Images de page
PDF
ePub

capable of being comforted?" Here, the reader will perceive, is a string of questions, put by this gentleman in his Sermon, for what? Why, obviously to convey his sentiments to his readers in the case, or to mislead their minds and deceive them. And yet, after all these questions asked by him, he says, as you see above, "I did not even conjecture who they were," and declares, "I represent him as supposing many things with respect to them." So I did represent him as supposing some things at least; and if I have misrepresented him, in representing that when he asked those questions, and answered them, he honestly meant what he said, instead of intending to trifle with his readers, then I ask pardon for thus misrepresenting the gentleman, and hope he will extend it to me, as he has kindly offered to do in one of his letters, in another case. The truth is, candid reader, the Baptists have always found it a difficult task to make out a family for Lydia, without supposing that she had children. And, in order to help themselves in the case, some have supposed one thing, and others another. Some have thought that some of the women of whom we read, verse 13, were Lydia's household; others, discovering that the word "brethren" occurs in the fortieth verse, and finding that it would be hard work to transform those "women" into brethren," have concluded that they were partners in business" with Lydia, or "journeymen diers." Mr. B., however, (as he can express warrant" for "female commu

[ocr errors]

66

find an

[ocr errors]

nion in every passage where the supper is mentioned," and, of course, can find women in the

passage where the apostle says, "Let a MAN examine HIMSELF;" "Wherefore, 'my brethren, when ye come together to eat," &c., &c., 1 Cor. xi, 28, 33,) one would think, could have found no great difficulty in holding both the above hypotheses, as "the brethren" comforted would surely include Lydia's women, and journeymen diers also.

It was not at all necessary for Mr. B. to make such a flourish about his "little anecdote," as he calls it, and to put his readers to the trouble of examining the Scriptures before they could find out his meaning. I did, at Upperville, notice that old prescription of the Baptists for finding a family for Lydia, by supposing she had "journeymen diers," but I did not claim the honour of inventing it, as Mr. B.'s informant must have known, if he attended to what was said. I gave it as a part of the argument of the Baptists. I presume Mr. B. has heard for years of this "choice piece of wit," as he is pleased to call it, and I will not say, has often used it himself. The reader will find this supposition about Lydia's diers noticed in Watson's Institutes, part iv, page 394; and to show that I do not claim to be father of this precious creature of the imagination, I will give the words of Mr. Watson. He says, “Then, as if to mark more strikingly the hopelessness of the attempt to torture this passage to favour an opinion, her house' is made to consist of

journeymen diers, employed in preparing the purple she sold ;' and 'to complete the whole, these journeymen diers, although not a word is said of their conversion, nor even of their existence, in the whole story, are raised into 'the brethren.""

Mr. B. says, page 27, "that Timothy and Luke could not have been the brethren that Paul comforted' before he departed, because Timothy and Luke went with Paul to Berea,'" as I may see, he says, by consulting chap. xvii, 10-16. I have consulted the passage, and cannot see any such thing, for the best of all reasons, i. e., it is not there to be seen. Mr. Wesley says, in his note on the place, "St. Luke seems to have been left at Philippi." And if the reader will be at the pains to look at the twentieth chapter, 5th and 6th verses, he will see that Luke does not fall in with Paul until they met at Troas. He leaves off speaking of himself as one of Paul's company, in the sixteenth chapter, and does not resume that style again until the twentieth chapter. So Mr. B. will have to look again, and, if he sees clearly, he will then perceive that Paul went from Philippi to Thessalonica, and when a tumult arose there, the brethren sent him and Silas to Berea. Surely, candid reader, you will think that a gentleman who blunders as often as Mr. B. does in his statements as facts, ought either to be more careful, or less confident in making them.

After carefully noticing his third effort to explain this case, so as to operate against the

baptism of children, I am entirely satisfied that the solution I gave in my Appeal is not to be set aside by Mr. B. at least, as I propose further to demonstrate.

[ocr errors]

6

He has so arranged the words on page 60, as to cause them to make an utterly false impression on the mind of the reader. I do not say that he intended this. I do not speak of his motives, but of the fact. He says, "I do think, if your wise men' will but consider that Paul and Silas went into the house of Lydia, and comforted the brethren,' it will appear to them much more 'improbable' that they were visiting brethren than that they belonged to the family of Lydia." The reader will observe he puts the words, into the house of Lydia, in italics, then connects them with "comforted the brethren" by the copulative conjunction "and." I aver, upon the authority of common sense, that no man, in reading the passage in Acts without note or comment, would ever receive from it any such impression as his manner of presenting it gives. The words of Luke are, "And they went out of the prison, and entered into the house of Lydia: and when they had seen the brethren, they comforted them, and departed," Acts xvi, 40.

I shall now proceed to examine the matter at issue between Mr. B. and Mr. Taylor, the editor of Calmet's Dictionary, as quoted by myself. Mr. B. says he does not know who this gentleman is, nor has he ever heard before of the passage I quoted. Has that gentleman never

a

read the celebrated debate between Mr. Alexander Campbell and Mr. Maccalla, which took place in Kentucky? I should suppose he had, from the great similarity between some of Mr. B.'s and Mr. C.'s criticisms. In this debate Mr. Taylor is referred to as authority, and his and Dr. Rice's criticism was adopted by Mr. Maccalla. Mr. Campbell pronounced the criticism a "refuge of lies." Mr. B. says it is " palpable misrepresentation." This criticism of Mr. Taylor's is not only sustained by Dr. Rice, Mr. Maccalla, and Mr. Ralston, but in substance by Peter Edwards also. I might rest the argument here, with confidence of its being satisfactory to the candid; but shall proceed to examine some of the evidence that Mr. B. has produced, in order to show as he says) that Mr. Taylor has led me "completely astray." He says, "I will not furnish three hundred' instances, nor even fifty,' but I will furnish enough to satisfy the most skeptical that the sacred writers used the two words interchangeably."

[ocr errors]

6

The first case he mentions is Luke viii, 41 and 51, where there is an account of raising the little daughter of Jairus. In the 41st verse there is an evident allusion to the family, as the family needed his help, and the word is okos. In the 51st verse the dwelling is spoken of, and the word is oikia, confirming Taylor's criticism. Luke x, 5, is Mr. B.'s next proof: "Into whatsoever house ye enter, say, Peace be to this house." Here, again, in the first part of the

« PrécédentContinuer »