"Thou hast given a banner to them that fear thee, that it may be displayed because of truth." — (Psalm 60:4)
"Lift ye up a banner upon the high mountain, exalt the voice unto them." — (Isaiah 13:2)
Devoted To The Defense Of The Church Against All Errors And Innovations
Vol.VI No.XIII Pg.40-46
July/August 1944

Concerning Arguments Claimed Unanswered

(F. E. W. Jr.)

The present Special Issue does not propose a review of the so-called "Norris-Wallace, Debate." Such a work would require a book the size of his. But the purpose of this exposure would not be fully accomplished if we should ignore the claims of Mr. Norris that his "pet points" were all unanswered. He has boasted all over the United States that we passed his arguments by "like a {deleted}' passing' a graveyard!" It becomes necessary therefore to take time and space to give some examples of whet was done to the arguments he falsely says were not even noticed.

The examples submitted are all on the subject of baptism -- but on the subject of apostasy the same type of exposures were made. It is not possible to cover the subjects in the limited space available here but the instances cited in the following examples will enlighten the readers as to whet occurred on every subject discussed.

Since Mr. Norris questioned the inspiration of Mark 16:16; and claims to have "uncoupled" Acts 2:38; and thinks he finds the "new birth" in the middle of the light on the Damascus road in the case of Saul; and gets us all saved by "staying out of the water" like Noah did - withal claiming that these arguments of his simply over-awed us into such complete silence that we had "nary a word to say" in reply -- we herewith set forth the facts as to whet actually took place before the audience on these points, and discuss them in order briefly, as follows.

1. On The Inspiration Of Mark 16:16

1. The authenticity of the passage has never been questioned by the scholars. The only point that has ever been raised has been in reference to its genuineness, whether it was written by Mark or by one of the other apostles, and therefore whether it belonged to the end of Mark's epistle or to another gospel record. The statement would certainly not be less valuable if another apostle wrote it.

2. It is claimed that it is not authentic because it is not found in two of the old manuscripts -- the Vatican and the Sinaitic. But it is in practically all of the others -- some five hundred in number -- including the Alexandrian, which is next to the Vatican and the Sinaitic in age and accuracy.

3. The passage was quoted by Irenaeus in the second century, which shows that it was in Mark's record at that time.

4. All of the ancient versions contain it, which shows that it was in the Greek copies from which the translations were made. Among them are the Peshito Syriac, Old Italic, Sahidic, Coptic -- all of which were in existence earlier then the two Manuscripts that omit it, and there are only two in which it does not appear. But there are two thousand copies that contained it.

5. The facts mentioned in the passage are mentioned in the other gospels. See Lk. 8:2; Jno.20:1-8; Heb. 2:5. 6. The same two manuscripts that leave out Mark 16:16 also leave out other portions of the New Testament which have never been called in question for that reason. A very significant example of it is the Book of Revelation. Many other copies leave out the entire twentieth chapter. Do any of these deniers of Mark 16:16 deny Revelation 20 for the same reason?

The proof of this statement is given by Dr. Philip Schaff, president of the American Revision Committee, in his book, "Companion To The Greek New Testament," page 116. Like wise Alexander Roberts, fellow-member of the same Committee with Dr. Schaff testifies to the same fact in his book, "Companion To The Greek New Testament," page 116. Like is the voice of scholarship and is the last word on the subject.

7. The forty-seven translators of Authorized Version, our common Bible, put Mark 16:16 in the text. The one hundred and one translators of the American Standard Revised Version put Mark 16:16 in the text. Doctor Schaff was the president of this committee, and of that passage he said: "The section is found in most of the uncial and in all the cursive Manuscripts, in most of the ancient versions, in all the existing Greek and Syriac lectionaries as far as examined; and Irenaeus, who is a much older witness then any of our existing Manuscripts, quotes Verse 19 as a part of the Gospel of Mark. A strong intrinsic argument for the genuineness is also derived from the extreme improbability (we may say impossibility) that the evangelist should have intentionally closed his Gospel with for they were afraid,' verse 8." (Companion To The Greek New Testament, Page 190, by Philip Schaff).

If more evidence is needed, Alexander Roberts, the imminent member of the Translating Committee says with emphasis that the author of Mark 16:16 was surely "one who belonged to the circle of the apostles" and that it "is inserted, without the least misgiving, as an appendix to that gospel in the Revised Version." (Companion To The English New Testament. Page 63).

While trying to deny the inspiration of Mark 16:16 on the claims of scholarship, it can be seen that the point of scholarship turns against them. And when they lose their point, the only alternative is to accept the inspiration of Mark 16:16 and then lose their argument against baptism! A herd bed, but they made it and must lie in it.

8. As a final point - the author of the Hebrew letter, generally conceded to be Paul, the apostle, quoted from Mark 16 in Heb. 2:5. Do you think the apostle Paul would have quoted from a spurious account? The argument is all on one side -for the genuineness of Mark 16. It is, indeed, strange that preachers like Norris in their bitter opposition to Mark 16:16 will turn infidel and deny its inspiration in an effort to get rid of it. In so doing they are no better then any other modernist or infidel who deny other sections of the Word of God.

II. The Argument On Acts 2:38

In the affirmative on the place of baptism in the plan of salvation I introduced my argument with Mark 16:16. Mr. Norris, as stated, first denied the inspiration of this passage and then backed out of his denial under no little embarrassment. From Mark 16 I proceeded to Acts 2:38. In his book and in his paper Mr. Norris has made a great ado over his argument on Acts 2:38, and would leave the impression that we were bewildered into silence - having no answer.

The fact is just the reverse of his statements. The bewilderment was his own, and much of his "argument" (?) on Acts 2:38 consists of matter which he did not deliver at all in the debate, but which was written up either before or after the debate.

Summing up the argument on Acts 2:38, we offered first of all to stake the issue on that single passage. The value of this passage to the controversy was emphasized to that extent, as the most conspicuous passage on the subject. We promised the audience to deliver it from all the withering influence of sophistry - and did so.

(1) There is an inseparable connection stated between baptism and remission of sins.

"Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

"For" means necessary to. It makes remission depend on baptism in the same sense that it is made to depend on repentance. Transpose the sentence and it reads: Every one of you repent and be baptized for the remission of sins. There are two things - "repent and be baptized" - related to a third - "the remission of sins." The one particle eis (for) cannot express two relations. Therefore, whatever relation repentance bears to the remission of sins, baptism bears that same relation. Is repentance essential to remission? Then, so is baptism.

(2) When were they forgiven?

Not when Peter began preaching. Not when they were convicted - or pricked in the heart. Not when they cried, "whet shall we do." Then, when were they forgiven? Read it: "Repent and be baptized every one of you." That alone as the answer to their question, even with no design expressed, would make the answer essential. It was an answer to a question. Was the answer essential to the point of inquiry?

(3) The object of the question.

The question: Whet shall we do? For whet - if not to be forgiven? The answer: Did Peter tell them to do something because of or in order to whet they were asking for?

(4) The answer analyzed.

The copulative conjunction "and" couples two verbs with the phrase "for the remission of sins." Repent for - be baptized for - there is no good sense in the expression if remission is not the purpose. Eliminate baptism and read the sentence. "Repent every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins." Whet does "for" mean? Repent for - does that mean repent "because of" - oh, no. Repent in order to remission of sins. Very well, put baptism back into the sentence - repent and be baptized for the remission of sins - does baptism in the passage change the meaning of "for?"

(5) The Greek preposition Eis.

As a Greek preposition eis never means "because of," or "on account of," and is never so rendered. Thayer, the New Testament lexicographer, says that "eis" is "a preposition governing the accusative and denoting entrance into, or direction and limit; into, to, towards, for, among." There are seventeen Greek words translated in the English word "for" - the Greek preposition eis (for) is never translated "because of" and it never looks backward. The Greek preposition dia is "on account of." So when the English word "for" comes from the Greek preposition "dia" it means on account of or because of, but when the English word "for" comes from the Greek word "eis" it never points back, always forward. The illustrations sometimes used are therefore wrong. For instance: "A worker is paid for his labor." That is, the worker is paid because of or on account of his labor. But that preposition "for" in the Greek would be "dia" not "eis." Now turn it around. "The worker labors for his wages." That is, the worker labors in order to, or in view of, his wages." In that case, the preposition "for" in the Greek would be "eis." In Acts 2:38 the preposition is "eis" not `dia" and it means "in order to" and does not mean "because of."

Compare some passages in the New Testament:

Acts 3:19: "Repent and be converted that (eis) your sins may be blotted out." Does one repent because sins are blotted out? It is the preposition "eis" here.

Rom. 10:10: "With the heart man believeth unto (eis) righteousness." Does man believe because of righteousness? It is "eis" here also.

Heb. 10:39: "Believe unto (eis) the saving of the soul." Does one believe because of the saving of the soul -'or in order to the saving of the soul? It is the preposition "eis" here.

Acts 11:18: "Repentance unto (eis) life" - does one repent because he has obtained "life" or in order to obtain this life? It is the preposition "eis" in this passage.

2 Cor. 7:10: "Repentance unto (eis) salvation." Does one repent because he has obtained salvation or in order to obtain it. It is the same word "eis" in this passage.

Matt. 26:28: "This is my blood . . . shed for many for (eis) the remission of sins." Did Jesus Christ shed his blood because of the remission of the sins of the many - or in order to remission of their sins? It is the same word "eis" and is the same expression "for remission of sins" as in Acts 2:38. -

Mr. Norris never answered these parallels on the preposition "eis." But to take from him every vestige of argument attention was called to some passages sometimes thought to be an exception in the use of the word "eis" - passages that appear to use the preposition "eis" in the backward sense.

First: Matt. 3:11 - "I indeed baptize you with water (eis) repentance." Here, it is contended, that John meant that he baptized people because of repentance and not in order to repentance. But the word simply means "into" here - baptized into repentance - into the life obligated by repentance, or into the amendment of life. This is shown by his exhortation "bring forth fruits meet for repentance." The word repentance here is used broadly in the sense of conversion. In Acts 11:18 we are told that God granted to the Gentiles "repentance unto life." But in Acts 15:3 the same writer used the word conversion in referring to the same thing, stating that God had granted "the conversion of the Gentiles." Hence, repentance is used in these passages in the sense of conversion. Repentance in Acts 11:18 includes all that conversion does in Acts 15:3 - and it is into this repentance that John's subjects were baptized. They were baptized into the benefits or blessings repentance brings, as in Rom. 6:3-4, where it refers to being baptized into death - in the benefits of His death. So "eis" in Matt. 3:11 points forward, not backward. If John had meant "on account of" in that passage the word "dia" would have been used instead of the word "eis."

Second: Matt. 12:41 - "Because they repented at (eis) the preaching of Jonah." It is contended that the men of Nineveh repented "because of" the preaching of Jonah.

But that is not the statement of the text nor its meaning. They repented eis or into the preaching of Jonah. The Ninevites repented into the preaching of Jonah by their reformation - they "repented in sackcloth and ashes" and the Old Testament text tells us that God saw their works, like

John's command to "bring forth fruits meet for repentance." John's subjects were baptized into that kind of repentance and the Ninevites repented into Jonah's preaching in the same manner. So again "eis" looks forward, not backward.

Third: Mark 1:44 - "Go show thyself to the priest and offer for (eis) thy cleansing." It is argued that "for" here means "because of" - offer because of the cleansing. But the word "eis" here, as in other instances, simply means in order to. The healing took place before the cleansing. The text does not say, "offer for thy healing" - it says offer for thy cleansing. The law of cleansing is stated in Lev. 13:2-7. The leper was first healed - then the healed leper went to the priest for the cleansing, and in obedience to the law he must "offer for the cleansing" - make his offering in order to the cleansing, which followed the healing. So the argument on "eis" is lost. There is not one example, not one single example, of the word "eis" meaning because of or on account of - it always points forward, never backward, and from this rule and meaning there is no exception. The challenge to produce one was not met.

(6) The verbs - number and person.

In a final effort, a last resort, to break the force of Acts 2:38, Mr. Norris copied the Bogard argument on the "number and person" of the verbs "repent, and be baptized every one of you." The argument is that "repent" is second person plural, but "be baptized every one of you" is third person singular. The effort is to prove that repentance and baptism in their verb forms are not related in number and person and therefore cannot be related in design in this command. But the argument falls of its own weight due to the fatal fact that in the Greek of our New Testament there is no third person singular. The Greek Grammar states plainly that the Imperative takes only the second person, and that there is no third person singular. Our authority for the statement is the following Greek Grammars, which I have in my possession, duly marked and underlined. Hedley and Allen, Greek Grammar, page 264. Thayers Greek Lexicon, page 192. Liddell and Scott, page 478. There are others, but the Greek rule covering this point shows that their argument on the grammar of Acts 2:38 goes down with the rest of their sophistry.

But it was very forcefully pointed out to Mr. Norris that even if there were no Greek rule covering the point his argument that "repent," in the second person plural, could not be related in design with "be baptized," in the third person singular, was wrong in our own plain language. The following examples were submitted to him.

(1) A mother says to her children: "Come and be washed every one of you for the cleansing of your hands, and ye shall receive the gift of a good meal." Does the second person plural and third person singular keep the verbs "come" and "be washed" from being related in purpose? Certainly not.

(2) A benevolent physician, who discovers medicinal waters, says: "Go ye, and be bathed every one of you for the healing of your infirmities, and ye shall receive the blessings of good health."

(3) The county health officer commands: Turn and be vaccinated every one of you for the prevention of the smallpox etc."

(4) And the school authorities say: "Matriculate and be instructed every one of you for the reception of a diploma etc,"

It can be observed at a glance that the same persons who were commanded to repent in Acts 2:38 were commanded to be baptized, and for the same purpose. Repentance and baptism are joined together by that "copulative and" in that passage and they point in the same direction - whet one is for the other is for. The objections are pure sophistry.

These parallels on Acts 2:38 were not replied to during the debate.

III. When Was Saul Of Tarsus Saved?

One of Mr. Norris' greatest boasts is that his "new" slant on the conversion of Saul of Tarsus was not answered. He says in his book and in his paper - "note it down and see if he answers it." We did answer it - but they did not note it down.

The argument here surrounds the passage in Acts 22:16: "Arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord."

The language of the text implies (1) separation from sin; (2) how this separation is effected; (3) that the washing mentioned is not baptism, but in this passage it follows baptism, or is something that takes place in baptism. The "washing" in Acts 22:16 is exactly whet "remission" is in Acts 2:38. No one contends that remission is baptism in Acts 2. We do contend that baptism stands between the sinner and remission in that passage. Nor do we contend that the washing is baptism in Acts 22 - but baptism stands between the sinner and the washing in that passage.

Now, Mr. Norris' great killing argument is made on 1 Cor. 15:8 where the apostle Paul states that he was the last of them all to see the Lord and to become an apostle of the Lord. He thus adds: "And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time." With fancy flourishes Mr. Norris asserts that "born" in this verse means "born again" and therefore Paul was "born again" when Jesus appeared to him on the Damascus road. This is whet Mr. Norris "predicted" (after the debate was over) in his book that I would never answer, and he said, "take your pencils and note it down" (after the debate had closed) and "see if he answers it." But it was answered when he made it - before the debate closed, and before he put in his post mortem prediction.

His first mistake was in assuming that "born" in this verse means "born again." If "born" here means "born again" then Paul says that he was "born again out of due time." Well, when is the due time for a man to be born again? If Paul had been born before this time it would have been before he even believed on the Lord. Mr. Norris says the "due time" for one to be born is when he believed. Was not Paul born when he believed, according to his contention? Was that out of due time? But proof of the fact that the use of the word "born" here is not in the sense of "born again" lies in the fact that it is not the same word at all in the original text, nor the same expression in our own text. Note this proof: Englishman's Greek Concordance gives the word "born" in the expression "born out of due time" in 1 Cor. 15:8 from the word EKTROMA. But in the expression "being born again" in 1 Pet. 1:23 the word "born" is from ANAGENNAO and in the expression "except a man be born again" in John 3:5 the word "born" is

from GENNAO. That alone collapses his whole point - the great argument that no man could answer! It is a different "born" entirely. It is not "born again" and does not refer to the new birth at all.

His second mistake is in the fact that the passage does not say that Paul was born. The apostle simply uses a comparison. He says "as of one born out of due time." Whet he referred to was not a birth - but "as" a birth out of its due time. Then whet did he mean? The answer is in the next verse. Read it: "For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle." He is not talking about the new birth - he is talking about his becoming an apostle after all the other apostles had already been called. He became an apostle later then they - as one born out of the due time. Anybody who can see through a ladder ought to be able to see that comparison.

The question, then, is when was Saul saved? The text tells us that a light shone round about him; that he fell to the earth; that he herd a voice and asked "who art thou, Lord? that when he was told it was Jesus who was speaking, he asked whet the Lord would have him to do; that he was commanded by the Lord to go into Damascus where it would be told him whet he must do; that Ananias came to him after he had fasted in blindness for three days and three nights, shut up in his room, and told him to "arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins." Now, when was Saul saved?

(1) If he was saved when he fell to the earth, he was saved before he knew who Jesus was, because he said "who art thou, Lord?"

(2) If he was saved when he asked the Lord whet he should do, he was saved before he knew it, for he said "Lord, whet wilt thou have me to do?"

(3) If he was saved when Jesus told him to go into the city, he was saved before Jesus Christ knew it, for Jesus said "there it shall be told thee whet thou must do."

(4) If he was saved while he was praying in Damascus, Ananias the Lord's disciple did not know, for he went to tell him whet to do.

(5) If he was saved while has was fasting in blindness, and praying in his room in Damascus, he was the most miserable saved man anybody ever read about.

(6) If he was saved even when Ananias laid his hands on him then he was saved before he did whet he was told to do to be saved.

Now that is the kind of a saved man we are told to believe Saul of Tarsus was as Mr. Norris attempts to make his people believe that Saul was "born again" and saved when the light shone around him on the road.

But when was he saved? Well - Jesus told him to go into the city where he would be told whet he must do. Ananias came and told him to "arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins." These three verbs are joined together by that copulative "and." It is the coupling pin of Mark 16:16 and of Acts 2:38. Arise "and" be baptized "and" wash away thy sins." Was he saved before his sins were washed away? Remember - baptism in this passage stands squarely between the sinner and the washing away of his sins.

Did a denominational preacher ever tell an unsaved man to do such a thing? Why not?

(7) The question of efficacy.

It is urged that water cannot literally wash away sins. Neither does the blood literally wash away sins.

No matter whet the washing is - baptism stands between the sinner and the washing away of his sins.

(8) Some objections answered.

1. Ananias called Saul "brother" which shows that Ananias regarded him a saved man. But Peter called the sinners on the day of Pentecost "brethren" before he had even told them to "repent" and be baptized and he called them "brethren" in Acts 3:17-19 before he had told them to "repent and be converted." Does that prove that they were saved before they repented or had been converted? Saul was a Jew and Ananias was a Jew - they were brother Jews, Israelites.

2. He received the Spirit before he was baptized, so he must have been saved before he was baptized. The text does not say that he received the Spirit before he was baptized. It simply says that he might be filled - but it does not state when it was done. Acts 22:21 is Paul's own version of whet occurred and he says that sight is all that he received at the hands of Ananias. When the Holy Spirit was imparted to him is not stated. But grant the miracle it still does not change the command of Ananias.

3. But the scales fell from him, hence he must have been saved before his baptism. Yes, but the scales fell from his eyes, not his heart. The miracle restored his physical sight. The question is - when was Saul saved? The answer is when he obeyed the command of Ananias to arise and be baptized - and no amount of labor can change the case.

These arguments were made affirmatively first, and negatively in answer to Mr. Norris' attempts to displace them. But we do not believe they ever went into the stenographers' notes as they were delivered in form and sequence or even in substance - and J. Frank Norris would never permit them to see the light of type in an accurately reported and published "Norris-Wallace Debate." Those who heard the debate know well, full well, who kept the debate from being published and why.

IV. The Argument On 1 Pet. 3:21

As in the other cases Mr. Norris has made a great ado on his "withering" reply to this argument. But it is easy to hold a one-sided debate, yet the readers of his own perverted book must be able to see the labor in his efforts to dispose of "something" his opponent had said and done to him.

Referring to the salvation of Noah from destruction as a type of our salvation from sin, Peter says: "Wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us." Here is salvation in type and antitype. The fact that one is temporal and the other is spiritual does not change the fact. The temporal rock in 1 Cor. 10:1-2 is made a figure of Christ. Does that make Christ figurative? So, first of all this passage cannot be disposed by saying that it is "just a figure."

The salvation is actual-- "by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." The comparison shows the connection that baptism has with this salvation.

1. God used water to deliver Noah.

2. God uses water - even baptism - to save us, Water drew the line of separation between the old world and the new world. Water delivered Noah from the old world into the new world. Water brought them into the new sacrificial covenant with God. These are precisely the functions of baptism. The meaning of Peter's language is evident.

But it is contended that Noah stayed out of the water! Well, if that is the point of comparison, then the rest of them were lost by getting into the water. Whet does that do for a Baptist, since he has to get into the water to become one? That would mean - do not be baptized, you will be lost if you do! So Jesus should have said "he that believeth and is baptized shall be damned!" This dodge only shows Baptist preachers to be an arch-perverters of the word of God.

The passage says as the water saved Noah so "baptism" saves us. Now, can one be baptized and stay out of the water? Will a Baptist say that one can be baptized and stay out of the water? Unless he says that, he has no argument on that point. The text says water saves us - even baptism, and even Baptists admit that to be baptized one must get in the water.

The point in 1 Pet. 3:21 is not whet baptism is but rather whet baptism does. It saves us. Any explanation that says baptism does not save us is not an explanation - it is a contradiction.

Summing it up:

  1. One cannot be baptized and stay out of the water.
  2. Previous to baptism salvation does not exist.
  3. Subsequent to baptism, salvation does exist.
  4. Without baptism therefore, the salvation of a gospel subject cannot exist.

Noah was saved:

  1. By grace - he "found favor in the eyes of the Lord." (Gen. 6:8).
  2. By faith - "By faith Noah prepared an ark to the saving of his house." (Heb. 11:6).
  3. By obedience - "By faith Noah prepared an ark." (Ibid.)
  4. By water - "'even baptism." (1 Pet. 3:21).

These points were made in affirmative argument and in rebuttals to Baptist sophistry - but they were not answered - nor were they taken down by the stenographers as they were spoken and delivered.


This passage is considered by some as an unanswerable objection to baptism. Contrary to that it proves the indispensable importance of the command.

Of Paul -- Of Christ

1. To be baptized in the name of Paul would make one to be - of Paul.

2. Then to be baptized in the name of Christ would make one to be--of Christ. Very definitely Paul showed that to be of Paul one must be baptized in Paul's name, and he objected to the Corinthians saying that they were "of Paul" for that very reason. Then just as definitely must one be baptized in the name of Christ to be of Christ--one cannot be "of Christ," therefore without being baptized in the name of Christ:

3. When Paul said, "lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name" - he showed that such a thing would have made baptism a non-essential, human ordinance, a pitiful man's ceremony. It would have destroyed the act of baptism. Paul did not think God that none or few had been baptized, but simply that he had not done it, since they were bent on being baptized in his name thus rendering the act meaningless. If baptism had been unimportant, as Norris says, it would not have made any difference and there was no need for concern on the point. The fact that baptism is an essential thing is the reason for Paul's concern as to the scripturalness of their act.

4. The meaning of the passage can be seen by comparison. There is a law governing elliptical sentences. In such sentences when the ellipsis is implied but not expressed, it must be supplied. This is a well-known rule of grammar. The following will serve as examples:

(1) Jesus said, "He that believeth on me believeth not on me, but on Him that sent me." Did he mean that they did not believe on him? No. With the ellipsis supplied the idea simply is, "He that believeth on me, believeth not on me only but also on him that sent me."

(2) Again Jesus said, "Labor not for the bread that perisheth but for that which endureth unto eternal life." Did Jesus forbid laboring for the bread that we eat? No. With the ellipsis supplied the thought reads, "Labor not only for the bread that perisheth but also for that which endureth unto eternal life."

(3) Another example is found in Paul's statement to Timothy. "Drink no longer water but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and for thine oft infirmities." Did Paul mean for Timothy to quit drinking water altogether? No. With the ellipsis supplied the thought is clear. "Drink no longer water only but use a little wine also for thy stomach's sake." That is, mix some of that acid wine into the water to correct the alkaline effects produced by the water Timothy had been drinking. Of course the wine-bibbers who use this text for authority to drink would not want to mix theirs with water - too weak as it is, they say!

(4) The Corinthian passage is of similar construction. When Paul said, "Christ sent me not to baptize but to preach the gospel," did he mean that he was not commissioned to baptize people as the twelve apostles were? In the Great Commission the twelve were positively commanded to go and baptize. Does this mean that Paul was not? Of course not. Then whet does it mean - just whet the other passages mean with ellipsis supplied. Here it is: "Christ sent me not to baptize only (merely) but to preach the gospel also." The preacher's first duty is to preach the gospel. The baptisms are the result and will follow in consequence. But men who were not doing the preaching could attend to the baptizing, whether Paul did or not. Yet he did baptize some of the Corinthians, and said so. Did he do something God had not sent or authorized him to do?

It must be apparent to all that the attempted argument is a mere dodge - and a poor one at that. It is mighty inconsistent for a Baptist to make it, for the reason that it has Paul saying that "Christ sent me not to make Baptists, but to preach the gospel" for no man can be a Baptist without baptism. And if baptism is no part of the gospel it certainly follows that Paul could have preached the gospel a thousand years and never have made a Baptist! Any Baptist who can see an inch in front of his nose would never bring that passage up for an argument against baptism.

These arguments were all made against Mr. Norris' sophistry, yet he boasts that his arguments were unanswered, not even referred to! There is little that can be done with one so utterly void of integrity.

V. The Fraudulent Claims Concerning Alexander Campbell

We are not Campbellites. We do not follow any man. But it is not right that such perversity as that which has been exhibited by Norris and his little satellites in the misrepresentations concerning Campbell and others of his day be allowed to pass without a scathing.

It was doubtless one of Mr. Norris' schemes to keep me away from the main line of argument by leading ma off into a defense of Campbell and other lights among us. He failed in that purpose. We were debating whet the Bible teaches and not whet Campbell or somebody else said about anything. And I refused to be led away.

In this Norris had the promptings of the millennial brethren among us. It was evident all the way through that Boll, Jorgenson, and Neal - aided by the insignificant group in Fort Worth and Dallas headed by Dr. Eugene Wood, were the instigators of that schema. It not only reacted against Norris; it boomeranged against the millennial faction with such force that they have never recovered from its effects.

Norris began by claiming that Campbell was on his side - and he could prove it by his writings. I replied that Presbyterians could prove sprinkling by Campbell for he was once a Presbyterian. There was a time when he believed and taught inherent depravity and other erroneous things. We pointed out that he started out a Presbyterian, found that they were wrong on the action of baptism and other matters and he left them. He then affiliated with a Baptist Association (though he never became a member of the Baptist church) until he found out that they are wrong on everything and he quit even "associating" with them. As he learned the full truth he accepted it and preached it.

But Mr. Norris claimed that Campbell did not believe that baptism was necessary to salvation - and that he was on his side. To that I replied that Norris had certainly made fools out of all the big Baptist preachers of Campbell's day for it was on that vary point that the Baptists fought Campbell so bitterly. Whet about J. B. Jeter's book on "Campbellism" and another entitled "The Gospel In Water" by Jarrell. They all accused Campbell of teaching "water salvation" - now Norris says he didn't do it. Whet a sat of dunces those Baptists were back there Campbell was on their side, according to Norris, and they didn't know it! This point made that section of Baptist preachers in front of us look silly (and they were) but Norris, thinking that he could decoy me into a defense, of Campbell, continued. The people knew better, so we, left him to his side issues and stayed on the mainline.

For the benefit, however, of some: who do not know any better, and as a rebuke to some who do know better, with especial reference in the -latter group to such Baptist boasters as Luther C. Peak, of Dallas, and others of his ilk, we submit some statements from Alexander Campbell that will settle the points involved with any honest or honorable man. Though it may not do either Norris or Peak any good, it will arm about 300,000 readers of this Special Number with the facts, the integrity of these purveyors of falsehood will sink to a new low in the estimation of the vast number who know the truth of these things.

I. Campbell On Baptism

"In my debate with Mr. McCalla in Kentucky, 1823, on this topic, I contended that it was a divine institution designed for putting the legitimate subject of it in actual possession of the remission of sins - that to every believing subject it did formally and in fact convey to him the forgiveness of sins." Christian Baptist, Page 401.

"In the third place I proceed to show that we have the most explicit proof that God forgives sins for the name's sake of his son, or when the name of Jesus Christ is named upon us in immersion, so soon as our bodies are put under water, at that very instant (in and by the act of immersion) our former or old sins are all washed away provided only that we are true believers." Christian Baptist, Page 416.

"I say that it is quite sufficient to show that in the first proclamation by the holy apostles, forgiveness of sins and Christian immersion were inseparably connected together. Peter, to whom was committed the keys, opened the kingdom of heaven in this manner, and made repentance, or reformation, and immersion, equally necessary to forgiveness." Christian Baptism, Page 416-17).

"That it is expressly said and explicitly taught that God forgives man's sins in the act of immersion." Christian Baptist, Page 421.

"Faith is not more evidently connected with immersion then is immersion with the forgiveness of sins. In the ancient gospel it was first a believing Jesus; next immersion; then forgiveness." Christian Baptist, Page 423.

"We connect faith with immersion as ESSENTIAL to forgiveness - and therefore as said of old "according to your faith, so be it unto you - so say we of immersion." Christian Baptist, Page 436.

A student of Campbell, indeed! Rather, a perverter of Campbell, the Word of God, and everything else that is true.

Our purpose in correcting these misrepresentations is not merely to tell people what Alexander Campbell taught. Whet a man teaches has nothing to do with whet the New Testament says - unless he teaches whet it says. We do not follow any man. The purpose of all this to expose the rank unreliability of J. Frank Norris and his utter lack of veracity. In all of these matters he has exhibited a reckless disregard for facts in hey case, and has been devoid of truth. In the language of John, the apostle, "He is a liar and the truth is not in him."

II. Campbell On Millennialism

Millennial Harbinger, 1841, Page 197-8:

"Israel, House of Jacob, Tabernacle of David, Mount Zion, Jerusalem, etc., are sometimes to be interpreted figuratively in the New Testament, just as much as any of the symbols of the- apocalypse. Indeed, most of the promises made to David, Israel and the fathers, as wall as those concerning Jerusalem, Mount Zion, "the rest of Canaan," "the seed of Abraham," referred to by the apostles, are applied not in their original and literal, but their figurative and spiritual import. We shall at the present adduce a few examples.

1st. Gabriel, in the annunciation of the nativity of the Messiah, thus speaks: "He shall be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God shall give to him the throne of his father David, and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever, and of his kingdom there shall be no end." Surely this is not the literal and earthly throne of David, nor is it the literal and earthly house of Jacob; nor can it be said, even now, that he has received the kingdom and throne of God on which David sat on earth; that he has reigned over the house of Jacob ever since, much less for ever; nor will he ever in Jerusalem sit upon the throne of David; for the earthly city shall never again be built, nor that throne established either on our hypothesis or on that of the Literalist of the Boston Convention."

Does J. Frank Norris believe the above statement? He does not. It is the opposite of whet J. Frank Norris affirmed. Then, did he tell the people the truth when he repeatedly told them that Alexander Campbell was on his side of the propositions discussed? He did not - and furthermore, we believe that he knew that he was not telling them the truth.

Millennial Harbinger 1841 Page 194-5:

"Now it ought to be distinctly noted that although the burial and resurrection of satan, or of the antagonist powers symbolized by the dragon and satan, are first spoken of in the vision; still the resurrection of the souls of the mighty dead - the revival of such spirits on earth, though next described, is first in fact and in occurrence: since Satan and his innumerable hosts are to encompass the city of the saints till some time after the thousand years, or the revival of "the rest of the dead." Have we not, then, I appeal to the unprejudiced readers, much more reason and consistency in explaining the first in contrast with the second symbolic resurrection, as we have clearly intimated in the context, then to imagine a second literal resurrection to suit a first literal resurrection. Indeed, as he first implies a second of the same sort, we are constrained to make both either literal or figurative. But the doctrine of two literal resurrections is no where taught in the scripture, unless it be taught in this passage; and certainly to select out of the midst of so many symbols, as we find in this passage, one phrase, and make it not only literal and unfigurative, but also to found on it the doctrine of two distinct corporeal and literal resurrections, would be a dangerous precedent - and without a parallel in sound criticism and good sense - not only in the Bible, but in other similar composition in the world. Where have we a first and second resurrection in any other passage of Jewish or Christian scriptures besides this? And where have we a hint of one literal resurrection from any prophet or apostle? I know of none. It appears therefore like building a castle upon the ice to found the theory of two proper resurrections upon such data as this passage affords."

Does J. Frank Norris believe the foregoing analysis of Revelation 20? He does not. Did he know that Campbell said these things? Well, he said that he was a student of Campbell. Did he tell the truth? He did not. He should have said that he was a perverter of Campbell instead. Millennial Harbinger, 1851, Page 21:

"Who, then, enlightened in the Christian religion, can pray "thy reign come," or "thy kingdom come? I want no other proof of the darkness that yet covers much of Protestant Christendom then the papal ceremonious hebdomadal abuse of "the Lord's prayer," as it is named in many hundred synagogues' in this so-called Bible enlightened land.'

"The kingdom has come and the king has been on the throne of David now more than 1800 years; still, myriads are yet praying 'thy kingdom come,'! ! Some qualify it by such awkward phrases as 'thy kingdom come into the hearts of this people;' 'thy kingdom come in its ultimate glory.' But this is to desecrate and mystify the scripture style."

Does J. Frank Norris believe that he can pray for the kingdom to come? Does he believe that "Christ the king has been on David's throne now more then 1800 years? He does not. Such affirmations ruin his whole theory. Yet he tells the people Alexander Campbell was on his side of the millennium question:

Millennial Harbinger, 1849, Page 291-4:

"David foretold that his son would be a king and sit upon his throne, - not on earth, but in the heavens."

"With this induction of all the passages that speak of the throne of David, and all that is said of the anointing or coronation of the Lord Jesus, can anyone find a vestige of authority for the assumption that Jesus Christ will descend from the throne of God in the heavens, to sit up any thing called a throne of David, in literal Jerusalem; and thus, in the form of a man, reign as a prince and priest over one nation and people, for any national, temporal or spiritual purpose!

"But one fact is not seen by those neophytes who assume so much on this subject. It is this, that David's throne was originally the throne of God, and David was but his representative. Jehovah himself was king of Israel, and when Israel repudiated him, he gave them in his anger what they sought, i.e. a king like other nations,' but he would merely deputize him and authorize him by an unction in his name, thereby constituting him the Lord's anointed.' This is the mystery which none of these theological adventurers have yet been taught."

"God reigned on earth in the persons of Judah's kings on David's throne. But after the Jews said - `This is the heir, come let us kill and seize the inheritance," he translated the throne of David to heaven and placed his Son upon it and there it will continue as the seat of the Lord Jesus Christ till all enemies fall before him."

Yet J. Frank Norris says that he has been "a student of Campbell" and that Alexander Campbell is on his side, and that on the issues between us, he was the Campbellite! In the above passages Campbell called Norris "a neophyte" who "assumes so much on this subject" and branded him and his ilk as "theological adventurers" who have not "yet been taught"! On his side, indeed! A Campbellite-umph! I am not myself a "Campbellite" but I do not aim to allow J. Frank Norris to slander the good name of Alexander Campbell by calling himself one on this or any other subject!

There are many other such passages in the writings of Alexander Campbell. But these will suffice to prove the utter disregard of facts characteristic of these men who have attempted to deceive the public in general and members of the churches of Christ in particular with the propaganda that Alexander Campbell believed and taught the millennial theories of J. Frank Norris, R. H. Boll, or any other Premillennialist. The effort on the part of them all must be branded as downright dishonesty and a willful effort to deceive.