Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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