Abbildungen der Seite

consequently unscriptural charity, and according to St. Paul, is so far“ carnal," who denies hearen to those who merely differ from himn in opinion. I do not intend to waste my time and fill up

of vour periodical with a useless discussion, so that unless G. C. R.'s reply (if he thinks fit to make one) be more pointed, and less irrelevant, I will not trouble you again upon this subject.

R. E. R.

the pages

me ask


REPLY TO R. E. R.'s TEIRD ARTICLE. First. May I request the courteous and candid reader to examine with care, the proem to this third communication of R. E. R., ere I proceed to make some few strictures thereon.

This same introduction announces the advance of my opponent by a very noisy flourish of trumpets, delivered by himself, proclaiming the purity of his motives, his "most holy and spotless designs," the perfection of his manner, &c., &c. Now my dear R. E. R. what, let you, all this trumpeting and parade to do with the subject before us ? Did I ever suspect or question the purity of your motives or the spotlessness of your designs ? Never. On the contrary, in my first" reply" I gave you credit for honesty of purpose in all you advanced, and most willingly would I do so still did not the scurrilous language, disingenious cavils, and gross falsehoods in which you so copiously indulge, in the present article, cause me considerable doubt on this important head. I judge the motives of men only by their actions and words: this unerring principle I have learned from my Bible, “For by thy words thou shalt be justified, , and by thy words thou shalt be condemned,” therefore I shall here present a few examples of your own words in proof of your pure motives. This is fair. Is it not? “Fiery tongue,"“ ugly limb of the old serpent." How“ holy and spotless the design” which suggested those most delicate and pure expressions; let the unbiassed reader judge. What, thou best of men," have I said in either of my former

* replies " which should have extorted from your immaculate heart such opprobrious, unmanly, and antichristian expressions as these ? “But we can scarcely wonder at this when we remember the peculiarity of the circumstances in which he (G. C. R.) is placed. Were he to deny," &c. This, R. E. R., is, to say the very least, a vile and most contemptible libel. Did you know " the peculiarity of the circumstances " in which I was placed when first I discovered and embraced the truth for which I am now earnestly contending; were you conversant with my present peculiar circumstances;


know me; and had you one thousandth part of a scruple of shame remaining about you, you would beg, from modesty, were it only but a single blush, to hide

you from the scorn and pity of angels and honourable men, for having uttered such unmerited vituperation. “Were he (G. C. R.) to admit that such persons might go to heaven, that would be contradicting the peculiar tenet of the sect to which he belongs.” This, R. E. R., is a most barefaced and presumptuous falsehood. It is neither “the peculiar tenet ” nor a tenet at all held by any of the disciples of Jesus with whom I am associated or am in any way acquainted; I therefore call on you to retract this falsehood you have to do so with confusion of face at the impartial tribunal of Him who can judge the motives as well as the actions of mankind. Such, R. E. R., is a sample of the words by which I am warranted to judge of the purity of your motives; and such is a fair specimen of the mean and miserable shifts to which all those are reduced who determine to contend for that which is incapable of proof. Calumny is an arrow never to be found in the quiver of truth, but it is a potent missile when hurled by the reckless arm of erring credulity insatiable

revenge. Secondly. R. E. R. complains again, that I have “in both my replies endeavoured to divert his attention from the point," and shown a "stubborn and inflexible determination not to answer bis question.” This point must be now finally


now, lest


[ocr errors]

settled if possible; therefore, R. E. R., be calm a little moment, and lend me your attention. Did not the present discussion arise out of a paper which appeared in the January number of the Christian Messenger under the title “ How is it?” It did. Was it not a question at the conclusion of said paper which called forth the answer in your first article? It was. And is not your answer to that question of “How is it " the proposition against which my "replies" have been directed ? Most certainly this is the case-the very point. How then, in the name of common sense and common honesty can you thus pertinaciously affirm that I have endeavoured to divert your attention from the point ? But

you “did not then attempt to discuss the question whether you thought right or not on this subject.” Did you then expect the author of “How is it ” and the readers of the Christian Messenger to swallow your answer without proof or discussion ? If so, then, were you out at sea for once in your life, without either rudder, compass, or chart: our motto is “prove all things;" therefore if you did not attempt to discuss it then it is high time you set about attempting it now,


will find me shew a “ stubborn and inflexible determination” not to finch from this point till you have either demonstrated your own answer to the question of “ How is it" or ignobly abandoned the field. But I will not answer your question, you tell me with a bravado, as if victory on your part were the certain concomitant of my answer. R. E. R., if I am not most egregiously mistaken this is the forlorn hope, the last struggle of the dying gladiator. Your question, my dear sir, is one which none on earth can answer without presumption, and which none presume to answer but such as mount the judgment seat of the eternal.

You indeed, do not hesitate to inform us that such and such characters are now before the throne of God, enjoying the untold felicities of heaven" (see second article); but should I ask whence had you this information you would be at fault for an answer, unless, indeed, the purity of your motives constrained you to acknowledge that your own imagination told you so.

No, I cannot answer your question as you wish it answered, and neither can you, but in the manner I have described. With the author of “How is it "I"presume not to pronounce on their everlasting doom; that belongs to the judge of all.” And with him I ask again, I ask you, , R. E. R., what hope, of a scriptural kind, have they, or can they have, of going to heaven, who regard God's word and know they need remission of sins, but who refuse the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins? In answering this question please attend to the character specified therein. Mind, it is not the son of a “ drunken father,” nor one who is deprived of God's word, nor one mentally imbecile, but one who regards God's word and knows he needs remission of sins, and opens the book of God to find instruction and direction in the matter; attend to this I pray you, and do not again substitute an extraneous, irrelevant, and unanswerable question for the true issue.

Thirdly. This month R. E. R. presents us with a splendid and entirely new edition of “ love thy neighbour as thyself,” with an erratum, explanations, annotations, and critical observations, by himself; and a copious appendix by Jesus and John the beloved. Had R. E. R. so stated this proposition in his second article I should have been the last to meet him with a flat and logical negative. He has now granted all I wished for, more than I should have thought of asking, and much, much more than I could have anticipated. “Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart," " keep his commandments," and there will be no danger of neglecting or rejecting any ordinance of the Christian dispensation. R. E. R, for this accept my hearty thanks: my flat and logical negative is neither “directed against the Scripture" nor your new edition of " love thy neighbour as thyself."

Fourthly. From the conflagration of “rites and ceremonies of whatever kind” R. E. R. has managed to carry off a very fragment of the general epistle of James, and safe from apparent danger, he waves it exultingly aloft, crying this “would still remain," after the entire destruction of them all. Now, R. E. R., I verily protest against you retaining this same shred of the good apostle James. You surreptitiously purloined it from the general ruin, and therefore I demand that you give it up. You wont! Then blame your own “stubborn and inflexible " self, that I am, against my inclination, compelled to use a little force; it is not yours, therefore I must, and am determined to have what is mine by reason, law, and Scripture. Did you not read this passage from the epistle of James, before you wrote it down ? and is reading the Scriptures not a ceremony of some kind ? Did you ever practice the office of love and mercy enjoined therein ? Did you administer to the pecuniary wants of the widow and the fatherless, if their case required it, and your circumstances permitted ? Did you exhort them to patience and resignation under their sore bereavement ? Did you pour in the oil and balm of consolation to their stricken spirits? Did you bow with, and plead for them at the throne of Him, who is a father to the fatherless, and a husband to the widow ? Did you perform any or all of these scriptural duties ? and is there no ceremony in all these ? Again. How are Christians to“ keep themselves unspotted from the world ? By reading the word of God; by learning the holy lessons taught therein; by keeping the commandments, and closely observing the institutions delivered to the first Christian congregations. This, R. E. R., is the wise and benevolent plan of heaven. That man alone is safe who adopts it : the man who despises and rejects it is not wise. Thus I reclaim this beautiful passage of the apostle James, and leave you still your religion of nothings.

Fifthly. In paragraph fourth R. E. R. admits that baptism was commanded.” “ This,” says he, “everybody believes who reads that Book,” viz., the Bible. But in his first article, he unequivocally affirms that water baptism“.is

« ZurückWeiter »