BLTC Press Titles

available for Kindle at

Shakti and Shakta

John Woodroffe

The Picture of Dorian Gray

Oscar Wilde

The Count of Monte Cristo

Alexandre Dumas

Vanity Fair

William Thackery

Answer to Mr. Joseph Moore, the Methodist

by David Henkel




tt is shewn how Mr. Moore attempts to impress the minds of the reide» with the idea, that I teach in my treatise, that baptism is regeneration it self; but this statement is fa se.

Mr. Joseph Moore in the preface to his strictares on my treatise, says, that" to every lmormed and unprejudiced mind k carried its own condemnation" If this be correct, what need had he, to misrepresent the doctrines contained in it, lor the purpose of giving them a refutation? A simple review of them, in their original colours, would have sufficed, to convince informed minds of their supposed luti ity. He on the fit st page, states, that I say, baptism is regeneration; and frequently as* serts the same, in many other passages; and vehemently labours to prove that baptism cannot oe regeneration; which tends to make my treatise appear rediculous. But neither Mr. M. nor any other person ever saw in it, unless it was in a bewildered imagination, that bapusm was regeneration. He no Where pointed .ut the page, where I call it so : tor this obvious reason ; because he could not. I call baptism, the ordinary means of regeneration r but who does not perceive the jpa cable difference, between the means of, and regeneration itself? In order to give it the appearance, as if I taught, that baptism was regeneration, he in a clandestine manner asserts, that I say: 4i baptism is regeneration, or a heavenly flood of regeneration" Why is the expletive conjunction Or, here introduced? This is to insinuate, that a heavenly flood of regem ration is the same as regeneration itself This betrays either ignorance, or else wilful perversion. The rales of grammar ought to teach any common english scholar, that a flood of regeneration, is not the same as regeneration itself. When I say, the mother of a child," any person may know, that 1 do not mean, that the mother is the child. "Flood of regeneration," is a similar phrase, is parsed in the same manner; ad implies nothing more than a flood, which as a means, is to effect regeneration. Had I in any passage of my treatise, as Mr. M. erroneously asserts, said, that baptism was regeneration, he could not only have proved it unscnptural; but also ludicrous A man who is regenerated, is a new creature ; hence it would be absurd, to call baptism the new creature. With equal propriety it may be said, that the Holy Ghost is not the new birth; for the new creature is not the Holy Ohost himself. But how congenial to orthodoxy! when we say : the Holy Ghost is the cause, and regeneration the effect, Or, to make the order replete: the

Holy Ghost is the cause, baptism by which he operates the means, and regeneration the effect. Correct reasoners ni ver blend the cause and effect together, so as to make them the same thing.

As ludicrous as Mr. M. would have rendered my treatise, provided, he could have proven. that I taught baptism, was regeneration, even so absurd is what he saj s, page 6, in his strictures: "Thus we are born again from above, by a spiritual birth ;• not of corruptible things; such as silvei and gold (nor by the natural water in baptism) but by the precious blood of Christ—the word and spirit of God." I Pet 1.18, 19,23- Agreeable to this, we are born again by a spiritual birth, and in the meanwhile, by the precious blood of Christ, the word and Spirit ol' God; which makes the spiritual birth, and the blood of Christ, &c. the same thing. Now, who can beiieve, that the blood of Christ, the word and spirit ol God, are the spiritual birth?.. Had Mr. M. reasoned correctly, he would not have said, that we are born again by a spiritual birth—and then add: by the precious blood oi Christ, the word and spirit of God, thereby making the former and latter synonimous ; tout like a man ot sound logick, he would have said : the blood of Christ is the meritorious, and the spirit, the applying cause; and the spiritual birth the effect. Again, to be born, as Mr M. Says, oy a spiritual birth is out of the question; for the spiritual birth is the act of bringing the spiritual child into life. • nence to be born by a birth, is the same as to say, to be born by being born; which is nonsense. Is it possible, that he does not understand the rudiments of language better, than to say we are born by a birth!!

It is not necessary to review all the arguments, Mr. M produces to prove, that baptism is not regeneration; as I know of no person, who pretends to assert the contrary ; and in particular nothing of the kind is to be found in my treatise: hence he labouring,to prove, that baptism is not regeneration ; is a'l the while, Ifljje a war-like hero, fighting his own shadow. Why does he attempt, to impress his readers, with the false idea, that I teach baptism is regeneration? Is he no scholar? Does he as a christian, and a Methodist minister, not venerate thetruth? He must, in the very commencement, have despaired of his pretended refutation; otherwise he would not have taken his refuge to a glaring falsehood: by saying. that I teach, baptism is regeneration! Did he think, that his readers, were so ig. t>orant, that they could not perceive the difference, between the means of, and regereration itself?

... from the RetroRead library, using Google Book Search, and download any of the books already converted to Kindle format.

Browse the 100 most recent additions to the RetroRead library

Browse the library alphabetically by title

Make books:

Login or register to convert Google epubs to Kindle ebooks



Lost your password?

Not a member yet? Register here, and convert any Google epub you wish

Powerd by Calibre powered by calibre