Images de page
PDF
ePub

"straw to catch at," in supporting his sinking cause, and vindicating his injured reputation.

66

66

In his remarks on my "string of questions," as he calls them, page 15, he seems quite to have lost his temper. I suppose those interrogatories awoke his "ordinary" or extraordinary sensibility." He is at a loss, he says, what to attribute those questions to ;—whether to a want of common sense," or to wickedness, in "intentional misrepresentation." He will have it that either my understanding or my heart is defective. He hopes, however, I will "find some explanation that will relieve him." Now, candid reader, I have no means by which to learn what Mr. B.'s meaning was, except from the words which he used. If he cannot find means to make himself understood, that is not my fault, and I have no fears that the intelligent reader will understand his words in any other sense than the obvious one which I gave them. He has acknowledged that the statements made in my quotation are contradicted by the facts in the case." Then if the reader shall find that I have quoted him fairly, it will appear that he himself has contradicted the facts relative to the institution of circumcision in the family of Abraham. My appeal is to you.

[ocr errors]

I will here present the reader with a quotation from Mr. B.'s Strictures, page 4, which may throw some light on the views expressed by him in his Sermon, page 17: "The Abrahamic dispensation secured TO ALL who were CIRCUMCISED, A PORTION IN THE EARTHLY

CANAAN." Now, will that gentleman say that this statement is not contradicted by the facts? Ishmael, and Esau, and their seed, were circumcised, and the men of Abraham's house, three hundred and eighteen in number; and did all, or any of them, have any portion in the EARTHLY CANAAN? I answer, No-and every man who is acquainted with his Bible, and has not a theory to support" by contradicting facts, will answer, NO.

[ocr errors]

On page 15, in noticing my remarks relative to the new constitution of Virginia, which I had used by way of illustration, Mr. B., instead of giving the illustration as I had stated it, gives just enough of it to make a wrong impression and answer his own purposes. If he had given all my words in the case, the reader would have seen that I was perfectly correct. I refer the reader to the "Appeal" for the illustration as I used it. Why did not the gentleman see fit to give the illustration which I took from the common law? I suppose he thought it best to keep that out of the view of his readers, as he has most of my arguments.

As Mr. B. has quoted our Discipline on this subject, and says members of other churches have to undergo an examination, and takes upon himself to suppose that we would make the matter of baptism a point in the examination of the applicant, I will only say, if he had found it convenient to quote the next sentence, the reader would have seen the explanation of the one he did quote. Here it is: "No person

shall be admitted to the Lord's supper among us, who is guilty of any practice for which we would exclude a member of our church."

As Mr. B., page 19, has dragged in the subject of female communion, and has declared that "there is a 'Thus saith the Lord' for it in every passage of Scripture that speaks of the Lord's supper at all," it may not be amiss to examine this matter a little. In the first mention of the supper, Luke xxii, 14-20, it is said that Jesus "sat down, and the twelve apostles with him." Now, will the gentleman say that part of the apostles were FEMALES? He says, in every passage where the supper is mentioned there is a "Thus saith the Lord" for female communion. It happens that we have the names of the twelve who were at the institution of the Lord's supper, and there is no female name among them. But he says, "disciples met, and we know, without any inference about it, that the females met with them; because we learn that both men and women were made disciples by baptism." "You might as well contend that it is an inference' to say that the males met to break bread; for they are no more specified than the females." Mr. B. surely presumes very much upon the ignorance or credulity of his readers, when he makes such sweeping declarations as the above. Does he suppose that they are so little acquainted with their Biblesthe book he so often calls the "poor man's lexicon❞—that he expects to pass off on them such unsupported declarations? I refer the

[ocr errors]

reader to 1 Cor. xi, 28, 29, 33—“ But let a MAN examine HIMSELF, and so let HIM eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For HE that eateth and drinketh unworthily-to HIMSELF, &c. Wherefore, my BRETHREN, when ye come together to eat," &c. And yet, Mr. B. says, males are no more specified than females. Our Baptist writers, aware that the course of reasoning they pursue with regard to infants, denying them the rite of baptism, because they say there is no precept or precedent for baptizing children, would, if adopted, in the case of females, exclude them from the Lord's table, have attempted to furnish a "Thus saith the Lord." And they will not allow that there is any inference in the matter. They argue thus: Women were baptized as well as men-women and men constituted the churches-the churches partook of the Lord's supper-therefore women have a right to the Lord's table. But is not this an inference? This is no EXPRESS warrant. It is strange that those who reason thus for women should yet refuse all inference for the infant children of women.

As Mr. B., page 20, has concluded, without reason, that I had either given up the argument from proselyte baptism, or had not made up an opinion on that point, and expresses a hope that he will hear no more on the subject, I have introduced a short article in the enlarged Appeal on proselyte baptism, to which I beg leave to refer the reader. To what I have there said on the subject I here add a remark, and several

authorities. The baptism of proselytes is generally supposed to have taken its rise from the baptism of the Jews when passing through the Red Sea, to which the apostle refers, 1 Cor. x, 1, 2. As they, coming out from idolatrous Egypt, were "all baptized to Moses," the Jews considered, in all after ages, that those who renounced idolatry, and joined the church of the true God, should be baptized as well as circumcised. In proof of which, I refer to the quotations given below.

Calmet's Dictionary, article Proselyte: "The Jews require three things in a complete proselyte; baptism, circumcision, and sacrifice; but for women, only baptism and sacrifice."

Witsius, one of Mr. B.'s witnesses, says, "When a Gentile became a proselyte of righteousness, three ceremonies were used, viz., circumcision, baptism, and sacrifice."

Stackhouse, another of Mr. B.'s witnesses, says, "The custom of the Jews, in all ages, has been to receive their heathen proselytes by baptism, as well as by sacrifice and circumcision."

Dr. Wall, another of Mr. B.'s witnesses, says, "Whenever Gentiles were proselyted to the Jewish religion, they were initiated by circumcision, the offering of a sacrifice, and baptism. They were all baptized, males and females, adults and infants. This was their constant practice, from the time of Moses to that of our Saviour, and from that period to the present day."

« PrécédentContinuer »