Images de page
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

sarcasm and personal defamation," that it became necessary, in his "note to the reader," to inform him of it? I sought (as far as the nature of the case would admit) to use 'soft words" and "hard arguments." If, however, I had known that Mr. B. was 66 a man of" extra-“ ordinary sensibility," I might have used "soft arguments” and “hard words," which might have been more acceptable to the gentleman on several accounts, for certainly the intelligent reader will see that Mr. B. is no novice in those at the present, and with a little more practice he might become an adept both in the use of "soft arguments” and "hard words."

But I will not rail, but leave the gentleman to digest his own spleen.

I shall not promise to demonstrate any thing, either in regard to my own innocence or the goodness of my cause-I shall leave to the candid reader the task of making up a judgment for himself, both with regard to the subject and the writer. It may have been as well for Mr. B. to put a promise in his "note to the reader" that he will demonstrate his " own innocence," and that my "views of baptism are altogether without foundation in the word of God" as it is possible many of his readers.

may not be able to see the demonstration of either in the body of his work.

Having carefully read Mr. B.'s letters, I am more than ever convinced that the views of baptism held by our Baptist friends cannot be maintained.

All I ask of you, intelligent reader, is a candid examination of this revised and enlarged "Appeal," with the "Further Appeal," and I shall have no anxiety for the issue. "I speak as unto wise men-judge ye what I say."

Georgetown, D. C., July, 1836.

HENRY SLICER.

OBLIGATION, SUBJECTS, AND MODE

OF

BAPTISM.

IN calling public attention to the subject of Christian baptism, we wish to declare plainly and fully our views, without intending to offend any; and not expecting to give offence to the liberal and candid, who, while they claim the right to think, and according to their best light entertain and express their opinions, accord to others cordially the same which they claim for themselves.

In the arguments which we may adduce on the subject, it is not our design so much to prove that others are not right, as to prove that we are not wrong.

And if, when we have gone through the argument, we shall have failed to convince you that ours is the "more excellent way," we shall not think you any the worse Christians, unless, in the spirit of bigotry, you should unchristian others who may not agree with you in their doctrines and usages. For we conceive that no views of doctrine, or of the ordinances, however correct, can save any man, unless he be spiritually regenerated. For "neither circum

cision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature."

Many who have been as orthodox as an apostle, and have received the rite of baptism, have proved themselves to be but "baptized infidels, washed to fouler stains."

Having said thus much, we shall proceed to speak,

First, of the obligation and perpetuity-
Secondly, of the subjects-

And thirdly, of the mode of baptism.

THE OBLIGATION AND PERPETUITY OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.

On this part of the subject we and our Baptist friends have no controversy- -as we agree alike to assert and maintain the obligation of the ordinance. But there have been many, bearing the name of Christ, who look upon the subject with indifference, and others who argue against it, saying that it is a "carnal ordinance," and ought long since to have become extinct in the church of Christ. And in support of their views they adduce several passages of Scripture, and maintain that the baptism of the Spirit supersedes the necessity of water baptism. The views of such have grown, in part, out of the fact that our Baptist friends generally have confounded Christian baptism with the baptism of John, whereas the two should be considered entirely distinct, as we hope to be able to show hereafter. The two passages on which such

« PrécédentContinuer »