Newspaper Page Text
THE COUNTRYMAN.
61
Brother Wood.
1 cautioned brother Wood of the Ban
ner & Baptist, not to get angry .because
bis Baptist brother communed with that
outsider, Stonewall Jackson, who is not a
church-member (that is to say not a Bap
tist) but only a Presbyterian : but in spite
of m3' caution, brother Wood is angry a
little, either with his erring brother Baptist,
or with me for my comments on his “error.”
Hence he (in his wrath, which will make
people see wrongly) accuses me—
1. —Of “ thinking it a trifling matter to
treat God’_s wor 1 lightly:”
2. —Of “ going in for inviting everybody
to the Lord’s table—Christians, infidels,
drunkards,murderers, thieves, scoffers, .Tews
and Gentiles.”
3. —Notwithstanding his 2nd accusation,
he accuses me of being very intolerant—
of being a “Methodist Universalist,” with
but “little toleration for any other creed.”
4. —He talks about “ murder” and “ vi
pers ” in connection with The Country
man.
Now, brother Wood, you should not suf
fer yourself 'riled:' for thereby you fur
nish the«best evidence of being wiong in
your notions of baptism and close com-
m union.
But about your 1st accusation : You are
in error, my biother, and you have not a
particle of evidence to sustain your accu
sation, except that I take ground against
exclusive immersion, and against close com
munion. And if this is “treating the word
of God lightly,” then not only I, a sinner, am
guilty, but all the denominations of Chris
tians besides the Baptists, are equally guil
ty as myself—including Methodists, Pres
byterians, Episcopalians, and alb
You quote 2 passages of scripture about
false doctrine, against me. It is easy to
capture that battery. Let me charge your
guns. Forward! It is you who teach false
doctrine. There now, the guns are mine,
and I turn them against you. But as they
are only Wooden ones, like those our boj's
put behind their breastworks to fool the
yankees, you need not apprehend much
harm from them. In their place, the pas
sages you quote are good ones. Handled
by me against you, they will be as harm
less as they were when you operated them
against me.
But about admitting “ infidels, drunk
ards, murderers, thieves, scoffers,” &c., to
the Lord’s table : You knew when you
wrote that, brother Wood, that you were
bearing false witness against your neigh
bor ; for in the very article upon which
you comment, aud which you reproduce in
your paper, I say that Stonewall Jackson
“should have invited all to the table who
felt duly impressed with the solemnity of
the occasion, and who were ready and
willing in their hearts to render homage to
the great God of heaven and earth. No
scoffer nor no mocker should have been
iliere.”
How then, brother Wood, can you say
that I go for admitting scoffers to the Lord’s
table ?
But you think I must be a “Methodist
Universalist,” with hut “little toleration
for any other creed.”
Don’t be uneasy about that, my brother.
I don’t think the Methodists or Universal-
ists, either, would have me, and I am cer
tain I would’ut have either of them. I
am no sectarian. I belong to no sect, and
would not, for any consideration. 1 be
lieve in the gospel as delivered by Christ,
and- am only sorry that I am not as good
at practising, as I am at believing it.—Your
brother Index, not long ago, accused me
of being the hardest of the Hardshells.
Now you accuse me of being a “Methodist
Universalist.” None of you will ever suc
ceed m locating me with any sect.
But about my being intolerant: You an
swer yourself, at this point. For while
you say, in one place, that lam intolerant,
in another’you say, “ Mr. Turner goes in
for inviting everybody to the Lord’s table
—Christians, infidels, drunkards, murder
ers, thieves, scoffers, Jews and Gentiles.”
If this is not.toleration to a fault, what is it ?
But, my brother, when a man gets angry,
he gets contused, and says all manner of
inconsistent things.—I willtell you, though,'
that I am tolerant of everything in the
world but intolerance. That, I must be al
lowed to denounce, sometimes.
And now, brother Wood, you must not
allow r yourself, I tell you again, to get ang
ry at my little squibs. For when I find
that I can teaze a man, I have an uncon
trollable propensity to “worry him to
death.”
And about “murder” and “vipers Be
sure, brother Wood, that you don’t get to
calling names, for if you do, it will injure
you and your cause both.
Having disposed of your accusations, I
turn to 1 or 2 other points.
Ycu say “ The gospel is made up of doc
trines, ordinances, and promises. We can
know nothing, properly, of either, except
as taught in the bible. I should prefer to
stand as a stone-wall by that, than to be the
deliverer of this nation on the battle-field,
and have God’s curse resting upon me, The
Countryman to the contrary notwithstand
ing.”
This immediately follows your 2 quota
tions from scripture denouncing curses
against the teacher of false doctrines.—Now
to whom do } ou intend to apply the above
—to Stonewall Jackson for administering
the sacrament to a “church-member”
(i. e. a Baptist) or to a “church-member”
(i. e. a Baptist) for communing with one who
is not a “church-member,” but a mere Pres
byterian—Stonewall Jackson?
You say farther, “But our friend [The
Countryman] thinks that Christians should
have some ground on which all might
meet, and asks if that ground is not
around the Lord’s table, where is it to be
found 1 We answer, in following God’s
word.”
That is to say, brother Wood, in being
Baptists: fer this, evidently, is what you
mean. But I answer that all are not Bap
tists, and others found their faith upon the
bible in being Presbyterians, Methodists,
anti Episcopalians, as much as you do
yours in being a Baptist, and they recog
nize vou as being a church-member, and in
vite you to commune with them : but you
don’t recognize them as church-members,
and you assume to keep them away from
the Lord’s table, because they are not
church-members. And while I do not say,
brother Wood, that you are illiberal—(for
I take it that you are a liberal Christian
gentleman)—I say your doctrine at the
point under consideration, is very illiberal,
indeed.
And so, brother Wood, is not only your
doctiine unchurching all denominations ex
cept your own illiberal, but any sect which
assumes to be "the church,” to the exclu
sion of all other sects, and other Christians
w ho are not church-members, holds to very
illiberal doctrines, indeed. The Catholic
church, in the view of Catholics, is the
church. The Episcopalians think they
have the church. The Presbyterians think
theirs the church. The Methodists think
that they are the church. And the Uni-
versalists, Unitarians, and all the balance
are equally illiberal. And I mean to con
demn the illiberality of all, but commend
the virtues of all. And if this be intoler
ance, then I am intolerant. But if you sects
would all show Christian fellowship for
each other, I would have more confidence
in all of you.
“Ye various sects who all declare
Lo! Christ is here, and Christ is there,
Your stronger proofs divinely give,
And show me where the Christians live.”