On this page

• Departments (1)
  • 
• Text (2)

  Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

  • 

    Untitled Article

  • 

    METAPHORICAL BAPTISM DISPROVED.

• Transcript

  • Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

    Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.

    Untitled Article

    [ Thb Author of the following observations having applied , late in the present month , to the Editor of the Monthly Expository to ascertain whether an article in reply to Dr . Jones ' s two papets ( Vol . XXI . 395—309 , 604—608 ) on Baptism could be admitted , was informed by the Editor , that both the November and December Numbers were already completed . The Author , thinking it desirable that a reply should be placed in the hands of those who had read Dr . Jones ' s remarks , determined , ' therefore , on printing his reply and getting it stitched up with the Repository as a bill or advertisement . He beg ^ s , witti the Editor ' s permission , to suggest to those readers who may think the reply entitled to a permanent place in that work , the propriety of directions being given to their binders * to incorporate the reply with the regular numbers of the volume . ]

    Sir , London , Nov . 22 , 1826 . Mr . GilchrisT in his able animadversions on Dr . Jones ' s paper on Baptism , has abstained from any detailed exposure of the grounds on which the learned Doctor builds his theory . Although with

    nriuds competent to discern the real character and weight of the reasoning adduced by Dr . J , liis hypothesis may be safely left to confute itself , there are individuals who may be staggered by the confidence of assertion and show of

    criticism that characterize the Doctor s communications . There is also , I fear , an extensive , though ill-defined class of persons that may be designated as practical Antibaptists , who , without pledging or

    committing themselves to the exclusive or permanent adoption of any single , particular system , avail themselves of the whole range of incongruous and mutually destructive theories which have been

    broached on the Antibaptist side of the question , and shift from one to another , and hold this or that theory , or all or none , according as any imaginary advantage may for the time being best be gained

    against the continuing and universal obligation of Christian baptism . These theological ehamelions , though unconvinced by Dr . Jones ' s conjectures and criticisms , may still welcome them , if unanswered , as a valuable accession to their

    multifarious stock of weapons . The Doctor himself , too , may be ready enough to imagine that what is not specifically answered , is unanswerable . These various considerations induce me to hope I shall not be considered an intruder by either of the parties to the existing discussion , in presenting myself as a coadjutor of the Baptist

    champion , and subjecting the grounds of the Doctor ' s hypothesis to a more minute and rigid examination than Mr . Gilchrist appears to have considered it entitled to . For Dr . Jones ' s learning and talent I have a becoming respect : but I am coinpolled unwillingly to declare , that the general frame of his two

    communications evinces snch a misconception or disregard of tlie distinction between the various descriptions of evidence , and their several gradations of relative value , that it , would seem the Doctor lias

    yet to learn that conjectural criticisms and constructive inferences can have no place in competition with express declaration and historical fact ;* that

    * Your Antibaptist correspondent T . A . T . gets over an historical fart by a

    Untitled Article

    presumptive evidence is admissible only in the absence of , or in subserviency to , direct proof ; and that analogy—Dr . Jones ' s favourite " handmaid , " the Ariadne to whose thread our theological Theseus ascribes his deliverance from the labyrinth of literal water-baptism—is in reality the very lowest description of

    proof , furnishing perhaps now and then the elements of some fortunate conjecture , but oftener involving its infatuated votary more inextricably in the maze of error . The love of analogy , which the Doctor prides himself upon , as his peculiar excellence , he must pardon me in designating as the characteristic vice of his papers on Baptism .

    Dr . Jones is understood to complain of his speculations failing to produce that conviction or excite that discussion which be might expect . I would suggest to his serious consideration , whether this is not in a great degree attributable to his style of writing . His conclusions generally appear to himself so self-evident , that he

    does not distinguish with sufficient precision the statement of the positions to be proved , from the grounds adduced in their support . All are run together into one continuous mass , presenting to the reader the appearance of a series of positions , the naked enunciation of which is

    assumed to be sufficient to carry convictionbut which must be submitted to a tedious analysis before the reader can ascertain what is put forth as assertion , and what as argument . The substance of the Doctor ' s theory appears to be , that literal water-baptism

    reference to the " misplaced zeal" of an Apostle . ( P . 603 . ) This from a person who puts forth the wild notion ( hitherto monopolized by the reputed Orthodox ) that Christ left the world without accomplishing the very object of his mission , leaving the institution of

    Christianity to be the work of a subsequent period , may be all consistent enough : — - but from a rutioiial Christian , from one whose belief or disbelief rests wholly upon investigation and adequate evidence!—Is the name of rational

    Christian , all that he is ambitious of possessing ? Both lie and your " Herean " correspondent might do well to look into a little tract entitled "An Answer to the Question , Why are you a Baptist ? " ascribed to a veteran who has grown grey in the service of the General Baptist cause .

    Metaphorical Baptism Disproved.

    METAPHORICAL BAPTISM DISPROVED .

• Citation
  • Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Dec. 2, 1826, page unpag, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse-os.kdl.kcl.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct1716/page/1/