Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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.”