Images de page
PDF
ePub

See Ross's History of All Religions, and Robinson's Charles V., vol. ii, p. 301. I suppose in neither case ought the testimony to be rendered invalid by the visionary views of the witness in some other matters.

I am entirely satisfied with the collateral testimony for infant baptism given from the writings of the fathers in the former argument, and shall not repeat them here, nor add to the number of the witnesses, as I conceive for the candid they are quite sufficient, and others would not be convinced by a cloud of witnesses. It was to the interest of Demetrius and his silversmiths, when "their craft was in danger," to cry out, "Great is Diana of the Ephesians;" this was more easily done than either to prove the claims of Diana, or to disprove the preaching of St. Paul.

I had shown that Mr. B. and Mr. Judson differed only about four hundred years in fixing the origin of infant baptism: Mr. B., page 39, complains that "I have done him great injustice" in this case. He seems, candid reader, to have been so much hurt, that he does little beside complain of injustice done him. He not only disagreed with Mr. Judson, but now, in the very paragraph in which he complains, he contradicts himself, as I shall here show. He says first, "The practice of baptizing infants grew out of an opinion very early entertained by the Church of Rome, that no unbaptized person could inherit the kingdom of heaven." Then he says, "For although the baptism of infants was invented as early as the close of the second century,

the sprinkling of infants was not regularly introduced until 753," &c. Now, reader, will he say that the Church of Rome existed at the close of the second century ?* If he will continue to display his want of acquaintance with church history, or to say and unsay in the same paragraph, that is not my fault. I shall show the reader, before I have done with his Letters, that there are some other things that need a salvo.

What I said of the Waldenses being Pedobaptists, and the proof I adduced, has not been set aside by what Mr. B. has adduced from Mr. Jones and Mosheim. I cannot believe that Mr. B. himself thought the evidence in point; for, immediately after adducing his testimony, he says, 66 Still I do not build upon this my views of the kingdom of Christ. No: I have a better manual." Then he refers to the "word of his king," and to the "commission," "He that believeth and is baptized." He says, "This puts an end to the controversy, in my mind." This, after all, is the only argument the Baptists have against infant baptism.

Mr. B., page 41, drags in the subject of ordination, and asks, with a haughty air, "What right had Mr. Wesley to ordain bishops and priests?" and introduces Dr. Cook's book, as though he believed the doctor's views. Now, reader, when Mr. B. and myself are done with

*By "the Church of Rome" we understand the author not to refer to the church at Rome, as it existed in apostolic times, but the Roman hierarchy as it has oxisted for several centuries under the reign of the popes.-ED.

the subject of baptism, if he prefers a controversy with me on ordination and succession, then I shall think it the most proper time to answer his question relative to Mr. Wesley. Until then, I refer him on that subject to Bishop Emory's "Defence of our Fathers," and to D. Isaacs on "Ecclesiastical Claims."

On page 42 we have another instance of the gentleman's complaining without cause. Instead of quoting my language in the case, he makes a desperate effort to excite public sympathy in his favour. He says, "I am truly sorry to find that you are willing to sustain your cause by an attack upon my motives.” "You represent me (page 76) as being 'prepared to make a sacrifice of all historical evidence upon the altar of a prejudice that is both deaf and blind," &c. I represented no such thing. I did not say a word about his sacrificing at any altar. I did

not mention his name or allude to him in the sentence, the latter part of which only he quotes. And, if he had sneered at the conduct and feelings of mothers, who wished to have their children baptized before they died, was it not much worse in him to sneer, than for me to allude to his having done it? If he had not done it, why did he not deny it, instead of giving his readers a display about "the talents. and dignity of a presiding elder," about "Goliath and David," and " "policy," " and " common politeness," &c.?

Now, candid reader, I never supposed the important and responsible office which I held,

when I answered Mr. B., gave me any increase of talents or dignity. If it did, however, as he intimates, as my term of service, according to our economy, has now expired, he will have the consolation to know that he contends with one in a different capacity, only an elder, like himself. It is possible Mr. B. may be able to teach me "policy," as I do not profess to be an adept in craftiness. I suppose the intelligent reader of his Letters will conclude that if I should need lessons in "common politeness," it will be necessary for me to seek some other teacher.

Mr. B. invited me to write on baptism, and I complied, perhaps not to his mind or liking. Notwithstanding he invited me to write, and offered inducements to me, he says, page 43,

66

I neglected my district, in order to write these eighty pages." And gives this in such a way, as to lead his readers to suppose that he quoted it from the Appeal, page 6. I have only to say, that this is a sin of which I am not guilty, and I have no fears that it will be imputed to me by those who know me. If Mr. B. can help his cause by any such groundless allegations, and can find that his conscience will sustain him in being an accuser of the brethren," he has my full consent to avail himself of it. It will occur to the reader, however, that that must be a bad cause which needs such support.

[ocr errors]

The case of Simon, the sorcerer, which I dwelt upon in my Appeal, seems to have presented some difficulty in the way of Mr. B.'s

views. He touches it on page 44, and then drops it as though it burnt him. He again comes up to it, page 47, and, after all, blinks the question involved in the case, thinking, I suppose, that it was prudent not "to follow me" in that case, as it presented "a two-horned dilemma."

His affecting, on page 44, not to understand my remarks relative to Apollos, because, as he says, "I have not expressed myself with clearness," is one of his stratagems of warfare. What I said relative to Apollos, and Saul of Tarsus, I produced plain Scripture to support. As it is utterly impossible that his readers canhave any tolerable idea of my argument on the subject of adult candidates for baptism, from the manner in which he has represented it in his Letters, I beg leave to refer them to the first Appeal, pages 90-97. A dust may be raised to obscure the truth, but it is hard to reason successfully against the facts stated in the Scriptures of truth.

Mr. B. says, page 46, "None are really willing, but those who are really converted." This has a strong spice of "NEW DIVINITY." The apostle Paul, I think in Rom. vii, teaches an opposite doctrine; showing that there may be a will to good, while there is the absence of moral power to perform it: "For the good that I would, I do not; but the evil that I would not, that I do." Mr. B. thinks on the same page, that because "faith comes by hearing," therefore the falling of the Holy Ghost upon Cornelius had

« PrécédentContinuer »