1. The church of which I, William Holt, am a member, is identical in doctrine and practice with the Church of Christ, as revealed in the Scriptures. Holt affirmed.
2. Jesus Christ is the very and eternal God, separate and apart from his human nature. Newgent affirmed.
3. Water baptism is for the remission of the past sins of the penitent believer. Holt affirmed.
4. The Holy Spirit bears a direct, immediate, and personal testimony to the believer of his pardon. Newgent affirmed.
5. Immersion is the only act of Christian baptism. Holt affirmed.
6. After a person is sufficiently instructed in the written Word, the Holy Spirit operates directly upon the heart in regeneration. Newgent affirmed.
In most respects the two men were well matched. Holt was a man of scholarship, a deep, logical thinker, and possessed oratorical ability of a high order, which, with the practice afforded by thirty-two debating bouts, rendered him an antagonist not to be despised. Newgent, then in his prime, possessed a splendid physique, a strong, musical voice that seemed never to tire, which was especially adapted for out-door speaking. Though not a product of the schools, as was his opponent, his mind was strong, clear, and alert. He was ever a close student, not only of books, but of human nature. He could readily analyze a proposition as much by intuition as by logic, and discern at a glance the weak places in his opponent’s position. His wit and humor served him well in such matters. When he turned the shafts of ridicule upon a weak point in the position of an opponent, it was as though all the batteries, field pieces, grape and canister, and every other instrument of destructive warfare had been turned loose at once. As there were none of the scholastic or bookish elements in his style, he invariably had the sympathy of the masses.
Doctor Holt made the opening address, affirming that his was the only true church—“identical in doctrine and practice with the Church of Christ as revealed in the Scriptures.” He referred to various doctrines held by his church and supported them by Scriptural authority. In most cases they were doctrines accepted by all evangelical churches, affording no ground for controversy. The address was eloquent and logical.
When Newgent arose to reply, he complimented the brother’s address and expressed his approval of much that was said. “But now, Mr. Moderator,” he continued, “I would like to know what church my brother belongs to when he asserts that they believe thus and so. He frequently referred to ‘My church.’ If he belongs to a church, how are we to know, in the absence of a written creed, what the doctrines of his church are? Shall we take his statements? That would not be safe, for I find that they differ among themselves on various important points.