Images de page
PDF
ePub

OBLIGATION, ETC., OF BAPTISM.

169

the wide compass of creation, to prove that infants are proper subjects of gospel baptism". This is only one of many broad declarations, unsupported by proof, contained in his letters. The reader will perceive, from the above quotation, how little hope is to be entertained of making any impression upon men who claim to have in possession all the argument in "the wide compass of creation" on the subject of Christian baptism.

What I have written in the following pages is designed for those who have intelligence and candour sufficient, at least, to admit that they are not too wise to learn, or too knowing to be taught something more on the subject of this solemn and important ordinance; and who will weigh in the balances of impartial judgment what may be advanced, convinced that the cause of truth can never suffer by investigation.

Some of these letters I shall notice; others I shall barely allude to, as I have answered the points contained in them at length in the first "Appeal," and I cannot consent to waste either my own time, or the reader's, in repeating over those parts of my argument which Mr. B. has not seen fit to attempt to answer. It was my

aim, in the first reply to him, to condense the matter as much as possible; this I shall still keep in view, convinced that the strength of an argument does not consist in the use of many words, but in "words fitly spoken."

Mr. Broaddus sets out by professing to have no other object in view "than to maintain the

[ocr errors]

1

purity of our Lord's institutions," and yet it is manifest, in his "note to the reader," and throughout his twenty-one letters, that the vindication of his own reputation, which he considered implicated, gave him more concern than any thing else involved in the controversy; and he has fallen upon the strange expedient of proving himself innocent of mutilating, by an attempt to prove me guilty; with how much success the candid reader will be able to discern.

In his first letter, page 5, he acknowledges that I had offered "to meet any minister, or layman, in the bounds of my district," and yet, although he was fairly included in the offer, he says "he had received no offer from me."

Then, fearing, I suppose, that his language was somewhat contradictory, he adds: “But I will be candid enough to acknowledge, that if you had formally challenged me to an ORAL discussion, I should have declined it, for several reasons." He then gives three reasons, which may have satisfied that gentleman's understanding and conscience, but the flimsy character of which, I doubt not, the discerning public will discover. I will here set down his reasons. He says: "In the first place, common fame had informed me that you were naturally of a temperament which must render a debate with you very disagreeable to a man of ordinary sensibility." I had previously learned, indeed, that the gentleman had given the above reason to some person or persons privately, but I could not fully credit it at the time. I thought, how

ever, if that was his private reason, he would hardly so far forget himself as to put it in print; thus publicly sinning against the law of "that charity which covereth a multitude of sins;" "taking up a reproach against his neighbour," even though "common fame" might have laid it down at his feet. "Common fame" once said of HIм that was PURE and SPOTLESS, “He hath a devil, and is mad, why hear ye him?""He stirreth up the people"-" He speaketh blasphemies," &c. It is enough for the servant that he fare as his Lord. As Mr. B. would have it understood that he is conversant with that book that gives "correction in righteousness," he will, perhaps, upon reflection, see his error; and may, perchance, perceive that it is hardly modest to talk of the temperament of others, while his letters give such fearful evidence of a mixture of the sanguine and choleric in his own. If he will look at the "Course of Time," book viii, he may possibly learn a lesson froin the Christian poet that will be of service to him in future. Of "common fame," Pollok says:

"She was so infamous for lies,

That he, who of her sayings, on his creed,
The fewest enter'd, was deem'd wisest man."

Secondly; Mr. B. says, "I doubted whether I should be able, amid the exciting circumstances of a public debate, to present my own views of the subject in a proper spirit." So it seems he was afraid of himself, as well as of me. As he has thus referred to himself, I may

be permitted to close this point by saying, he thought, no doubt, a spark of my fire might possibly fall into his tinder-box, and that the effect might be disastrous to his own cause. "Prudence is the better part of valour;" and he that knows he carries a powder magazine about him does well to keep at a respectful distance from sparks. So much for his second

reason.

Thirdly, he was afraid to trust the people with an oral argument, thinking they would not be able to judge of its strength. In this, at least, we should have been equal, as they could have judged of the argument from his lips, as well as from mine.

I regret the necessity of noticing these things, rather foreign from the merits of the controversy; as they may be deemed somewhat personal in their nature.

The attempt Mr. B. makes, in his first letter, to show that the passage in the nineteenth chapter of Acts does not furnish evidence that John's baptism differed from Christian baptism is truly a lame attempt. How changeable are the views of those who contend for immersion as the exclusive mode! The old Anabaptists used to quote this passage to sustain them in rebaptizing. But now Mr. B. seems to suspect that possibly they were not rebaptized at all. He says, "Many eminent men have very plausibly contended that Paul did not rebaptize them."

"Plausible" as their views are in his judg

ment, he is not able to make up his mind yet to contradict the plain narrative of St. Luke, but supposes, without any shadow of evidence to support him, that there was some defect in the baptism which the twelve disciples at Ephesus had received, although John's baptism itself was not defective. He says, that "various reasons might be assigned for their being rebaptized, without, in the smallest degree, discrediting John's as Christian baptism." But the "various reasons" turn out to be one only, and that so meagre as to be unsupported by any evidence-merely a creation of Mr. B.'s own imagination! First, he has to suppose that those persons were baptized by some of John's disciples; secondly, that those disciples of John had not heard of the recent commission given to the disciples of Christ; and thirdly, that the twelve, at Ephesus, were baptized with a defective baptism, being taught to believe on a Saviour yet to come.

[ocr errors]

Now, candid reader, all this in Mr. B. is perfectly gratuitous, for there is not a word of it in the chapter. He might become a believer in infant baptism, if it would suit him, by a much smaller exercise of his guessing capacity. For instance, in the case of the children mentioned by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, who were taken in the Saviour's arms, if he would only be willing to suppose one thing instead of three, and say, "possibly" they were baptized, as well as blessed, then we should have him an advocate for infant baptism. The intelligent reader

« PrécédentContinuer »