8
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.
MR. BRADEN'S OPENING SPEECH.
__________
GENTLEMEN MODERATORS, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: -- To render such a discussion as this necessary,
there must be a difference of views between the parties. There is such difference between my opponent and
myself. He and his people teach, I. That mankind needed new revelations, in addition to those in the Bible,
when Joseph Smith pretended, in the book of Mormon and other pretended revelations to give new revelations
to the world. II That in the book of Mormon and other pretended revelations, Joseph Smith did give to the world
new revelations, in addition to those in the Bible. III. That Joseph Smith was a true
prophet of God. I believe I. That in the New Testament, God perfected and completed his work of revelation
in a system of universal and eternal truths, a law of universally applicable principles in the Gospel of
Christ, That man needs no additional revelations, and never will need any, for he cannot outgrow the universal
and eternally applicable principles of the Gospel. II. That all of the pretended revelations of Joe Smith are
base frauds and puerile fabrications. III. That Joe Smith was an infamous and villainous deceiver and scoundrel.
To render discussion profitable and conclusive in determining what is the truth in regard to the issues, there
must be a common standard of authority that is accepted as conclusive authority by both parties. There is such
a standard in this discussion. The Israelite Sacred Scriptures of the Old Testament, and the Christian Sacred
Scriptures of the New Testament.
The book of Mormon cannot be appealed to as authority in this discussion, for the issue is, 'Is the book of
Mormon worthy to be used as authority?" Even if it be found in this discussion, that it is worthy to be used
as authority, because it is of divine origin, that would not enable my opponent to use it in this discussion,
in determining the issues in this debate. All appeal to the book of Mormon, as a standard in this debate, will
be a begging of the question, or an impudent assumption of the very issue in debate. It is the work of each
disputant in a discussion, to show that his position, clearly and honestly defined, harmonizes with a correct
interpretation of this commonly accepted standard, and that the position of his opponent clearly and honestly
defined, does not harmonize with a correct interpretation and use of this standard. It is the work of my opponent
in this discussion to clearly and honestly define his affirmative, concealing and evading nothing, using no
equivocation or pettifogging, and then to show that his position thus defined, harmonizes with a fair
interpretation and use of the Scriptures. It is my work, if my opponent does not define his Affirmative clearly
and honestly -- if he attempts to conceal or evade the real teaching of his system, by equivocation, or
pettifogging to expose such chicanery and to show what are the real teachings of his system, and then to show
that the teachings of his system, fairly and clearly stated, do not harmonize with a correct interpretation of
the Scriptures.
There are three questions to be settled. I. What are the teachings of my opponent's system when clearly and
honestly stated without concealment or equivocation. II What do the Scriptures when correctly interpreted teach
in regard to the doctrine of his system. III. Do the Scriptures when clearly and fairly interpreted, harmonize
with a clear and honest statement of the doctrines of the system of my opponent. There is no sense in our
spending time in talking about what we both accept. Nor in caviling over what is not in dispute. Let us then
determine, as far as may be, in what do we agree; concerning what do we disagree; what conclusions should we
draw from those things in which we agree, concerning those things in which we disagree. Whether the position
of my opponent in regard to the things in which we agree is in harmony with his position in regard to those
things in which we disagree. Let us make the issues as few, as brief and as clear as possible, I. My opponent
and myself both believe that the Israelite Sacred Scriptures, of the Old Testament and the Christian Sacred
Scriptures, of the New Testament, were given by inspiration of God, and that they are therefore of divine
origin, and authority -- a revelation from God to man. We differ concerning "The Book of Mormon." My opponent
believes that it also was given by inspiration of God and that it is also of divine origin and authority as
revelation from God to man, containing "the fullness of the Gospel," and that it stands related to the New
Testament as that does to the Old -- and is as much superior to it. I believe that the Book of Mormon is a base,
puerile fabrication, and a wicked fraud.
We both believe that God has made revelations to man, through men inspired by the Holy Spirit -- through
angelic messengers -- and through his Son Jesus the Christ. My opponent believes that he has spoken to men
through Joseph Smith, and men who have accepted him as a prophet of God, and that God has through such persons,
given revelations to men. I believe that Joseph Smith was a wicked, contemptible impostor and that all who have
pretended to speak by inspiration, in this age
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.
9
are either hypocritical impostors or self-deluded visionaries. III. We both believe that, in the apostolic
age, God spoke to men through the apostles of Christ, and through persons to whom the apostles imparted
supernatural gifts, by the imposition of their hands. My opponent believes, that in the apostolic age, others
than those to whom the apostles imparted supernatural gifts by the imposition of hands, enjoyed those gifts.
He believes also that those gifts were an all important element of the religion of Christ, and that they were
to continue, until the end of time, in the church. That those gifts can be enjoyed now. That they should be
enjoyed now. That the condition of the church where those gifts are not enjoyed is that of apostasy -- a dead
church. He believes that those gifts can be imparted now by the imposition of hands, of persons now living.
That they are so imparted and enjoyed in his organization. That all believers who do not enjoy those gifts are
in an apostate condition.
I believe that those gifts were to exist only during the apostolic age. That it was the will of God that they
should cease, when the word of God was completed in the New Testament, and that, as it was his will that they
should cease then they did cease. That in the apostolic age, those gifts were never enjoyed by any, except
those to whom an apostle imparted them by the imposition of his hands. That no one but an apostle could, or
ever did impart those gifts. That they never descended to a third person. That the power to impart those gifts
was the "sign of apostleship." That when the last person, to whom an apostle imparted those gifts died, they
ceased from earth. That such was God's will and law. Also that the condition of the church, when the best of
those gifts were enjoyed, was the formative, the child-like condition of the church. That the condition of the
church under the control of "the perfect law of liberty," -- "of that which is perfect," the completed word of
God, is as much superior to the condition of the church, when the best of these gifts were enjoyed, as the
condition of the world, when God ceased from creation -- after creating man, is superior to the period, when by
miracles of creation, he was preparing for man. Or as the condition of the full grown man is superior to that
of the undeveloped child. Or as the condition of our country under our completed constitution, and government
in accordance with it, is superior to the condition of our nation, while the constitution convention was in
session, framing the constitution.
I am careful to define and elaborate these differences, because this is the key note to the whole discussion.
This is the crucial issue in this debate. My opponent bases his claim that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of
God; that the Book of Mormon was given by inspiration of God, that it "contains the fulness of the Gospel" --
that the Book of Mormon and other pretended revelations stand related to the New Testament, as the New Testament
stands related to the Old Testament, that his people possesses these miraculous powers and spiritual gifts, on
a claim that the promises of Joel and other prophets, of John the Baptist, of Jesus, of Peter and the apostles,
concerning spiritual gifts, were to be enjoyed by the church in all ages. If my position, that these promises
refer only to the apostolic age, and were enjoyed only in the apostolic age, and that they were to remain only
until the Word of God was completed in the New Testament, -- that in the New Testament, God completed this
miraculous work and the exercise of spiritual gifts, in a perfect revelation of a complete system of universally
applicable and eternal truths and principles be true, it utterly demolishes the claim of my opponent, by showing
that revelations, in addition to those in the Bible, are needless, and contrary to the teachings of God's Word,
and therefore his Book of Mormon and pretended revelations are base frauds, and Joe Smith a vile impostor.
We both believe that all followers of Christ, should be united and stand on the divine platform, laid down for
such union, in Ephesians, IV. (A.) One God the Father. I shall in the right place, prove that the teachings of
the system of my opponent, in regard to the one God, are gross materialism and idolatry. (B.) One Lord; Jesus
of Nazareth; the Christ, the only begotten son of God -- the only Divine Prophet, or source of all teaching in
religion -- the only Divine Priest, or sacrifice and atonement for the sins of all men -- the only mediator
between God and man -- the only Divine King, -- the only source of all law in religion, and the only one whose
commands we are to obey, in religion. I shall, in the right place, express the gross sensualism of my opponent's
system in regard to the origin and character of the Son of God. My opponent claims that Joe Smith was a prophet
of God, whose teachings are to be obeyed, accepted as "the fullness of the gospel," and as much superior to
those of Jesus, as the teachings of Jesus, are superior to those of the prophets of the Old Testament; and
whose commands are as much superior to the New Testament as the New Testament is to the Old Testament. I believe
that Joe Smith was a base impostor, a wicked deceiver, whose silly fabrications should be despised as
contemptible frauds. (C.) One Holy Spirit, who inspired the men whose inspired acts are recorded in the Bible.
My opponent believes that the Holy Spirit inspired Joe Smith, and others who have accepted him as a true
prophet of God, and that he inspires men now. I believe that all inspiration and miraculous powers ceased in
the apostolic age, having accomplished their purpose, in giving to mankind, a completed revelation of general
and universally applicable truths; and that the Holy Spirit now influences men, in the only way in which one
intelligence
10
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.
can exert a moral influence over another, that is through the truth contained in his utterances recorded in
the Scriptures and through the teaching that is in accordance with the truths revealed by the Holy Spirit in
the Scriptures.
(D.) The one faith -- the faith -- the teaching -- the Word of God, -- the scriptures -- "the faith once
delivered to the Saints." My opponent would add to this "one faith" delivered to the Saints -- to God's Word,
the Book of Mormon and other pretended revelations of Joe Smith and of others who accept Joe Smith as a prophet
of God. I reject all of these as base fabrications of impostors, or as silly vagaries of fanatical visionaries,
(E.) One baptism -- immersion into water in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit -- into the remission of
sins. My opponent teaches these errors in regard to baptism. I. Baptism for the miraculous gift of the Holy
Spirit. II. That baptism in the Holy Spirit was universal in the church, in the apostolic age, and that it can
be enjoyed now, and exists in his organization, III. The farce of baptizing the living as proxies for the dead.
I believe that in the days of the apostles only those of the baptized received the miraculous gifts of the Holy
Spirit, to whom an apostle imparted them by the imposition of his hands. I believe also that there were never
but two occasions of baptism in the Holy Spirit, one on the day of Pentecost in Jerusalem -- the other at the
house of Cornelius in Caesarea -- that both were miraculous -- direct miracles from Heaven and never were, and
never will be repeated. The baptism for the dead I regard as a farce resulting from a blunder in regard to an
obscure passage of Scripture.
(F.) One hope -- remission of sine to the penitent believer who is baptized into Christ -- union with God and
his Holy Spirit, so long as the Christian, in a holy life, makes his body a fit temple for such union and such
a guest; and eternal life if men are faithful unto death. My opponent includes in this hope, miraculous spiritual
gifts in this life and he debases the eternal hope into a materialistic sensual reigning of Mormons over
Gentiles, in a materialistic sensual state, like the Paradise of the Mahommedan. (G.) One body --"The church
of God" or "The church of Christ." Christ is the head of the body, and all believers are living stones, members
in this body, this temple. In this church are Evangelists who proclaim the good news; Overseers who take care
of the flock -- Servants who minister unto the church; and members who are not called to such work. My opponent
adds to this simple statement of the New Testament presidents, councilors, apostles, twelve apostles, three
seventies of apostles, traveling bishops, presiding elders, quorums, patriarchs, seers, prophets, pastors,
teachers, translators revelators, until not even an inspired Mormon knows how many more, and about one-third
of the men are officers of some sort. He asserts that all of these should-exercise miraculous powers, and divides
them into the Melchisedec priesthood and the Aaronic priesthood, and tells us that the Aaronic priest must be a
literal descendant of Aaron. That caps the climax of absurdity.
(H.) One name -- "Christian" -- for all individuals who are followers of Christ; and "Church of God" or "Church
of Christ " for the one body composed of these followers of Christ or Christians. My opponent calls his people
"Latter Day Saints of Jesus Christ." Shades of the apostles what an Ashdodish lingo! He calls his organization
"The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints." Where in the World of God does he find such a
rigmarole as that? He may find such a jargon in the Book of Doctrines and Covenants, or Joe Smith's Book of
Abraham, but not in the Scriptures. Such an Ashdodish Babel is not found in the pure speech of Canaan, in God's
word. Such is a fair statement of the points concerning which we agree and also those concerning which we
disagree. My opponent summarizes his teachings in his proposition: "The Book of Mormon is of divine origin and
entitled to the confidence of all Christian people."
My first and cardinal objection to my opponent's position is that the Bible teaches that the work of
inspiration, miracles and revelation was completed in the revelations of the Son of God, that he [gave] in
person, and through his apostles, in the New Testament, in which there is given to mankind, a system of eternal
truths, universally applicable principles, which man can not outgrow, for which there can he no substitute, and
to which there can be no additions. That as inspiration and miracle had accomplished their work in completing
revelation; they ceased when the last person died to whom an apostle had imparted spiritual gifts, by the
imposition of his hands. If this position be true, the Scriptures teach that such a claim as my opponent makes
for his Book of Mormon, is absolutely impossible. It was not given, or translated by inspiration, for the Bible
teaches that inspiration and miraculous power ceased nearly 1,800 years before it appeared. This is the crucial
question, the vital issue of this discussion. If my position be Scripturally true, my opponent's affirmatives
are utterly unscriptural and utterly untrue, according to what is the standard of truth in this debate. We
intend to hold our opponent right to the work on this point. If he does not meet and overturn my position, his
claim for the Book of Mormon is "as baseless as the fabric of a dream."
The first vital query then is "What do the Scriptures teach in regard to inspiration, miracles and revelations
-- in regard to when they first appeared -- their purpose -- their history and development -- how long they were
to continue? What was their purpose, and how long did that purpose make it necessary for them to continue? What
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.
11
do the Scriptures teach in regard to the continuance of inspiration, miracle and revelation? And their
completion and cessation? The Scriptures teach that the Father has spoken, in the hearing of man only three
times. At the baptism of Jesus, Matthew, III 17. At the transfiguration, Matthew, XVII, 5. When Jesus prayed
and the multitude heard the answer, John, XII, 28. On all other occasions, the Father has spoken through
representatives, -- the Word -- the Christ -- the Holy Spirit -- angels inspired men. The Word spoke to men
through angels or through men inspired by the Holy Spirit. The Word was the God of the Old Testament, John I.
Colassians, I. Hebrew I. The Word the God of the Old Testament spoke through angels, Acts, VII, " Ye received
the word through the ministry of angels "The law was ordained through angels, by the hand of a mediator" (Moses).
While on earth Christ, spoke to men. Angels spoke to men as representatives of Jehovah, the Word and of Christ
after his ascension. Rev. I. "The revelation of Jesus, the Christ, which God gave to him, to show to his
servants, the things which must shortly come to pass, and he sent his angels to his servant John and made them
known unto John, and John bear witness of the word of God." In Exodus, III, Me read interchangeably, "Jehovah
said," and "the angels said," showing that Jehovah spoke through his angels that represented him. In several
places Jehovah says, to Moses through his angel that represented him, " I send my angel before you. I have put
my word in his mouth. Hear him," etc. Isaiah, LXI, we read that the Mosaic dispensation was given by "an angel
of the face of Jehovah" or a messenger from his presence. We might illustrate this idea by many other passages,
but these will suffice, for probably our only dispute will be over the work of the Holy Spirit.
Both parties agree that the Holy Spirit inspired all, men who acted, spoke, or wrote under inspiration, from
Adam to Malachi; that he inspired all who acted, spoke, or wrote under inspiration from Zachariah, the father
of John the Baptist, until the last person died to whom an apostle imparted spiritual gifts, by the imposition
of his hands. My opponent claims that the Scriptures teach that these spiritual gifts were to remain in the
church until the end of time, that it is the law of God that they should now exist, that they do now exist in
his organization, that as a result of such existence of these gifts Joseph Smith was inspired, was a true prophet
of God, and therefore the "Book of Mormon," that he gave to the world, is a revelation from God. I claim that
the Scriptures teach that these miraculous powers of the Holy Spirit were given for a specific purpose, the
revelation of a plan of redemption -- that they were to exist until that purpose was accomplished in completing
the New Testament -- that they ceased when they accomplished this purpose, in completing this revelation, in the
New Testament. I claim that the law of God ordains that they were to exist for a certain purpose, the revelation
of the scheme of redemption, and they were to continue until that object was accomplished. The purpose for which
God ordained their existence and continuation, has been accomplished, in completing the New Testament; and they
have ceased, having accomplished their object, and being no longer necessary.
The issue is not one of power, but of fact and law. Not whether God can impart gifts now, but whether it is his
law that they should exist now. Or is it his law that they should cease with the apostolic age, having
accomplished their objects. As a question of fact, did Joseph Smith possess these powers? Do his followers now
possess them? Proving that they can be exercised now, would not prove that Joseph Smith possessed them, nor that
his followers do possess them. A man may be able to practice law, but that does not prove he does so. The fact
that God can impart such powers now, does not prove that he does so. God can have apples grow as tubers on the
roots of trees, but that does not prove that he does. The question of fact remains, "How do apples grow?" The
fact that God imparted these powers to persons in former ages, does not prove that he does so now. God once
brought animals and plants into existence by miracle of direct creation. That does not prove that he does so
now. As a matter of fact, we know that he does not, but that he brings them into existence through operation
of natural law.
Let me here expose the vital error of my opponent's position, by an illustration. God exerted his miraculous
powers in creation, to prepare the way for natural law, the law of reproduction, and the world is in a higher
and more perfect condition under the operation of natural law, than when God exerted miraculous power, in
bringing animals and plants into being, by creation. Miraculous power, in creation, was only temporary, and
provisional, and exerted only to prepare the way for the higher and more perfect natural law. In like manner,
God exerted his miraculous power in connection with revelation, only to prepare the way for the higher and
permanent, a completed system of divine revealed truth, in the completed word of God, in the completed New
Testament. Miraculous power in revelation, ceased when that purpose was accomplished; just as miraculous power,
in creation ceased when it had prepared for, and introduced the higher and the permanent, the operation of
natural law. Miraculous power in connection with revelation, was inferior to the work of the completed word of
God, just as miraculous power, in creation, was inferior to the operation of natural law. God is in the
operation of his completed word of truth, in a higher and more perfect manner, than he ever was in the highest
exercise of miraculous power, just as he is
12
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.
in the operation of natural law in a higher and more perfect sense, than he ever was in the exercise of
miraculous power in creation. In each case the method employed at first, was provisional and temporary, and was
employed only to introduce the higher and permanent for which it prepared the way. There is no evading the
conclusion that the operation of natural law and the influence of the revealed truths of God's completed word,
are superior to the highest exercise of miraculous power, either in creation or revelation.
We do not remove God out of nature, or his word; but we show that, in each case, he acts in a higher and more
perfect manner. We do not remove a single thing God created nor a single truth of revelation. Miraculous power
was not a part of the things created, but the means of creating them, and ceased when that was done, and gave
way to the operation of a higher and more perfect means of accomplishing the same end. Miraculous power was not
a part of the truths revealed, but the means of revealing divine truth, and ceased when that work was done, and
gave way to a higher and more perfect work, and presence of God in the moral influence of the divine truths
revealed. The idea of my opponent, that the possession of miraculous power is the thing to be desired above
everything else, and that the condition of the church, when it was exercised, was the highest condition of the
church, and far superior to its condition now, when it does not exist, and the church exerts only moral power
resident in perfect truth, is a contradiction of the Scriptures, of reason, and of fact. Such a state of the
church was the childhood of the church. The exercise of such gifts was necessary because it was in its childhood.
They were aids to childhood, that ceased when the church laid aside such childish things." The church is now
in its manhood, and governed by "the perfect law of liberty" the completed Word of God. The moral power of
divine truth, appealing to reason and conscience of men as rational beings, is far superior to miracles,
appealing to the childish wonder of children.
A vital query is suggested here. How can one intelligence influence another? How can one spirit, the Holy Spirit,
influence another spirit -- the spirit of man? Man can influence his fellow man in two ways. I. By utterances
or acts that convey ideas to the minds of the persons addressed. This is the only moral power or influence that
one spirit can exert on another. II. An abnormal psychological influence, called mesmerism or psychology. This
is not a moral influence for it leaves the mind influenced no wiser, no better In like manner the Holy Spirit
has exerted two influences over the spirit of men. I A miraculous influence, psychologizing the spirits of men,
so that they uttered the words he wanted them to perform. II. The ordinary influence, that he has exerted on
the minds of those who heard or read the utterances of those he psychologized, or saw or read the acts they
performed. In the miraculous work of the Holy Spirit he has always exerted two influences. I. The miraculous
psychological influence exerted on the hearts of those inspired by which he caused them to do or say what he
wanted to reveal to others. I. The ordinary and moral influence that he exerted on the minds of those who heard
or read their revelations.
We desire now to emphasize a thought that we do not want to be lost sight of for one moment in the discussion
of the issues before us. "The miraculous influence of the Holy Spirit never, in a single instance, exerted one
particle of moral power, on the spirit of the person influenced by it; never in a single instance produced one
particle of moral change in the person influenced by it." The cases of Baalam, Saul King of Israel, Jonah and
Caiaphas show that the person influenced, often uttered what was entirely opposed to his own wishes. That he
did not know what he would say before he was influenced. Nor what he was saying when the influence was upon him.
When the influence left him he knew no more about the meaning of what he had uttered than any other person, and
had to study it the same as any other person. Peter says, "The Prophets, who prophesied of the good that should
come unto you, sought and searched diligently, what manner of time, and what things, the Spirit of Christ, that
was in them did signify, when he testified beforehand of the sufferings of Christ and the glory that should
follow." The character of Baalam, Saul, Caiaphas and Jonah show that this influence of the spirit was imparted,
sometimes, regardless of character to vile, rebellious persons. That it left vile men just as it found them. It
did not change them morally one particle. We wish our readers to remember these facts, while weighing the
question, whether this influence was to remain in the church. As it was not a moral influence if was not I to
be desired, on an account of its moral benefits to the person influenced. As it produced no moral influence,
except through the truth it revealed, it ceased, when it had perfected that work. There can he no reason why it
should exist in the church when revelation was completed. There is no work that the church does now, or is
required, by the Word of God to perform, that can be accomplished by this miraculous influence, nor that it
can aid one particle.
Let us now trace the miraculous influence of the spirit in the Gospel Dispensation. Joel and other prophets
promised miraculous outpouring of the spirit in the last days of the Mosaic dispensation. Peter declared, on the
day of Pentecost, that the baptism in the Holy Spirit, received by him and his brethren was a partial fulfillment
of Joel's promise. "This," the baptism in the Holy Spirit, that he and his brethren had received, "is that which
was spoken by the prophet Joel." That it included the
THE BRADEN AND KELLEY DEBATE.
13
miraculous powers that others enjoyed in the apostolic age Peter's language has not the slightest reference to the
ordinary influence of the spirit on the Christian, when he says: "Ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" --
the Holy Spirit as a gift --"for the promise." What promise? Joel's promise of the miraculous influence of the
spirit, "is to you and your children, and to those that are afar off." -- It was, for Joel's promise was "to all
flesh, even as many as the Lord our God shall call." Call how? By the imposition of an apostle's hands as we shall
show. John the Baptist and our Saviour promised the baptism in the Holy Spirit. It was fulfilled on the day of
Pentecost and at the house of Cornelius. Our Saviour promised that his apostles should be inspired, when before
persecuting magistrates. They were and the Bible records, no other instances. Our Saviour declares: "that out of
those who believe on his name shall flow inspiration like rivers of water." This included the Baptism in the Holy
Spirit, and the gifts of the Holy Spirit that existed in the apostolic church. These had not yet been given.
In his last lecture to his apostles and to no others, as recorded in John, XIII to XVI, delivered just before
crucifixion, our Saviour told his apostles that he would leave them -- the apostles -- that he would send to
them -- the apostles -- the Comforter to take his place with them -- the apostles -- that the Comforter would reveal
to their minds -- the minds of the apostles -- what he had said to them -- the apostles -- that the Comforter would
guide them -- the apostles -- into all truth -- show them -- the apostles -- things to come, and would take the
things of the Father and show them to them -- the apostles. These promises have not the slightest reference to the
ordinary influence of the Holy Spirit on the Christians, for his work was all miraculous. These promises apply to
the apostles, and to no others. Our Saviour's address was a closing charge to his apostles, and has no application
to any other persons. It was a promise that they -- the apostles, should be qualified for the work that he committed
to their care -- committed to the apostles, and none others. After his resurrection he renewed this promise, when
he promised that his apostles should be endowed with power from on high. That they should be baptized in the Holy
Spirit.
Let us now dispose forever of the promise of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit. It was a promise. Not a command.
Was received. Not obeyed. Christ was the administrator. Not man. Was poured out from heaven. Not performed on
earth by man on another man. It was promised as a miraculous power. Not commanded as an ordinance. If was a
miracle. Was always attended with miracles. It always conferred miraculous power. It was not; in any name. It
was not a memorial, a monument, a symbol, a type, a likeness, a form, an object lesson, setting forth any fact
or truth. It was perhaps the most extraordinary and miraculous event in the Gospel Dispensation. Did not and
could not become a permanent element in the church.
There is only one baptism in the church, Eph., IV, 4. It is a command. Men are to administer if to others. Men
are to obey it. If is in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It is in water. It is a monument of Christ's
burial and resurrection -- monument of the great facts of the Gospel, a memorial, a type, a likeness, a symbol,
a form, an object lesson setting forth Christ's burial and resurrection -- also the sinner's burial to his past
sinful life, and his resurrection to a new life in Christ. It is for the remission of sins. It is a permanent
ordinance in the church. The Scriptures designate but two occurrences as Baptism in the Holy Spirit. Peter
declares, Acts, XI, "As I began to speak to the household [of] Cornelius, the Holy Spirit fell on them as he did
on us at the beginning, (on the day of Pentecost). Then remembered I the words of the Lord, how that he said:
"John indeed baptized in water, but; ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit." God bestowed the same gift --
the Holy Spirit as a gift -- on them as on us." Peter declares that these two occasions -- when the Holy Spirit
fell on the apostles and brethren, on the day of Pentecost, at Jerusalem -- and on the house of Cornelius in
Caesarea -- were baptisms in the Holy Spirit. The Bible knows no other. This disposes forever of all talk of
Baptism in the Holy Spirit now, or on any other occasion, than the two mentioned by the Scriptures. Persons might
as well claim the power to create a world, as to claim Baptism in the Holy Spirit. All such unscriptural visionary
ideas that leave an open door for fanaticism and folly and have cursed the world with the most infamous delusions
and crimes, should be abandoned.
|
Rev. Clark Braden
Elder Edmund L. Kelley