Newspaper Page Text
JOSEPH S. BAKER— Editor.
VOL. XIII.
TERMS PEU ANNUM.
$g&T The Christian. Index, published on Friday
in each week, (except two in the yea*}, will be furnished
’to each subscriber at *2 50 cents..in advance; at $3
if not paid within the year.
Post-Masters, where the Index is taken, afore
attested to, forward for subscribers at their
respective offices,’accoijling to a decision of “the Post-
Master General as to tlidr right to do so. All patrons
and agents are requested to notice this.
Every Agent, (anil all Baptist Ministers are particu
larly solicited to become agents,), who procure and pay
for live copies.of the Index, shall be entitled to'a sixth,
as a compensation for his trouble.
Letters on business, or communications, must be ad
dressed to the Editor, post paid. . “
•* .Vdrertisc.moms may *s-inserted on nsnal trnms.—af
the discretion of the Editor.
For the Christian Index.
AN ESSAY,
la Defence of Strict Communion, In/ J. L. Daoo,
Professor of Theology, Mercer University, Ga.
CHAPTER 111.
The Question Discussed.
The review which we have taken of Mr. Hall’s trea
tise, has brought to our notice the ablest arguments
which have been urged in defence of Mixed Communion
If it cannot be defended by these, it may be concluded
that its defence is impracticable.
In the discussion, on which wc arc now to enter, we
shall examine the following propositions :
1. Communion at the Lord’s table is an ordinance of
Christ, which visible Churches, us such, arc bound to
observe. .
2. Baptism has been made, by Divine Appointment,
n pre-requisite to visible Church-membership.
3. The toleration enjoined on the followers of Christ,
will not justify a Church in admitting unbaptized per
sons to its membership or communion.
If we succeed in demonstrating the truth of these pro
positions, wc shall, 1 conceive, have fully established the
principles of Strict Communion, and have fairly met and
refuted every argument for the contrary practice.
Section 1.
Tltt Lord's Supper Designed for Churches.
Communion at the Lord's Table is an ordinance of
Christ, which Visible Churches, as such, arc bound to
observe.
In order to cluctdatclh’s proposition, if Ts ncedrlit ui
remove that obscurity respecting the meaning of the
term Church,’ which lias arisen from the various uses
und applications of it by uninspired writers; and to dis
tinguish dearly between the ceremonial communion of
the Lord’s table, and that communion which is spiritual
und independent of external riles.
‘The Church ftitliolic or Universal.
The word which is rendered Church in our version of
the New Testament, like other words employed us reli
gious appellations, has an original signification on which
depended the propriety of the special use to which it was
appropriated.—lt was applied to any assembly, hut espe
cially to one convened by public authority.
When used in the Scriptures, in its religious scr.se, it
has been supposed to denote—l. The whole body of the
elect, sometimes called the Invisible Church. 2. Al|
the professors of the true religion, or the Visible Church
Catholic. 3. A particular congregation of persons
united for the worship of God. 4. An assembly of
ecclesiastical rulers. 5. The Christians in a particular
kingdom or province. 0. The Christians in a particular
family.
Mr. Hall has, with more propriety, reduced its signi
fications to two —in the first of which it comprehends all
genuine Christians without exception. This is the
Church Catholic and Invisible —and is what is called, in
Scripture, the body of Christ. A few passages follow,
in which the word is used in this sense. %
Ephesians 1: 22, 23, gave Him to be the head over
all things to the Church, which is IJis body. Ephesians
5—25, 27 : As Christ loved the Church, and gave Him
selfforit, that He might sanctify und cleanse it with the
washing of water by the word ; that lie might present
it to Himself a glorious Church —not having spot, or
wrinkle, or any such thing; hut that it should be holy
and without blemish. Ileb. 13 —23: The general
assembly and Church of the first-born which are written
in Heaven.
In accordance with these, and similar passages, Mr.
Hall has correctly decided that the term, in its Catholic
sense, denotes genuine Christians. It is the spiritual
body of Christ, the Church Invisible.
The doctrine of a Visible Church Catholic is not
authorized by the sacred Scriptures. The term assem
bly docs not apply to such a body—a body which never
has assembled, and never will assemble, until the last
day, when it will be found partly on the right hand, and
partly on the left o( the great Judge. The Gospel, as a
proclamation from God, calls together the members of
the invisible or spiritual Church. It gathers in one the
children of God scattered abroad; and forms the general
assembly and Church,pfthe first-born which are written
in Heaven. When the elect arc gathered from the four
winds of Heaven, the wicked are not contemplated as
forming any part of the assembly. The tares and
wheat, it is true, grovy together in close proximity until
the time of harvest; yet the tares arc the children of the
wicked one, and the wheat only arc tho children of the
kingdom. Into this kingdom none but regenerate
enter.’
THE CHRISTIAN INDEX.
The unscriptural doctrine of a Visible Church Catholic,
lies at the foundation of niitfiy corruptions of chr-istinnijy.
The whole edifice ,gs the Papacy is built ,on it. The
Pope is the visible (lead of a visible body; butthat bqdy
is not the body of Christ. Ifthe Scriptures acknowledge
not the existence of a Visible Church Catholic, the
whole controversy, which of the great ecclesiastical or
ganizations is the true Church, should .coast*; and all of
them, whether Papal or. Protestant, are left to rest on
human authority. If there is no Visible Church Catho
lic, we have no continuation of that external organiza
tion, usually called the Jewish Church ; and all argu
ments jjience derived for infant Church-membership,
■iwd_a trinla artier of nriostliood. ** without foiilivAtiO'i.
Agreeing with Mr. Hall on the question, whether
there is a \ isible Church Catholic, I have felt at liberty
to regard the opinion which we hold in common as un
disputed truth. It is but just, however, to acknowledge
that this is a question about which the advocates, both of
strict and of mixed communion, are drilled among
themselves. I)r. Mason, who wrote against close com
munion, almost simultaneously until Mr. Hall, maintain
ed, in his essays on the Cnlireh, that a Visible Church
Catholic was organized in the family of Abraham, and
perpetuated, with infant membership, in the Gospel dis
pensation. On the other hand, many advocates of strict
communion agree with Dr. Mason, that there is a Visi
ble Church Catholic; though some ol them differ
as to the date of its origin, and the members of
which it is composed. I think Mr. Hall’s views on this
point more scriptural; but it is not my design to rely on
any argument, which would not he valid, if the contrary
opinion were admitted to be true. Correct views on this
subject will break up the foundation on which some per
nicious errors have been based, and turn the attention of
men Irom a visible to a spiritual unity among the people
of God. Although Knapp, in his Theology, admits a
V isible Catholic Church, yet he says : “ When the uni
ty of the Church is spoken of in the New Testament, it
is amoral unity which is intended. * * * But there
gradually arose, after the second and third centuries, an
entirely different conception of the unity of tlio Church.
It first originated among the Fathers in the West, in
consequence of their transferring to Christianity certain
incorrect Jewish ideas, which were disapproved by Jesus
and His apostles, and which had the most injurious
results. The unity of the Church was placed, by them,
in an entire external agreement as to those doctrines and
forms which were handed down from the times of tho
apostles,“jlirougn me HfllliretiesTrranuuu uy tnenr, nntt m
the external connexion and fellowship of the particular
societies founded upon this agreement. * * Through
those principles, and the consequences derived from
them, the hierarchy was gradually established ; and in
tolerance, and the spirit of persecution, arid anathemati
zing became ven prevalent. Even the papal hierarchy
rests entirely upon these principles, and originated from
them. The principal Bishops now established a kind of
college or secret society ; and this unity of the Church
was made dependent, first upon many heads, then upon
one visible Head of the Church. And whoever ventured
to dissent from the doctrine or the ordinances of the
principal Bishops, who held together and governed their
Churches, was excluded from Church-fellowsh'p, and
declared a heretic.”—Vol. 2, p. 484—486.
*Johti 3 t 3, s—Col. 1: 13.
Spiritual Communion.
The whole Invisible or Catholic Church is one body ;
and in whatever belongs to this body, each particular
member has an interest. This common interest consti
tutes the communion of the saints.
They have one spirit. The mind is in them which
was in Christ. Tho spirit that was given to Him with
out measure, dwells also in them. As in the human
body, the same blood is the life of every member; so, in
the mystical body of Christ, the same spirit animates
the whole. A more intimate communion than this is
not possible. v
They have one inheritance. They are called in one
hope of their calling—the hope of an inheritance, incor
ruptible, undefiled, and that fadeth not away. Thev
arc heirs of God, and joint-heirs with out Lord Jesus
Christ. They have not only a most intimate commu
nion of spirit, but also a perfect communion of interest.
This spiritual communion shows itself in all the holy
services and enjoyments to wiiich the people of God are
called. They are laborers in one vineyard, soldiers in
one cause, guests at one table, and children of one fami
ly. The mountains which divide nations, and make
them enemies to each other, cannot divide Christians.
No difference of rank or complexion alienates them from
each other ; no division into sects and parties disturbs
their spiritual and heavenly unity—though in the Visi
ble Church Catholic, that imaginary unity of human
contrivance, it has engendered the most fiendish ani
mosities, and relentless persecutions.
This spiritual communion does not consist in ceremo
ny or outward form. It consists not in meats and
drinks, but in righteousness, peace and joy, in the Holy
Ghost. It before all ceremonies; and will remain,
and be in heaven, when ceremonies shall have
been done away. That it may exist in connexion with
ceremonies, and may be promoted by them, we do not
deny ; but ceremonies are no more essential to it, than
they arc to salvation. This communion is as far above
ceremonial communion, as the heavens are above the
earth; it is a portion of heaven to be found on earth.
No outward professor, as such, is admitted to it; but it
belongs to those who are come to the heavenly Jerusa
FQR THE BAPTIST TIIE STATE OF GEORGIA.
PENFIELD, GA„ SMBRUARY 21, 1845.
lem, the innumerably Spany of angels, the general
assembly ,"&nd Churqjh; [he first-born. I beiiovein the
Holy GuuhcSfic ChOrdb, nil tho Communion of Saints.
... ‘.V'jajp ~
... MM -'r fliurriits.
There is hut orie*jfßer sern.e in which # he ; ‘rm
Church, ns a rcligiousfjj'pellation, occurs in the few
Testament. In this itjKioles an assembly of professed
Christians, associated ttfliio worship of God.
■ The spirit which dv®ivi in the hearts of believers, is
fitting them for tlie sqfie as well hs the services and
enjoyments of heaven* jtjs not more certain thutjie
sanctifies .and comfortlS;^p©j>l^^ < J l that he
each oM . A ! a even without a 1^
vine command, tM* fortrfation of religious societies would
be the nat:. n! ‘regeneration. This is exempli
fied in the numerous benevolent associations, for which
the present ago is distinguished. These are doubtless
formed in accordance with the will of God; yet they
make no pretensions to express Scriptureauthority, such
as is claimed for those Religious societies which, in the
Now Testament, are denominated Churches. These,
besides having that sanctioif which the example of in
spired men furnishes, have hud their existence so recog
nized in the Scriptures, and such directions given for the
management of their affairs, that they must he regarded
ns of special Divine institution, and intended to he a no’
cessary part of tho chrfcAian dispensation. They are,
indeed, temporary in-their character and duration ; and,
like every other thing temporary and earthly, they have
their imperfections, yht’ they serve very important pur
poses, and ought to be formed and regulated according
to the teachings of revelation.
1 he passages ol Scripture, in which the term Church
is applied to such religious societies as have just been
described, are numerous. When so pmployed, it is fre
quently (I would not say,* with Mr. Hall, invariably,)
accompanied with a specification of the place where the
Church was accustomed to convene. The followin'’
O
examples will suffice to establish this sense of the term :
1 Cor. 4 : 17—“As 1 leach every where in every
Church.” 7: 17—“ And so ordain lin nil the Church
es.” 11 :„1G —“If any man seem To he contentious, we
have no such custom, neither the Churches of God.’’
14: 23—i.‘ If therefore the whole Church be come
together into one place.” 14: 33—“ For God is not
the author of confusion, hut of peace, as in all the
Churches of the saints.” 10: 1—“ As I have given or
der to the Churches of Galatia, even so do ve.” 10:
D>—“The C’hirrbhes of Asia sat utcTyou;’” Acts, 14:
23—“ And when they had ordained them elders in every
Church.” 2 Cor. S : 18—“ Whose praise is in the
gospel throughout all the Churches.” 8: 19—“And
not that only but who was also chosen of the Churches.”
8 : 1—“ The grace of God bestowed on the Churches
of Macedonia.” 11 : 2S—“ That which cometh upon
me daily, the care of all the Churches.” 12:13—“ For
what is it wherein you were inferior to other Churches.”
Gal. 1: 2—“ Unto the Churches of Galatia.” 1: 22
“ Was unknown by face to the Churches of Judea which
were in Christ.” Acts, IB : s—“ And so were the
Churches established in the faith, and increased in num
ber daily.” 15: 41 —“Confirming the Churches.”
Acts, 9 : 31—“Then had the Churches rest throughout
all Judea and Galilee.”
It is a question of much importance, in this discus
sion, whether a Church, in the sense in which that ap
pellation is used in tho preceding quotations, is a purl of
tho Church Catholic. Our opinion is, that it docs notj
derive its name from the Church Universal, and that it
is not, in strict propriety of language, a part of that body.
In support of this opinion, we odor the following
arguments :
1. The term Church, which denotes meruly an
assembly, is, with obvious propriety, applicable directly
to a company of persons assembled for the worship of
God. Tho supposition that this use of it is dependent
on that in which it denotes the whole body of genuine
Christians, is gratuitous and improbable. Os the latter
use, the ground and propriety arc much less obvious
than of the former!
2. The most usual application of the term in the
Scriptures, is, to companies of persons, either actually
assembled, or accustomed to assemble, for the worship
of God ; and the application is so made as not at all to
suggest a reference to the Church Catholic. The sup
position of such a reference would be less absurd, if tho
term, when emplojedto denote a particular assembly of
Christians, were invariably accompanied with a specifi
cation of the place where it was accustomed to convene.
We might then suppose that the Church at Corinth, at
Ephesus, at Romo, means that part of the Universal
Church found in these places—just as we would speak
of the atmosphere ol these citjcs, meaning, thereby, the
part, appertaining to each of them, of that entire mass of
matter to which the appellation, the atmosphere, appro
priately belongs. But it is impossible to refer to this
form of speech such expressions as—“ Tell it to the
Church,” “Hear the Church,” “Ordained in every
Church,” “ The care of all the Churches,” &e.
3. I’articular Churches are not, in strict propriety of
language, parts of the Church Catholic, because they
often contain persons who are not members of Christ’s
spiritual body. If they were purls, they would, of ne
cessity, he of like kind with tho whole, und would con
sist of true Christians only : yet every ono knows that
even in the first days of Christianity, there were many
members of the visible Churches who were not members
of the Church spiritual and invisible. The law of ex.
communication implies this; and the names of Judas,
Ananias and tSapohira, may be quoted as instances of i
such false profession. If particular Churches are parts 1
of the spiritual body, membership in the part must he of
like kind with membership in the whole; and no man
could cease to he a member, hut by ceasing to he a spi- ,
ritual man, that is, by falling from grace,—and, were
this possible, he would cease to he a member before the
sentence of excommunication should be pa -e.d, ami even
though it were never passed. The Church at Corinth
were required - )’ to assemble for the excommunication of
the incestuous person ; hut their sentence could not
affect his membership according to the doctrine which
we controvert. If lie was not a spiritual man, he was
lie •Church luv v s<| 4* it < i 6f
exco’mrnuiiTbtfVibn did not put him our? -* ,
4. The whole discipline of a Church, not to mention
the union of its members in every outward aist of wor
ship, requires the supposition of n visible or external or
ganization. Without this, the doctrine of Church inde
pendence, which the Baptists have maintained with so
much pertinacity, has no foundation. If there were no
visible or external membership, it would require a dis
cerner of spirits to determine who were entitled to vote
on any question which might occur, and miracles and
Church discipline must continue or cease together. i
*Nor would I any, “that whenever the word Church j
occurs in ita absolute, form, it comprehends all genuine ,
Christians without exception.” It is not true, that whenev
er a specification of the place of meeting is absent, the term
is used iu its Catholic sense. Tlie Church , in Mat. 18 : 17,
and even the whole Church, in 1 Cor. 14: 23, do not mean
the Church Catholic, hut particular congregations. So great
inaccuracy iu observing the facts on which his system de
pends, is, in Mr. Hall, truly surprising.
fl Cor. 5 : 4, 5.
Ceremonial Communion.
As there arc Churches of temporary organization, so
there •ne ordinances fitted only for the preseut state ol
being. ‘ uch are the two called sacraments.
Baptism was intended for individual believers, each
one of whom is hound for himself, by Divine command,
to make, in this ordinance, a public profession of his
faith in Christ.
Tho Lord’s Supper was designed, not only to com
memorate the death of Christ, but also to be a token of
Christian fellowship. For this last purpose, it necessa
rily requires to be celebrated bv a company. —Any in
dividual, ns the Ethiopian eunuch,'might receive Imp
tism; but we have no instance in which an indi
vidual received the Supper alone, or was commanded to
do 150.
wn **~*- • -w*---t-ij
t
Obligatory on Visible Churches.
The proposition which we are attempting to demon
strate, is, that Communion at the. Lord's Table is an
ordinance of Christ, which Visible Churches, as such,
ate bound to observe.
Having shown the distinction between spiritual com
munion, and that which is ceremonial —and having
proved the existence of particular visible Churches, us
distinguished from the Church universal and spiritual—
we have prepared the way for the demonstration of our
proposition. For this we adduce the following argu
ments :
1. The celebration of the Lord’s Supper must he obli
gatory on believers, associated in separate companies.
The whole body of the fnithful cannot assemble at one
place for this purpose. When it is received by an indi
vidual alone, as by a sick man in his chamber, if the
1 act is at all justifiable, it certainly does not fulfil all the
purposes lor which the ordinance was instituted. The
obligation must be acknowledged by the disciples of
Christ, so to observe this ordinance, as to exhibit their
fellowship with one another. To do this, they must
assemble in separate companies; and to secure a due
and regular observance, an agreement to assemble at
fixed times and places is indispensable. It is manifest,
from Acts, 20 : 7, that this duty was not left, in primi
tive times, to casual meetings of the disciples; hut was
made by them an important part of worship in their
stated assemblies.
2. The New Testament recognizes no assemblies, if
we except the Churches, from which a duo and regular
observance of the Lord’s Supper can he expected. The
Churches are bound to meet at fixed times and places
for tho public worship of God ; and it is fit that this
ordinance should constitute a part of that worship. Un
less we admit that the Christian law-giver made no ade
quate provision for the celebration of this rite, wo must
conclude that the obligation to attend to it devolves on
the Churches.
3. The Scriptures furnish satisfactory evidence, that
the apostles delivered this ordinance to the Churches,
and that the Churches kept it accordingly. The
Church at Jerusalem “ continued steadfastly in the apos
tles’ doctrine, and fellowship, and in breaking of bread,
and in prayers.” Acts 2 : 42.—T0 tho Church at
Corinth Paul writes—“ Now I praise you, brethren,
that you remember me in all things, and keep the or
dinances as I delivered them unto yon. 4 * Now
in this that I declare unto you, 1 praise you not, tliat ye
come together not for the better, hut for the worse. For,
first of all, when ye come together iu the church, 1 hear
that thero be divisions amoqg you. * * When ye
como together into one place, this is not to eat the
Lord’s Supper. What! have ye not houses to cat and
drink in ? or despise ye the church of God, und shume
them that have not? * * I have received of the
Lord that which I also delivered unto you, That the
Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed,
took bread. And when he had given thanks, he brake
Pi'ni rsirtR — RENJ. BRANTLY.
it, and said, Take, eat; this is my bo
dy, which is broken for you: this do
•in remembrance of ine. After the
same manner, also, he took the cup,
when he had supped, saying, This
cup isthp new testament in my blood:
this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in re
membrance of me. For ns often as y e
eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye
do shew the Lord's death till he come.
Wherefore, my brethren, when
ve come together to eat, tarry one for
another.”—l Cor. 11 : 2-33.
. ECCLESIASTICS. DEPART MEN T.| ‘
inr- r j
For the Christian Index'.
Rev. Geo. Lumpkin: —Dear 11 ro.
—From the intrinsic worth of your
character, as a moral, upright man,
and a D. D., I had a right to expect
something more frank, and free from
dark allusions or mysterious insinua
tions, towards me, than what appeared
in No. 4 of the Index.
Although I am left to gness at the
purport of your queries, I consider it
due to myself, and perhaps to you, to
answer them ; but I should have pre
ferred that you had specified your
charges against me, that I might have
■answered them without guess-work.
You may conclude that the notice I
took of your anti-majority notions was
uncalled for. I then thought, and yet
think, that such doctrine should not,
for one moment, be tolerated by Bap
tists.
A oh commence your castigation, by
saying—“ I wotlldonly ask hro. Luke
Robinson, if he is sitic he never has
supported, nor is at this lime support
ing, measures far more anti-republican
than my opinions expressed in the
15th Nov. No. ?” I answer that I
never have, neither is it possible for
any man to support measures more
anti-republican. Will hro. L. he so
kind as to name the doctrine to which
he alludes ?
Yon further say—“And as he is
not only a Doctor of Law in part, and
a D. D., will he have tho lunduess to
say, at his own convenieudf, if lie has
never, either in a civil or religious bo
dy, known a constitution formed,-with
, out a call for said constitution ? I an
. swer positively that 1 never did ; and,
• as l am now compelled to guess at
your meaning, I say, when an instru
ment, called “ the Minutes of the Big
Creek Convention,” prepared by a
committee, of which you were a mem
ber, and perhaps the writer, was for
ced upon the Yellow River Associa
tion, which contained the following
■ declaration ‘Resolved, that we with
, draw our communion from all piofess
ed Baptists, whosupport and advocate
the foregoing institutions.” I then,
’ in my place, stated that if the request
’ was granted, 1 should not he allowed
to preach among those brethren, and I
asked to know the sum of mv offend
ing. Why, I had given a little money
to aid the Bible Society in sending the
. Bible to the heathen ; and the Asso
. ciation, in the plentittide of her power,
did what you and others desired, by
adopting your anti-benevolent senti
ments its her own, a.id “granted tho
request.”
My only alternative, as the last re
• sort, was the right of revolution ; and,
consequently, it was necessary for us,
who did not only believe, but knew
our rights were violated, to setup for
ouiselves—and I was one of a com
mittee, called upon, to draft a consti
tution for the Rock Mountain Baptist
Association. If there is anything
more intended by your constitutional
question, let it's have it. And I further
say, that I am an advocate lor, and
submissive, to, such a constitution as
. that of the Rock Mountain Associa
tion, because it leaves the conscience
free from despotic fetters, with full
liberty to do all the good in our power.
You conclude by saying, “and if
charity begins at home, whether we
should not enter into self-examination ?
for they that live in glass-houses should
not throw stones —a word to the wise
is sufficient.” A word “fitly spoken”
is sufficient, but not otherwise; and
as to my house, it is made of sterner
stuff than glass, and bids defiance to
all such missiles as you can hurl at it.
LUKE ROBINSON.
Union Grove, February, 1845.
Right Htintl of Fellowship.
The following brief communication
is from a venerable old father in tlie
Ministry, who has out-lived his gen
eration, and is now waiting to receive
his passport to the realms of glory.
Dear Bro. Baker —lt is with much
regret that I see the question, wheth
er the right hand of fellowship should
be extended before baptism or after.
We think each have stretched the
thread too far, &c.
Wo now present to you a question,
taken from the Minutes of the Heph
zibali Association in 1808, which is as
follows :
Query, from the Church at Buelah.
—ls it consistent with the Gospel to
NO. 8