUILD My church." These words were spoken in the third, or last, year of Christ's earthly ministry. Please note the fact that while the material for this structure was being prepared during John's and Christ's earthly ministry, the real building of the church was still future. "I will build." Jesus uttered these words while He and His disciples were resting near Caesarea Philippi. He asked His disciples "Whom do men say that I, the Son of man, am?" Peter, who always was spokesman among the disciples, replied, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." This drew out the following language from Christ: "Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Peter from petros means a small piece of a rock, a stone. But Jesus, in the text says, "Upon this rock---petre---(Christ) I will build My church." This was in the year A. D. 32, near the close of Christ's earthly ministry. My opponent tells you that at this very time the church was fully built and organized; but Jesus said, "I will build My church." So its building was future of this time. If, as the Elder says, the church was fully built prior to this, what sense would attach to the words of Jesus? From Pentecost on, it is recorded in Acts 2:47, that the Lord added to this new ecclesia, those who were being saved. Here again the Elder differs with the Lord Jesus Christ.

But the question as to whether the church was built on or before Pentecost has no direct bearing upon the point at issue. Even were I to admit his point, he has not proved that his church is identical with that of the New Testament. Suppose the church was built before that time, would that establish the fact that the Church of the Brethren is the New Testament Church? I think not. Does this congregation believe for one moment that he has sustained his proposition? No, sir.

He asked, if Christ built one church why could He not build another. I answer, No, because there is no need of any other. By making this statement, however, the Elder was preparing the way for the organization of his sect. The church which Christ built is eternal. I will stand forever. Daniel foretold it as "a kingdom set up by the God of heaven which shall never be destroyed," and of it Jesus said, "The gates of hell shall not prevail against it." This clearly proves that the Christian Church, which Christ established, is to continue throughout all ages, and it has. Although covered beneath the rubbish of the great apostasy during many long centuries, today it emerges from the superstitions of the past, clothed with the same power, unity, purity and glory which adorned it in primitive times. It is an exclusive church, and there is no excuse for any other. This is the solid ground I occupy in this debate, and am not afraid of successful Biblical contradiction.

Since Elder Kesler acknowledges the New Testament Church to be divine, why does he not come out of the human institution named the Church of the Brethren and abide only in the church divine? This is what I have done. I have left all the creeds of men and abide in Christ alone.

As to the Scriptures the Elder read, I accept, believe and teach all of them; but the difference between us is, I practice them by holding membership in no other church. He has told you to night that in the year 1708 another body was organized in Germany on the River Eder. Eight individuals met and together they effected this organization. They began by baptizing each other by triune dipping. As I told you, there are two points mentioned on the chart in which he differs from the primitive church: Triune baptism and the full meal supper. He assumes that the observance of these two rites makes him identical with the New Testament Church. This remains to be proved. Under the former proposition I gave thirteen logical arguments, well sustained by many decisive texts, that single immersion was the primitive practice. I also abundantly proved that the bread and wine constitute the Lord's Supper. Also I have shown by many unanswerable arguments that the Elder's church is not identical with the New Testament teaching. Having now replied to all the remarks in his opening speech that were worthy of notice, I will present some negative arguments to prove that the Church of the Brethren is not identical with the New Testament Church in origin and name.

First. The word identical means the same, differing in no essential point. This proposition holds him to prove that his church is exactly the same as that found in the New Testament, , in no point differing therefrom. He has already denied his proposition. When he admitted that the Lord built the New Testament Church, and then later another was built in 1708, or sixteen hundred and seventy-five years after, and this later one is the one he represents, he completely overthrew his proposition. You see this admission is utterly fatal to his contention.

Second. There is no identity between the founders of these two churches. The New Testament Church was built by Christ. Matt. 16:18: "I will build My church." Christ, then is the builder and founder of His church. It was not left for eight individuals on the banks of the Eder to build; and did not have its beginning in these fallible creatures, but in the Son of God. Here is a clear difference between the two bodies. Man is not the builder of God's church. Heb. 8:3: The true tabernacle which the Lord pitched and not man." This true tabernacle is the Christian Church, and you will notice that it did not come by men. What man builds is human. What the Lord builds is divine. God sometimes works through human instrumentality, but not in the building of His church. This is accomplished through the agency of the Holy Spirit, as on the day of Pentecost. This truth is clearly expressed in 1 Cor. 12, where it is stated that the Spirit forms the body in due order, distributes gifts and furnishes it with organs. Again Acts 20:28: "Take heed unto yourselves and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers: to feed the Church of God which He hath purchased with His own blood."

Elder Kesler has said much with reference to God working through human instrumentality. I will take time right here to consider that point for a moment. What part does the minister play? The Bible answer is clear. They preach the gospel. "And it hath pleased God, through the foolishness of preaching, to save them that believe." As they go forth and minister the word and the people accept the truth which they preach, and obey it, it will effect their salvation. This is the minister's part, and in this manner they open the eyes of the people and turn them from darkness to light, pointing out the way of salvation. But when it comes to the real work of salvation to be wrought in the human heart, after people have accepted and received the gospel preached, God alone through the Holy Spirit can accomplish the great work of salvation in the souls of men. People have access to the Father through Jesus Christ. There is but one mediator between God and man. No minister, with his triple baptism, comes in between the sinner and His God.

People who are saved through Jesus Christ, as individuals, constitute the visible church in its local congregations or assemblies. These local bodies are organized by the Holy Spirit, without man voting into office. Now as to the German Baptist sect, recently named the Church of the Brethren, it differs from the New Testament Church on all the foregoing points; therefore, cannot be identical with it.

My opponent read from Brumbaugh's History of the Brethren. I will again read as to the origin of their church from Elder J. H. Moore in the "Popular and Critical Bible Encyclopedia and Scriptural Dictionary." "In 1708 a small company---eight persons---met on the bank of the Eder at Schwarzenau, Germany, and were baptized. This was the beginning of a new religious sect. A desire to follow more closely in the footsteps of the Master, and the conviction that this was impossible in any of the religious bodies of the time, led this company to take this step. Alexander Mack, one of the eight, was the first minister chose by this band. * * * December 25, 1725, the first Brethren Church was organized in America, the first members were received by baptism, and the first love feast was celebrated. This was at Germantown, Pennsylvania. 'They hold that faith, repentance and baptism are essential to salvation.' They believe that trine immersion is the apostolic method of baptism and receive now as members without baptizing them in this way."

Here from their own writers we have the beginning of the Church of the Brethren, which Elder Moore says is "a new religious sect." Now, friends, I want you to note the fact that in order for Elder Kesler to sustain his proposition he must prove that this new sect is identical---the same---as the New Testament Church. This he simply cannot do. He has undertaken the impossible. I do not believe that there is an honest man here tonight but who, if he will give the point a moment's candid reflection, can see the difference. There is not identity between the two churches. The one is the church, and the other a modern or "new sect." Instead of Elder Kesler coming here to represent the Christian Church which Christ built, he comes representing a new religious sect, which had it beginning in 1708 on the River Eder in Germany.

Here we have the two bodies clear and distinct. I ask this intelligent audience, where is the identity? They are as widely different as anything can be. The one existed sixteen hundred and seventy-five years before the other was ever heard of. The one is Jerusalem from above, which is the mother of us all, the other a small sect which contains but a small part of the family of God. The Elder has undertaken to defend a proposition that he cannot sustain. Facts are not only eternal, but they are stubborn things.

From this argument I will now deduct some logical conclusions. Christ built His own Church. He denominates it "My church." Then the one built on the rive Eder, Germany, by eight fallible persons cannot be His church. The first is divine, the last is human. The one was founded by the infallible God, the other by finite fallible men. The members are received into the one through salvation; and into the other by the rite of triune immersion. I am sure that you can all see the difference.

(Time.)