Now, Sir, what shall we say to this? You profess to have copied "verbatim," and yet you leave out nearly half of the passage.-Again, you severely -censure the writer and printer of the Serious Call, for withholding their names. You say, "Truth requires no such arts; honesty disdains this species of shuffling; and indeed, a man in a mask, is always deemed a suspicious character." But, Sir, have you not taken the same course, and withheld your name from your book? And shall we say that there are inconsistencies in it? or shall we take the other side of the dilemma ?---As to the charge of falsehood, on account of the writer's having assumed a feigned character, I would observe, that Solomon would hardly escape from the same difficulty, if you should judge him on the same principle. He says, (Eccl. xi. 9,} "Rejoice, O young man in thy youth, and let thy heart cheer thee in the days of thy youth, and walk in the ways of thine heart, and in the sight of thine eyes; but know thou, that for all these things, God will bring thee into judgment." Now, if I should quote this passage, and leave out the last clause, ("but know," &c.) it would appear to be an exhortation to sin but the last clause is the key of the passage, and fully explains the meaning of the writer.--So with respect to our author; the first one or two pages might give the idea that he was an Episcopalian; but we cannot go through his book, without finding abundant evidence to the contrary.

As to your remarks on the rules of our order, respecting baptism of infants, I would ask if you ever found, either in the Old Testament or the New, a single instance of an infant being admitted into the Church by baptism, or any other mode, except one parent at least was previously a member? Did you ever hear of the Jewish priests circumcising Gentile children, while their parents were "aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenant of promise?" Did they not consider the Gentiles as unclean, and improper subjects of Church privileges, until they were proselyted? And is the difference less between the Christian Church and the world?

What saith the Apostle? "The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife by the husband; else were your children unclean, but now are they holy." 1 Cor. vii. 16. The Apostle certainly could not mean to say, that the children of Christians were by nature better than others; for he says, (Eph. ii. 3,) "Among whom also we all had our conversation in time past, and were by nature children of wrath, even as others." Besides, where is the consistency of admitting a person who is notoriously profligate in his life, and perhaps an infidel in principle, to stand before the whole congregation, and say, "I do, in the name of this child, renounce the devil and all his works, the pomps and vanities of this wicked world, and all the sinful lusts of the flesh;" and also to acknowledge a covenant, which he and every one else knows he has no design to keep? Does not the Almighty say to the wicked, "What hast thou to do with my covenant?" and is not this a question which has an important bearing on the practice of indiscriminate baptism?

66

In speaking of the authority of ministers, you say, "The Congregational ministers can surely tell us, whether they can trace their commission to any higher source than human authority." Yes, Sir, you are correct; and "if you should ask them where they obtained their commission, I venture to say, that (without flying into a passion," or calling hard names,) they would feel great pleasure" in referring you to Matt. xxviii. 18, 19. "And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth: Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." And also to Mark xvi. 15. "Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature." But suppose we "try the experiment on an Episcopal Bishop," to what passage of scripture will he refer us for his commission? Not to those, surely, which were referred to by the Congregational ministers; for they give no higher power than to "preach the Gospel" and administer the

Sacraments, which is the peculiar duty of Presbyters. To what passage then will he refer us? Will he be willing, in "perfect good humour, to meet the question fairly on its merits ?"

[It is insinuated in the Sober Appeal, that Congre gational ministers are "shy" on the subject of ordination; but as usual, nothing is offered to prove it; and seeing the writer has been so "shy" in producing proof, perhaps "he will indulge me in a single" attempt. About two years since, (in a country town in this State,) there was a dispute between an Episcopal and a Congregational clergyman, on this subject, which was thus related by a strenuous Episcopalian. "In the course of the debate, Episcopacy was alternately denounced and defended, until at length victory was declared in favour of the Platform," (meaning the Congregational minister.) And within a few months, a pamphlet has been published, in which the writer "ably maintains" the doctrine of ministerial parity. And now, with these facts in view, who can for a moment doubt the shyness of Congregational ministers?] One word respecting the office of deacon. We find, in Acts vi. 1, 6, a history of their institution : but for what purpose were they instituted? We learn from the history, that "There arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in their daily ministrations. Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables: wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business; but we will give ourselves continually to prayer and to the ministry of the word." It seems that the twelve said to the disciples, "Look ye out among you seven men, &c. whom we may appoint over this business." What business? "To preach and baptize?" No, nothing like it. No, nothing like it. What then? Why, to "serve tables ;" and if the complaint of the Grecians were redressed, they were to take care that the "widows were" not "neglected in the daily ministrations." Now I appeal to a "candid public," to say

11

which deacon is most conformable to the scripture pattern; he that "preaches and baptizes," or he that serves tables, and takes care of the poor "widows?" Will it be said, that Philip preached and baptized? Very true; and he is also called an "evangelist ;" and if he were not, it is plain, from the very nature of the case, that he did not preach and baptize as a deacon; for the highest authority which Christ gave to his Apostles, was to preach and baptize : aud if a deacon, by virtue of his office, might preach and baptize, where is the difference between an apostle and a deacon? Besides, turning to the history, we find that they were expressly appointed to "serve tables," and to take care of the poor; and not a word is said about their being "authorized to preach and baptize."

over

In speaking of discipline, you say, "that (if you are correctly informed,) at least one Congregational minister has carried his vigilance to such an righteous length, as to induce his Church to send the thunders of excommunication beyond the limits. of his jurisdiction," into the "Episcopal Church," and to " excommunicate some of its members. Now, Sir, why did you withhold the name of the minister and church, and thereby deprive them of an opportunity to vindicate themselves from the charge?

You say, (speaking of the Printer's having withheld his name, "Had every thing appeared fair and honest, and justifiable, in his own estimation, he would not, in all probability, have resorted to this trick of concealment." But, Sir, to whom does this remark now apply? And who is now guilty of "shooting arrows in the dark?" At the beginning of your book, you profess a desire to "live in peace with all men;" but do the charges and severe censures which you advance against, the writer, printer, and abbettors of the "Serious Call," or the reflections: you cast on the Congregational Clergy of Connecti, cut, go to establish the sincerity of the profession?

After reading your pamphlet, and reflecting on the style in which it is written, the inquiry will naturally arise, "Is it possible that this can be the production of a minister" of the "only true Church on earth"?

it among

12

For if we find little or none of the "Christian spirit" among ministers, whose commissions are grounded on "human authority," yet we have a right to look for those who can trace theirs up to the Apostles; and I am willing to admit, that the cause of religion suffers, when men who make pretensions to it, (and very loud pretensions too,) discover such a total want of its spirit," by calling men "slanderers" and liars," without offering a single argument to prove the assertion. And as to the "unquestionable duty of all sober Christians," I leave it for them to decide the point for themselves; believing that I shall not merit their thanks for drawing the line of distinction between "Sober Christians" and those who are not such. I am also willing to admit, that I do not entirely approve of every thing in the Serious Call.--But, Sir, (in my opinion,) there is nothing in it so abusive as your comparison of the Congregational Clergy of Connecticut with Demetrius and the Ephesian silversmiths.* While, on the other hand, the arguments (for aught that has yet appeared) are perfectly clear and conclusive; and it is worthy of remark, that you have not attempted to meet and confute these arguments, by fair and candid reasoning. Now, Sir, permit me to ask, why you did not at least attempt their refutation? Did despair seize you at the threshold? And was you deeply convinced that the object was unattainable ?—I am willing to allow, that if assertions heaped upon assertions weighed any thing in the scale of proof, your book would be unanswerable but when, instead of fairly meeting the arguments, you load the writer and printer with calumny and abuse, what apology can be made for your conduct? In short, Sir, you must allow me to express the opinion, that your "Appeal" goes farther towards establishing these arguments, than a whole volume could from our side of the question.

*The writer of the Sober Appeal says, that "nothing is farther from the truth, than that the Episcopalians as a body have endeavoured to take advantage of the political commotions of the State;" but as facts, stubborn facts, are before the public, I leave them to decide the question for themselves.

t