The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1877-07-12

( mar" confesses. Paul says: "Thert
: fore we are buried with him by bar
tism into death. Look at this, an,
, then look at that, and conclude the
Layman" saw no difference saw
in the 'fn" and ''by," if vo,
can. Well, but l remember tha
this is just what be sets forth as tn,
difference in quotation complaiued o
by "Unconvinced," and will not fo
a moment seem to impeach his veraci
~, and therefore again call attention
10 the prevalent iHoLpdcity in the fam
lly OF which '.Laymsn" is member tc
read and quote correctly. "Iayman'
says that ''Unconyincedn did not
question the preachers PROPOSE.
ton that Paul compared baptism
to burial. OF course not and why
should he, since he does not appear as
a controversialist upon the subject of
the mode of baptism, but merely to call
attention to the way others conduct
said controversy,
But "Lsyman" complains that ''Cn-
convinced" did not even look at the
other quotation of Mfr. Chaplin, taken
from Colossians Ill, l2l where the
very words quoted are used. Here
again he is in error. This Scripture
was duly considered: but it was re
| membered that Mr. Chaplin had dis
tinctly said that baptism was nat sac,
ING ordnance IL quote from memory; !;
and SO it was fair to assume that he
had unadvisedly used this quotation.
as IN this burial there is q 7isiEg with.
Him Mr6agh faith (tBurisl with Him
with Him through tnaa aala2 fsl,HX Xe are risen
alton of God, who hath raised Him
from the dead'D; and / had respect to
his declaration that it was not a saving
ordinance. Now it must be evident that
if this is Christian baptism here being
discussed by Paul it Is a saging Ordi-
rsdnee. "Whereia ye are risen," etc.
No man will say that a man rises out
of the water through faith. And if
it were a rising out of the water it
seems to me che apostle would have
said "wherefrom," or tout of which"
or he would have used some other
equivalent expression. Hence we con-
clude mot with any purpose to contro-
vert modes of baptism, but by way of
our defense for not looking into this
passage, etc. that the rising in this
burial-for the word is ''wheTein"-is
yncironous WITH tie bull; i. e., 1t
could nor have been before, nor could
it be after the burial, but IN the burial.
In the view of these things it was only
fair to treat Mr.. Chaplin's introduction
of this quotation as an oversight, see
ing that he in the conclusion of his
article says baptism is not saving
ordinance. Suppose / had pursued a
different course, and. mad quoted this
passage, and showed that Mr.. C. was
believer in bsptismal regeneration !;
or il not, he was such so far forth as
that he claimed that the new birth
occurred in the water. or on
rising out of the water, the course of
the writer would have been regarded
as ungenerous; and, pointing to Mr..
C.'s statement, before quoted, that
baptism was not saving ordinance, it
would have been said that he had ex-
plicitly declared his position on Mdt
subject, and that the writer signing the
name ''Unconvinced. ought to have
given him the benefit OF his disclaimer,
ana not have charged upon him the
l0gicaL consequences of Quotation made,
possibly, without much thought of
what consequences would follow. And
it would probably have been said that
| all the world knows that the Baptists
believe in what they call believers
baptism;" and that, this being so, the
quotation from Col. ii, 1S; should have
been regarded as an inadvertence. l
have obtained Methodist discipline
and find that "Layman" suffers still
from the trait of mind before referred
f., tR,, 4 zns;,,u- s., an incapacity to read and
is called fallacy of quotations.
What I mean by this is, he quotes the
concluding clause of the twentY-second
article of the Religion of the Meth
odist Church." but does not tell us
that in the body of this same article 1t
is distinctly stated that this change in
rites and ceremonies may be made $50
that nothing be ordained against Gods
word" But If Gods word prescribes
a mode of doing anything, then, Of
course, no Christian man may presume
to alter or change. But after all, If
"Layman" had chosen to be correct
he might, with very little trouble, hsve
seen that Christian sacraments lone OF
which is water baptism) was not the
subject of article twenty-five of "Re-
ligiOn of the Methodist Church." the
sacraments having been discussed and
disposed of in articles 16, II, IS and
10, wherein each the eucharist and
baptism is termed ''sign," but neither
| is anywhere called q ''rtte'' or 'ceTe
mORy."
l hope it is duly understood that
am not discussing baptism as to its
mode, subjects or anything else, and
that do not propose any such discus.
sion. There are great many men,
add with them leave it, who make il
life business to discuss this subject.
The part which we have taken In this
matter is merely to utter word oi
caution about assertions which come
from that quarter. And although
"Layman" has taken the trouble tC
cite authors by edition, date and page,
he quotes Scripture and the Methodist
discipline in way calculated to de
ceive only the more by seeming to b
careful while making (not Intentional
ly, of course) most adroIt misrepre
sentation of both. AS for the authors
which we have not examined, ever
one must judge for themselves as L
whether the references will be founC
to sustain the cause for which they ar
cited. UEcoNvINCED,
Boss Tweed's friends are indignan
at the action of Attorney General Fair
child, of New York, for his returning
to the Boss his so-called confession ant