Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

JOSEPH S. BAKER— Editor. VOL. XII. TERNS PER ANNUM. The Christian Index, published on Friday in each week, (except two in the year), will be furnished to each subscriber at $2 50 cents, in advance ; or $3 if not paid within the year. iCT’ Post-Masters, where the Index is taken, are requested to forward remittances for subscribers at their respective offices, according to a decision of the Post-Master General as to their right to do so. All pa trons and .agents are requested to notice this. Every Agent (and all Baptist Ministers are particularly solicited to become agents) who procure and pay for five copies of the Index, shall be entitled to a sixth, as a com pensation for his trouble. Letters on business, or communications, must be addressed to the Editor, post paid. Advertisements may be inserted oh usual pterins, at the discretion the Editor. For tht Christian Index. liro. Baker.' —l recently heard a sermon from a Baptist preacher fiom Luke v. 12, 13. “And it came to pass, when he was in a certain city, behold a man full of lepro* sy : who seeing Jesus fell on his face, and besought him, saying, Lord if thou will, thou canst make me clean. And he put forth his hand, saying, I will: be thou clean. And immediately the leprosy de parted from him.” The course adopted, by the preacher, in the exposition of this text, has led me into a train of reflections which, I have concluded to communicate to you and your rcadets, in the hope, they wilt be useful, if from no merit of their own, by calling attention to the subject. The interpretation which he gave of it, was of that sort which 1 have lieatd called, in k cant phrase, spiritualising the scrip, tures. The notion is still cheiished by many, notwithstanding what has been said and written against it, that the most of the Sacred Volume has two meanings; the one literal and apparent, the other spiritual and hidden from common leaders. Many parts of the Old Testament and Apocalypse of the New, are, confessedly, typical and prophetic; from whence, they are led to infer, that almost every thing, the most tri fling incident, recorded in the Scriptures, tin: Nnw as well as dm.QJd, lus a mystical Ineatiingifit could be arrived at. With such, every adventure, every occurrence which happened to the children of Israel, during their forty years of wandering in the wilderness, is supposed to shadow forth something in “the Christian life ; and every ornament of the Jewish temple, however trifling. something under the new dispeu tion. This school of divines cut what they cannot untie, if I may so speak, and elicit the spiritual “meaning of their text, by means of a kind of sub-inspiration to which they lay claim. We often hear them, in theii exordium, affirm that they ascended the sacred desk without the (least knowl edge of the text from which they should preach, but a certain one had just been sug gested, with great force, to their minds : they should therefore take it, relying on the Lord to guide them in what they should say. Such a’ declaration carries an air of great piety and meekness in one view of it, but in another, it is certainty assuming a great deal. Such a claim, if sustained and allowed, must prove them the special lavorites of Heaven. There may, howev er, possibly, be no vanity in all this. The brother, id his exegesis of the fore going text, told us, that the Leper repre sented the sinner ; and he drew arguments from the physical condition of the former to prove the spiritual condition of the lat ter. As the Leper knew that he was sick, liad despaired of a cure from any other source, as he came to the Saviour, came in humility, and asked in faith; so, must we know that we are sinners, despair of help from any other power, must come- in hu mility, and ask in faith, and wc would be forgiven as the Leper was cleansed. He went on to prove the nature of sin from that of leprosy; that, as the latter was a loathsome and mortal disease, (and cut off its victim from the congregation of Israel; so has the former, a spiiitual dis ease, loathsome in the sightof God, brought Oil eternal death, and excluded its victim from the congregation of the blessed in Heaven. I am, bro. Editor, no Theologian, and am unacquainted with those rules which the schoolmen have laid down for the inter pretation of the Scriptures. I shall there fore, until I get other and stronger proofs than the brother gave in support of this mystical meaning, continue to believe that this text means nothing more than it says, and that it is only a plain statement of an unostentatious miracle which the Saviour peiformed in attestation of his Divine mis sion. It is true, that many consoling re flections may be drawn from it. It proves ,the condescension of our Lord, his bene/i- THE CHRISTIAN INDEX. cence, and his power. It gives us strong reason to hope that what we ask of him in humility and confidence, lie will be stow. It does not prove, to me, that He will forgive our sins ; yet it encourages us to hope so, for, if He would stoop to heal this poor outcast of a disease which could make him miserable only in this life, would not the same benevolent inclination lead him to forgive the sins of one of His crea tures that he might not be miserable for ever? But, granting for arguments sake, that this transaction was designed to Jshtulow forth spiritual things, and that the Leper represents the sinner; still, the miracle wiil not illustrate the forgiveness of sin, but only the cleansing, from it -a for it wjß.ld be absurd to say, he was forgiven iiis dis ease when he was only healed of it. “ Nor, indeed; is it, even, a good illustration of cleansing from sin ; for, whereas, the Lcp er was cleansed instantly, lor, innuedately the leprosy departed from him; on the con trary, the work of sanctification, according to the creed of die Baptists, is progressive, and is only perfected in a future slate.— What shall we, therefore, think of the brother’s exposition, wherein, he proved the whole of the Christian scheme by this text, Repentance, Faith, Redemption, Jus tification and Sanctification inclusive?— Such a system of interpreting the Bible, seems calculated to lead us, not only into many inconsistences and contradictions, but into serious errors. For example, the Rev. brother endeavored to delineate the experience of the Christian by the Lepeis ; for; as the latter, when he knew he ivaj cleansed, rejoiced exceedingly, so, did the Ibimer, when he felt that his sins were for given. But, he soon perceived, that he could not run the parallel much farther and remarked, that it was not long before the Christian fell into doubts as to whether in deed his sins were forgiven ; and that he passed his whole life betwixt (ear and hope. Now ilseems to me, that, if the text proves any thing on this point, it proves, that as the Leper knew his disease was healed at first, and, as every hour, day and week could only confirm him in it ; so, would the Chnsltau. instead of being harrassed with doubts and fears, be increasing daily in con fidence, until, in a little time, instead of a hope, he would arrive at a perfect assur ance. Such an attainment, however much it may be desired, and however much it may be a duly, does, certainly, not accord with the experience of common Christians, 1 have heaid a great deal of this sort of preaching, more formerly than at present. It always affects me unpleasantly ; for 1 look upon it as a wiesting of the Scriptures from their true meaning. Who has not heard one of this school spiritualise the parable of the good Samaritan, by making eveiy thing recorded in it prefigure some thing in the Gospel plan, from the Samari tan who, they say, is Christ, down to the two pence, which they say, represents the two sacraments of Baptism and the Supper. Those who lay claim to this kind of inspiration, set it tip, I have thought, upon that partofour Saviour’s instructions, when he sent out his twelve apostles to preach and work miracles, wherein he fore warns them, that they shall be brought be fore councils, governors and kings for his sake ; and instructs them, on such occa sions, (Matt. x. 17, 20) to “take no thought how or what ye shall speak : for. it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.” I know of no other part of the New Testament which author ises the setting tip of such a claim ; and that the one under consideiation does not, is apparent upon an attentive reading’— Even, if they have the right to appropriate to themselvis all the miraculous gifts ofMie apostles, both plenary and potential; still, it would only be upon occasion of their be ing called before councils Ac., that they ought tp expect, such a divine impulse, as would make it needless for them to take thought how or what they should speak; for the Saviour, in his instructions to them, a little while before, did not leach them to look for any such divine aid in preaching. And, indeed, if the apostles might justly look for such aid in preaching, and the Ministry of this age may claim it upon the same ground, I can see no teason why they may not also claim, the right and power to “heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils,” and shake off the dust of their feet against all such as shall not receive them nor hear their words. I do not aim to give offence to this class of ministering bretlnen. I grant them pi ous and sincete, but piety and sincerity can never sanctify error, and they must allow me, in candor, to say, that I believe they lie under an egregious one. One perni- FOR THE BAPTIST CONVENTION OF THE STATE OF GEORGIA, PENFIELD, GA., AUGUST 9, 1844. cious effect, which results from it, is that it leads them (very consistently,) to oppose and reject all education, study and prepara tion, as not only unnecessary for the exer cise of the Gospel Ministry, but as tending, directly, to produce a reliance upon human) learning instead of this divine illumination.! Could this ever be coriected, it would go a great way, I am persuaded, towards re moving those objections and prejudices which, unfortunately, exist, against a course of theological study and preparation for the Sacred office. Then might we hope to see the whole Sacred College, (to borrow a word from the Romanists,) reading, stu dying and meditating, as the apostle, so of ten, exhorts Timothy to do, upon djvije” f reckon this the only, perfiups not the greatest evil, growing out of tliifferror; for, it seems to me, that when the preacher arises to speak, with no preparation, and relying” wholly upon this divine impulse, he is in great danger of em bracing and publishing many false notions. It is therefore, on many accounts, impor tant to have a correct opinion on this point. 1 think it would be an useful inqury, lor every ministering brother to ask himself, what degree of Spiritual aid lie may justly count upon, without being chargeable widi presumption or impiety. After all, some no donbt, wi'.l. “rush in Where angels fear to tread.” The claim of such to inspiration is ( impious I should say if it did not sound so harshly.) at least a proper subject of inquiry. It may he said, that such a claim is not distinctly set up. 1 grant that it is not distinctly and in so many words; nevertheless, “to this complexion it must come at last.” That degree of illumina tion or Spiritual influence, which will au thorise one to declare what is the mystical meaning of a text, a meaning which does not appear upon the Gee of it, a meaning which cannot be inferred from the context, nor ariived at by the common rules of con strueing language, amounts to nothing less- I do not mean to deny, but admit as a cardinal truth, the influence of the Iloly Spirit upon the heart; hut, at the same time, 1 tlo deny to the ministers ot the pre sent day, that extraordinary measure of it which the apostles and holy mcnol old en joyed, and which authorised them to an nounce new and important truths to man : and I again affirm, that the same measure of spiritual influence, the same miraculous gilts are just as necessary now, to declare what is the mystical and hidden meaning (if they have any.) of the Scriptures, as was needed by those ancient saints to an nounce original truths. Let us lake the foregoing text as an example. We can not find in its phraseology, nor in the con text, the least reason to believe, the slight est proof, that the Leper is a type of the Sinner. If, therefore, the preacher affirm it, have I not a right to demand his author ity for such a declaration ; and il, he fails to show, that the Saviour has promised him such a measure of divine influence as wat rants him in making it, ought I not to de mand of him, such miraculous proofs, ol his right to give this interpretation, as the prophets and apostles gave, and as, even, the Saviour himself, did not think it be neath him to give, to prove His divine mis sion? I deny therefore to the Ministry of this age, these supernatural gifts, because they cannot prove, that they possess them from the Holy Scriptures, and have wrought no miracles in proof of it. And, indeed, there are unanswerable evidences, to my mind, that they are endowed with no such powers. Il would be impious to allow, that the Spirit would teach a Baptist, that a text means one thing, a Methodist that it meant another, a Moravian another, &e. and yet, in how many points, do these and all evangelical denominations, differ.— Even, if we narrow the argument down to our own denomination, in how many things do we disagree, among ourselves All these discrepancies point to the fallibility of human reasonfrand the frailties of human nature, for tlieir origin ; for, we shall look for them, in valff, in those teachings which are prompted by the Holy Spirit. Some, who practice this sort of exposi tion, are led to adopt it, I charitably believe, mainly, with the design ol illustrating their opinions; or in other woids, they use it as a kind of allegory. Yet, if they mean nothing more by it, they are still culpable, in essaying to prove points in theology by a figure of speech. That meekness and humility are indispensable to all who ask for the pardon of tlieir transgressions, and that, the Saviour has the will and power to forgive sins, are elementary truths of the Gospel; but for the preacher to declare, that the promise is proved by the posture and words of the Leper, and the latter, by the act ol’ our Lord in healing his disease, fbsurd, at least, if not wicked.| Compar ts can be legitimately used, only, to il h,; irate, and not to prove. A Methodist ntightfmd a very apt figure, in the incident •related in Acts xx. 8, 10, of Eulychus the young man of Troas. who, having sunk down in a deep sleep in church during di vine service fell down from the third loft and was taken up dead, hut was restored to life, by means of the miraculous gifts of the apostle, to illustrate the doctrine and danger of apostacy, and the possibility of restora tion to spiritual life: but. who will say these doctrines are proved by it. A com parison or an allegory, draw.n from the Sa cred,. Volume, prove no more, bd itremem than ope taken Irmii pmfaiw Itiauirp. from fiction, or from the works of Nature or art. The case of the Leper, or the walling of a bushel of wheat may serve to illustrate the doctrine of sanctification, but cat never prove it. I.AVMAN. Mr. Thorn’s Comments oil our Reply to him. Dea| brother Baker, (for 1 accept the en dearing title of “brother” which you have kindly tendered.) In yijur remarks on my letter of the 2nd inst. yoji have certainly assigned me a posi tion which I had no desiie to assume, My letter was not intended as an argument a gainst the doctrine of close communion, hut only an account of the proceedings of a communion meeting of the Baptist denom ination :it this place. In which 1 gave you a short Account of the positions of one of the officiating ministers. Which positions I supposed were not a true exposition of the views t/f the Baptist denomination. I add ed suelj enquiries as I thought would give you aiyopporlnnity (and 1 considered your paper tine of the principal organs ofthc de nomination) to state precisely the position of till; Baptist church in leiation to the ques tion. I suppose your want of leisure ut the lime you penned your temarks hurried you into the opinion that 1 was a Poedo baptist. For 1 feel assured there is noth ing in my letter calculated to produce an in ference ol that character. On the contrary the letter carries strong indications on its face that it was written by a friend of the Baptist church, who desired that the true ground which that denomination occupies iu defence of the doctrine of close commun ion should be fully Uikderßlood, tout thought that the Rev. Minister had taken a position not assumed by the entire church. Hence illy desire that you should “ assign u rea solt coextensive with the practice itself.” %ou think I have misrepresented the in atttibuting to him the po silit* that, Christ instituted the sacrament iu iimtuiion of a heathen licio; Are you tv ill i that his position on that subject should*be considered the doctrine of the clutrchyto which you belong ? If you are not, yoiTshould not insinuate that I inis rep resented him. If you are, lam willing for those why were present to determine what was that iosiiion. By tlye prayer of consecration I meant the lirstmrayer at the communion, if its the ological technical meaning he anv thing n n y O more it wus not so intended by me. In that place the won! “ dedication” would have expressed my meaning; ns well as “consecration.” ll the soldiers of Leonidas had differed in their construction of his orders, would those who happened to he in the right, have tfie prerogative to prohibit those in the wrong from any participation in the vow f I pre sent the question to you, because in your comments, you seem to have been satisfied with the Rev. Minister’s reference to the sacramcnlum of Leonidas. Though until I saw your observations, 1 did not suppose lhat position was really occupied by your church. I regret exceedingly that (to me at least) the most important enquiry in my letter shared so small a portion of your attention, and that was to ** assign a cause coexten sive with the practice.” Many plausible and specious reasons for auglul know may be given, but when the true cause is ascertained it will (according to logic) be precisely coextensive with the effect or practice. If a difference of opin ion, on the subject of baptism, (and for the present I admit immersion of believers to be correct) be the ground for a close commun ion, why do not all who are properly bap tized commune together? Why do you not invite threr Freewill and Primitive Bap tists ? And which branch of the Baptist church, alone, correctly administers the or dinance of baptism. These questions un avoidably grow out of the position assumed by the baptist church, together with the reasons assigned for them. I had much rather occupy th? place of an enquirer, than take the post of a disputant. Though I am not insensible to your gener osity in offering ine your columns, particu larly as you supposed me to be a Poedo baptisi. One principal objection to becom ing a disputant in this mallei is, I am now endeavoring to form a correct opinion on the subject; and am desirous of the assis tance of your reflections. Should 1 become a disputant, there would be great danger that my prejudices would darken in my mind a porition of the light which might otherwise be reflected from your sugges tions. It will be soon enough after 1 have learned your views and your reasons for them,to oppose them inyourown columns. And it is by no means certain even il I( should not believe all your positions to be correct, that 1 should have the vanity to place my pen on the arena against yours. I desired my letter and your observations thereon to be published in order that many ol your readers, whom I supposed had their minds occupied with the same enquiries as my own, might have the benefit of your in vestigations. I hope this letter will meet thesame kind ness as did the fust, whilst you will do me the justice to believe, 1 desire through life to remain to yours and every Christian or der, a friend and weHVisher. REUBEN THORN. Dahlonega, 11 ill July, 1844. REMARKS ON TIIE ABOVE. it .crtiTs,- from ine n ttl.il wot ettrros- ‘ pondent is neither a Baptist nor Poedbbap tist, “But qs it were an after dinner’s sleep, Dreaming on both.” We inferred that he was a Poedobaplist from his stating that he was raised under Baptist influence, and that he was friendly to the Baptists. That was so much like a Poedobaplist, that we concluded he must certainly be one. They generally, when about to strike a blow, profess much friend ship for us, and if they are only fouitli cou sin to a Baptist, they are pretty sure to tell us of their Baptist connexions. The case of Leonidas is brought up li gnin. We have nothing new to say on the subject. We think it certainly justifiable to refer to the soldiers of Leonidas, or any other general, to illustrate the subject oil which the brother spoke. “If the soldieis of Leonidas had differed in their construc tion of his orders,” we certainly do think, that his under officers should have admitted none into their ranks, who did not come equipped as they understood iheircommand er-in-chicf to require that they should come. If they were tequired, for instance, to ap pear with a badge of white, those who ap peared with badges'of crimson should not have been enrolled. Baptism, according to both Baptist and Poedobaplist views, is a badge of discipleship. The Captain of our salvation does not allow us to receive any without it In a ease like that which we have supposed, one might appear with his crimson badge, lie might plead llial Uis a matter of no consequence of what color the badge is. We should reply, il may be so ; but our Commander has not so said. He has liot authorized us to deviate, in the least, from his instructions. His orders are express, to admit as many as appear with while badges. If, therefore, you wish to be admitted, you must apply at head quar ters, and obtain a special license. Produce a warrant from our commander, and it will afford us much pleasure to admit you.— Were we to admit others than those with white badges, and were our commander to inquire, “Who hath required this at your hand?” we should lie convicted, in our own hearts, of having transcended our au thority! Ifthcapplicantargued that “white” often means “ clean" —that the command er only meant by “ white badge,” a “ clean budge,” we should reply, that our com mander gave us no intimation that he used the words in any other than their ordinary acceptation, and that we were, consequent ly, morally bound to interpret them accor ding to their ordinary acceptation, until ev idence was produced, under his own hand and seal, that when Itesaid white, he meant clean or crimson. In answer to the inquiries based upon the supposition that our views of baptism are correct, we reply, Baptists do admit to the Lord’s table all whom they believe to have been baptized in gospel order, so long as they continue to walk orderly ; but we be lieve it to be disorderly to countenance, in any manner, those who depart from the gospel of Christ. While one is guilty ol such disorderly conduct, we may admit him to our own table, but we cannot, con sistently with our views of the requisitions of tbs- gospel, admit him to the Lord’s ta ble, even though there may have been no thing defective in his baptism. Our correspondent seems to think we did not assign a reason tor our practice coe val with it. We think differently ; lor we referred to the icord of God, which is cer tainly as old as immersion, and atgued, that there was no warrant there for a contrary practice. We thought this sufficient, as it is admitted that the word of God is the only unerring rule, both of faitlr and practice.— We know that Poedobaplists sometimes plead, that the word of God does not forbid receiving into the church, and to the Lord’s table, those whom we exclude ; but we hope our friend or brother—(a brother we know he is in one sense, if not in another) —will not sanction this popish argument. If it is lawful to do all that is not forbidden, then we may join with Romanists iu say ing mass for the dead, in administering or receiving holy unction, Sic. Sic. for these Pitbliriijer— BENJ. BR A NTLY are not forbidden in the scripltiics. If our correspondent will assume that it is our du ty to do all that is not forbidden, we will afford him an opportunity of evincing his faith bv his works. Does he possess houses and lands? Has he merchandize ? or oth er valuable property ? We would say to him, he may send us a deed of conveyance of all his possessions by mail, at our risk and expense. The scriptures do not pro- Mbit his doing so. Has he believed, te penled and been buried with his Lord iu baptism? These ate aets which the scrip lutes not only do notfffebul, but expressly enjoin. ‘lf our brother is, as he intimates, in vfu tw-uuUt vtrge upon him the importance of having an eye single to the glory of God, and taking the word of God as the sole guide of his con duct. Be deaf to what the world, or friends, or kindred, or self-interest may say; but treasure up, deep in your heart, every word ol God, and you will never have cause to repent it, either in timeoi in eternity. The essayson the subject of communion, which tve promised, will appear in due time —our promise in reference to this matter shall not be forgotten. A brother, who wields a masterly pen, has engaged to com ply with our request, in reference to this matter. Reply of Mr. llall lo Mr. Heavours. Pixeville, June 7th 1844. lira. linker. — l have just seen in the Index ol 24th of last month, a communica tion from bro. J. B. Deavours concerning mine published 12th April last. After quoting a portion of what 1 said, he says 1 “describe 45 miles long audio or 17 broad.” Why this is the very “southern boundary” over which so much lamentation has been set up. And I was particular in stating the length and breadth of it, that I might if need be, prove that there was no “destitution” lietc, by pub lishing the names of the preachers, and designating the places of worship located within it. Bro. D. says he is not for war, and that lie has not been getting up reli gious controversies here. I did not charge him with either. I only spoke of his re port. He then sets out to “reason” with me by supposing a case. But the case he supposes is not like i\e one made out in the report. To be like that he must suppose that there is none of any sort “to cast in ■Gospel seed.” If any one, and especially .if an “anti-missionary” were to say of Talbot Cos., what bro. D. said of “the” de scribed district;” lam persuaded that but few would hesitate to say he was “a man of falsehood;” as bro. D. says I have charged him. And yet I believe it would be as nigh the truth as was the report. And I only wanted to say ol bro. D. in language too as inoffensive as I was capable of using, that he had misrepresented the con dition of this country. But he says he had no means of knowing any thing certain of our people ; the doors being shut against him; and the sword of an uiifellowship that turns.every way lo keep our good things secret from him a missionary bap tist!! Surely bro. I), does not study the import of the terms he uses. Why he knows that lie is just as much at liberty to go into our houses of worship, hear our preachers, see our order, and the general deportment of our people, as one of our selves. J’lie old-school baptists have as few secrets, either as to doctrine or practice, as any people upon the lace of the earth. He asks how is he to speak of our quiet ness, sobriety, hospitality, good neighbor hood, and love of the tiuth ; when he is not permitted lo participate in any of our religious devotions as a minister of the gospel! ! This truly is a strange question. Is no one qualified to speak of a people as to the above named partioulais but a minis ter of ‘.lie Gospel ? Am! is not even a min ister qualified, unless he participates in their religious devotions ? I will leave to your readers to answer. Any one who can read can answer. And I think even hro. D. could testify at least to the hospitality of the people here- If bro. 1). had made as free use of the terms “ministers id’ our order,” and “mis sionary baptists,” in the report, as he has iu the latter part of his letter; you would not, nor would your readers ever have been troubled with one word from me on the subject. For I wish it distinctv remember ed that it was not of the missionary opera tions here that 1 complained; but, of the report of the “missionary.” As to the “destitute” place which bro. D. says he found within three miles of my house; I will only say that it is within about that distance of four meeting houses, one of them of the “missionary order.” Bro. D. accuses me of watching him for evil and not for good. Now I assure you, and him, that he is much mistaken. It is al ways wore pleasant to me to have a favor able, than an unfavorable opinion of any one; and is always painful tome, to be obliged to withdraw, in any degree, mv confidence from any one who har had it. I became acquainted with bro. D. soon af ter lie first came amongst us, and I confess he made a very favorable impression upon my mind. We had much friendly conver sation; and though we differed in some things, he knows I treated him kindly.— He knows too, that he expressed m\u&. NO. 32.