The Middlebury people's press. [volume] (Middlebury, Vt.) 1841-1843, 1843-04-26


ton with ourselves for the conversion OF
sinners and some did labour heart and soul
for this desirable object. But all at once
they dis appeared from our etings and
that Too without the least iniimaiion OF dis
satisfaction on their pur, as there was GER
tainly none on ours, The evidence SHAT
they, the Baptsts, were not wanted" at our
meetings did not in reality exist, but was
the result of the workings OF ih0ir own I'm.
aginaions. aided by desire and feeling
easily conjectured.
But why did they give up their meeting !
The answer is very plain. Because they
could not secure the attendance of suffl-
cient number TO warrant the attempt 10 car
ry them on. God by his spirit, was every
evening converting souls from natures
darkness into his marvellous light, and such
was the state of intense religious feeling
prevailing the country, that the Methodist
Chapel was filed TO overlooking.
The next statement of DR.. Reese which
Mr.. Briefly deems worthy of refutation is,
that "it 1.-THE revivaD commenced at watch
night on New Years Eve" How does Mr..
B. refute this By saying that it ''may be
true, as respects the Methodist church. -
We would ask of whom was DIR. Reese
writing =? OF what was he writing? He
was writing of the revival Of religion in the
NJ. E. church. He said nothing about q
revival of religion in the Baptist church.
| He was writing when this revival in the M.
E.. church commenced. Not, WHEN revi.
val commenced in the Baptist church. How
curious it looks for this Rev. Editor TO I'M
| dertake TO refute statement, which he gives
at length; while he in the next breath, ad.
mits as true the statement he starts TO re-
flute, by saying it "may be true as it respects
the Methodist church," of whom DR.. Reese
was making the statement in question:
Verify consistency thou art the jewell. DIR.
Reese visited this place upon the solicitation
of The Methodists, no, the Baptisls. His
visit was not 10 spy out the condition of The
Baptist church, or any other church. Dui
simply 10 witness what God had done, and
was doing for his Methodist bretheren. Was
this wrong7
The last statement he notices is as fol.
| lows:
sand in addition 10 the $50 members
who have been added 10 the church since
January" &c.
Upon this statement he proceeds to ex
pose his ignorance by acknowledging, tc
"know not wha, is requisite to constitute ar
individual a member of the Methods
church. Ii is truly 10 be lamented, that {
minister of the Baptist church, in the l9lf
century, surrounded by Methodists most Of
whom own a discipline of their church
should be so unwarrau,ably ignorant, as moi
TO "know what is requisite 10 constitute ar
individual member of the Methods
church." Who would have believed ii p
Not US, for We should not have dared 10 cal
in question the Rev. Mr.. Brierly's knowl
edge upoo question Of so simple nature
But such is the case upon his own acknowl
edgment. The above statement Of DR.
Reese which he pronounces false in com
mon with the two previous ones, he doe;
not try 10 refute. In the course Of his re-
marks upon the last statement in reference
to additions TO the Methodist church, he
Mr.. Briefly, asks many questions in refer
encc to who are members of the church,
With these questions we have nothing &c
do, only to advise the Rev. Editor TO pro
cure as early as possible Discipline of the
M. E. church, in which he will find The req
uisites necessary 'to constitute an individ
ual member of the same" He will ther
be competent 10 comment upon Methods
economy, Episcopacy, &c. Ii is q matte
of surprise 10 US to know that the Nj. E
church, as body, are to be brought up II
Inc bar of public opinion, and be tried ad
judged guilty. and sentenced for what ont
member attached to her communion ma,
do or say. In this case the Rev. Edito
seizes upon the ipse dixit Of some one. ant
forthwith comes out with an unparalleled a
mount of abuse upon the wholc body. Hi
mind appears TO be exceedingly exercised
as the following extract will show.
I'VE probably shall be told by some Of the
Meiho6is,s, that we had no business 10 no
tice the false statements in the above article
Just as one Of their members said, "The
Baptists have no right to preach on bop
tism," though the sermons were drawn ou
by a gross attack upon US and our senti
men;s, and the presentation of an unscrip
tural view of the ordinance Of baptism, BY
the pastor of the Methodist church, from bis
pulpit, on preceding Sabbath"
In the above extract species of misrep.
resentation is resorted u, that our knowing
the facts would scarcely believe could have
come from a man, much less, minister oil
the Gospel and Editor of Religious Jour.
nai. He speaks of a gross attack being
made upon him and his sentiments by the
Pastor of the NJ. E. church, Mr.. Ayres.-
This charge We utterly deny, and challenge
the Rev. Editor to prove it. He complains
because in his estimation Mr.. Ayres pre-
sented from the Pulpit. San unscripturaI
view Of the ordinance of Baptism" The
Rev. Editor seems 10 forget, that Metho.
dist minister is laid under no obligations 10
go TO him. for scriptural view of the ordi.
nance of Baptism, bu, exercising the right
of every man, presents his own views upon
this question. Who is 10 judge of those
portions of Scripture touching upon the
doctrine of Baptism One man more than