Robertson; Hedericus, 1778; Ash, 1775: Charles Richardson; Calmet; Schottgenius, 1765; Suicerus; Schilhornius; Cliznetus, 1661; Leigh's Critica Sacra: and Tromius' Concordance. These all are respectable authorities, and some of them, indeed, rank with those of the first class. They all concur with Suicerus, in defining baptizo as properly denoting immersion or dipping into. But as they are in general but a mere monotonous repetition of the first thirteen, I shall not quote them in extenso.

But, to sum up this class of evidence, and to show, from the highest source of American theological authority, that I have neither misquoted nor misinterpreted the verdict of this illustrious jury of thirteen unchallenged judges, I will quote the words of Prof. Stuart, of the Andover Theological School: "Bapto, baptizo, mean to dip, plunge, or immerse into any liquid. All lexicographers and critics of any note, are agreed in this."-Bib. Repos. 1833, p. 298. Professor Stuart is my American apostle, standing to this argument, as Paul stood in comparison to the original twelve-himself the only apostle to the gentiles, though the thirteenth, as respected the original twelve, selected of and for the Jews.

Before dismissing this class of witnesses, it is pertinent to my proposi tion, that I state distinctly three facts: 1. These lexicographers were not Baptists, but Pedo-baptists; 2. Not one of them ever translated any of these terms by the word sprinkle; 3. Not any one of them ever translated any of these terms by the word pour. Consequently, with all their prejudices they could find no authority for so doing, else doubtless, they could have done it.

I hope my hearers will pardon the introduction of so many Greek and Latin words. The occasion demands it. From the course pursued by our neighboring denominations, we are compelled to lay the corner-stone of our superstructure, not only deep in the earth, but upon a solid Greek basis. The foundation being laid upon a Grecian rock, and the wall above-ground, our labors will, we hope, be more intelligible, and consequently more agreeable and more interesting to us all.

We have, then, the unanimous testimony of all the lexicographers known in Europe and America, that the proper and everywhere current signification of baptizo, the word chosen by Jesus Christ in his commission to the apostles, is, to dip, plunge, or immerse; and that any other meaning is tropical, rhetorical, or fanciful. This being so, then our first proposition must be undoubtedly true. But, besides these, I have various other classes of witnesses to adduce, in solemn confirmation of the testimony of this most learned, veritable and venerable class of men.

Before I sit down, permit me to assure you, Mr. President, and through you, my friend, Mr. Rice, and this great concourse, that it is by constraint, and not willingly, I have summoned those witnesses whose testimony you have already heard, and others from whom you are yet to hear in the progress of this discussion. It is our Pedo-baptist friends who have imposed on us this task. It is they and not we, that are demanding new translations, ingenious and learned criticisms. It is they who call for dictionaries and grammars, for divers versions, for ancient fathers, for the venerable decrees of synods and councils, and for all manner of extrinsic helps and vouchers.

I have had the misfortune, sir, to be represented times without number, as desirous of introducing a new version of the New Testament, to favor my peculiar views and tenets. But, sir, a more unjust and unfounded

F

assertion has rarely been circulated among the American family. So far as my peculiar tenets are involved, the common Testament and cominon sense are all-sufficient. I ask no other earthly auxiliaries. In proof of this declaration, I now say, in your presence, gentlemen, and in the presence of this great congregation, that if my friend Mr. Rice, dare risk his cause on that version of the Scriptures read in his own church, I will meet him on that book alone, and from its plain grammatical construction, sustain not only the propositions before us, but every other doctrine I believe and teach; and that too without substituting one new reading, change or alteration from what is presented by the authority of Queen Victoria, or the General Assembly of the Scotch and American Presbyterian Church. Now, sir, when it is known, as we presume it will be, before this debate closes, that the Bishops' Bible published in the tenth year of Queen Elizabeth, and on which so much of the present King James' Bible, as appertains to the action of baptism, is especially based, was got up by the present Pedo-baptist authority, at the very crisis when immersion was being repudiated to make way for affusion in both Scotland and England, it will doubtless appear that I make a most liberal offer, when I agree to risk the defence of those propositions touching baptism, exclusively on that version, founding upon it every scriptural argument which I shall offer in the support of each and every one of those propositions. One point, at least, I must gain from this overture, whatever be its reception on the part of my respondent. If he accede to it, I, in common with the audience, will gain much time in coming to a satisfactory issue; if he do not accede to it, I shall never need another argument to prove, whether Reformers or Presbyterians have the greater confidence in, or affection for, the common version, so far at least as the establishment of our respective tenets are concerned. It is now, Mr. President, entirely in the hands and at the option of Mr. Rice, whether before an English audience, we shall exclusively employ an English Bible, and the common version, as the standard of orthodoxy, and the ultimate appeal on every proposition; or whether we shall abandon it as a whole, and only use it in a discretionary way, just as we may regard it favorable to our respective tenets.

I am, however, prepared for any course the gentleman pleases. I have just as many learned authorities, as much documentary evidence of all sorts around me, or at my disposal on the premises, as I desire, or can expect to use in the most protracted discussion. On him then be the entire responsibility, and not on me, for the direction which the present controversy may take.

But while I do, ex-animo, adopt the common version, as all-sufficient, and alone sufficient for my use in this debate, I would not be understood, as at all approving of it as the most faithful, correct and intelligible translation of the original Scriptures, which we have or can have, in our ver nacular. It is however with much pleasure, that after having more or less examined many versions, and possessing, as I do, some fifteen or twenty varieties of them, I can and do avow my full conviction, that by a candid person, of the most ordinary, or extraordinay attainments, the way of salvation, our whole duty and happiness, can be learned with the greatest certainty and assurance, from the most imperfect version I have ever seen. I am therefore willing, if circumstances should command me, to meet any virtuous man, on any version extant, and maintain all that I now stand pledged to maintain on the present occasion.-[Time expired.

Wednesday, Nov. 15-11 o'clock, A. M. [MR. RICE'S FIRST REPLY.]

MR. PRESIDENT-With regard to the reformation of the sixteenth century and its glorious results, I perfectly agree with my friend, whose address you have just heard. And I am truly happy to appear before this large audience to-day in the defence of the great doctrines and truths elicited by the investigation of those eminent men, who were the honored instruments of rescuing the Scriptures from ecclesiastical despotism, and proclaiming to the world the fundamental truth, that the Bible teaches all that is necessary to be believed, or to be done, to secure eternal life.

I am perfectly aware of the disadvantage under which I attempt to perform this duty, partly from the fact, that I meet in debate one so much my senior, whose arguments and statements may be supposed to have an authority which cannot accompany such as I may offer. Besides, I meet a gentleman who has been engaged for thirty years past in discussing the very points now at issue-one who, if not the originator, is certainly the leading man of a numerous body of professing christians, by whom he is regarded almost as an oracle. In the opinion of many I shall doubtless be chargeable with presumption in venturing, under such circumstances, to become his opponent. But when I consider what multitudes of the wisest and best men, in past ages and in the present, have maintained and do maintain the principles for which I now contend; and when I remember that my friend himself, when perhaps younger than I, ventured to wage war upon the christian world, I think I may justly claim acquittal of the charge.

It is true, as he remarked, that in the Reformation all error was not detected and repudiated; but it will scarcely be denied, that so much of the truth was discovered and embraced as was essential to the existence of the church and the salvation of the soul. And if this be admitted, the doctrine of my worthy friend cannot be sustained; for certain it is, that the Reformers did not ascertain that immersion into water is the only apostolic or christian baptism. If, then, the Scriptures do teach this doctrine, they failed to discover one of the most important features of the christian system; and they and their followers were alike unbaptized, and were aliens from the church of Christ. Nay, if this doctrine be true, there is not now a true church on earth, save the few who have been so happy as to make this remarkable discovery!

A word in regard to the origin of this discussion. We are unwilling to receive any credit not due us, however disposed my friend Mr. C. may be to award it to us. It is more than doubtful whether he has given a correct account of the matter. I will read an extract from the second letter of Rev. Mr. Brown to Mr. Campbell, which places the subject in a very different light. "There is," says Mr. B., "evidently a misapprehension on the part of one of us as it regards our interview at Richmond, in August last. Let the facts speak for themselves. They are briefly the following: At the close of your address at Richmond, on the 3d of August, your friend Mr. Duncan approached me, and asked my opinion as to the address, which I gave with as much candor as it was sought. After other interrogatories were propounded and answered, he inquired if I thought discussion advisable, to which I gave an affirmative reply. He then remarked that he had engaged to dine with you, and would ascertain your feelings and wishes on the subject. All this occurred

before we left the church. About four o'clock in the afternoon, Mr. Duncan sought a second interview with me, and requested me to call in company with him at your room, stating that you desired an interview with me on the subject about which he and I had conversed in the forenoon. I conformed to his wish, and accompanied him to your room, which ultimated in a mutual agreement to discuss certain points of difference, for the edification of the church and the prosperity of the cause of Christ, with a definite and expressed understanding that neither was to be considered the challenging party."

From this letter it appears, that the debate originated with Mr. Duncan, Mr. Campbell's friend, and not with Presbyterians. With its origin, it may be proper for me to say, I had nothing to do. It was agreed upon before I heard of it. I was afterwards requested, and consented to be one of the five who should undertake to conduct it.

My friend in his address paid me quite an unmerited compliment. I regret that I had not written something, as he has done, that might be considered a suitable return. But I am so little accustomed to writing speeches, and withal am so poor a reader of them, that I shall be under the necessity of returning the compliment as well as I can extemporaneously.

He has represented me as extremely anxious to press into this discussion. The truth, however, is, that I nominated successively two individuals to manage the debate, both of whom declined. I had had as much public discussion as I desired; but my brethren have thought proper to devolve upon me the duty of defending our views on this occasion. But Mr. C. would have you believe that I am quite a furious warrior-that, like the persecuting Saul, I have pursued the Reformers to strange cities, even as far as Nashville. I have had, it is true, more frequent discussions than most of my brethren, owing chiefly to the peculiar situation in which, in the early part of my ministry, I was placed. Providentially, I was settled where Romanism exerted a prevailing influence. It became necessary for me to engage in a war against that system, which continued for some seven years. During that period, I was employed in defending those great principles of the Reformation on which Protestant Christendom are mainly agreed.

With the followers of Mr. C. I have not sought controversy. The first discussion I ever had with a Reformer, occurred in Stanford, Ky., where, at the close of a sermon I preached on the mode of baptism, a Mr. Kenrick arose and requested the privilege of replying, which was granted. I had previously received from him a challenge to a discussion, of which I took no notice. My second discussion was with President Shannon, who visited Paris-the place of my residence, and made a public attack upon our Confession of Faith; to which, as in duty bound, I responded. This led to a rather informal controversy, which resulted in a written discussion. In Nashville, it is true, I had a discussion with one of Mr. Campbell's friends. I visited that city in fulfillment of a previous promise, to hold a protracted meeting. Whilst there I was requested by a number of the citizens to preach on the subject of baptism. I consented, and the appointment was announced. On the next morning I was called on by four prominent and very respectable Reformers, who gave me a challenge to meet in debate their most prominent man. I informed them, that as I was a stranger in Nashville, having no particular responsibility there, I should leave my friends to

determine whether I ought to accept their invitation. My friends decided that it was my duty to accept. I accordingly did so, and, having but four days to remain, engaged in a brief discussion with Mr. Fanning.

These facts show how I have persecuted the Reformers, even to strange cities! Mr. Campbell has published the charge against me of waging furious war against his church; but let facts be known, and the charge is refuted.

This discussion, it should be known, is in no sense an ecclesiastical affair. The synod of Kentucky could not become a party to it; nor had that body any authority to appoint a representative to conduct such a discussion. It is, therefore, strictly an individual concern. It is true, some of my brethren have devolved upon me the important and difficult task of defending what we believe to be revealed truth; but I claim not the high standing in my church which my friend has been pleased to assign me. Whilst, however, I occupy an humble place amongst the minsters of the Presbyterian church, I have no fears of being unable to sustain the principles in regard to which so great a part of Christendom are agreed.

A large portion of the speech of my friend was occupied with matters in which we are all deeply interested, concerning which he has said much that is true; but certainly those things have no immediate connection with the subject now under discussion. I will, therefore, proceed immediately to the matter in hand.

Let the audience distinctly understand the proposition which Mr. C. affirms. He undertakes to prove, not that immersion is the best mode of administering baptism, nor that in the days of the apostles it was sometimes practiced, but that it is absolutely essential to the validity of the ordinance that nothing short of the entire submersion of the body in water is apostolic or christian baptism; and consequently, that the whole christian world not thus immersed, are unbaptized, and are out of the church of Christ. It is an arduous undertaking; but my friend has bound himself to sustain this proposition. If this doctrine is true, it is certainly one of the most singular truths discovered in any age of the world. The Bible is, especially on all important points, a plain book. This Mr. C. acknowledges. Then how shall we account for the fact, that not more than one in a thousand, from the days of the apostles to the present time, has ascertained that immersion is essential to christian baptism? From a very early period it is certain that different modes were practiced. In the writings of the christian fathers we read of three immersions, and of partial immersions-ter caput mergitare-to immerse the head thrice. And it is fact, that as far back as history can take us, pouring and sprinkling were practiced; and baptism thus administered was universally considered valid. Now if those who practiced trine immersion, whose prejudices were all in favor of immersion, and whose vernacular tongue was the Greek, could not see that immersion only is christian baptism; I am obliged to doubt whether Mr. Campbell or any other man at this day will be able to prove it. I cannot believe that he can now make it clear, that the most learned, wise, and good men, who for long years studied the Bible on their knees, have lived and died in the firm belief that they had been baptized and were members of the church of the great Redeemer, when in truth they were unbaptized, and aliens from the commonwealth of Israel !"