Newspaper Page Text
JOSEPH WALKER, Editor. of the baptist coirvETrafl r a <>v oeoecaxa
Vol. XXXVI.— New Series, Vol. 25.
C| t C|rtsiian |hsr.
PUBLISHED EVERY WEDNESDAY,
AT MACON, GA.,
BY A COMMITTEE OF BRETHREN, FOR THE
GEORGIA BAPTIST CONVENTION.
tle RMS .
Fifty numbers in the year are mailed to each subscri
ber for $2.50, or $2.00 in advance.
Discontinuance may be ordered by the subscri
bers at the close of aagr year, provided all arrearages
have been paid, or fay the Editor,‘at his discretion,
whenever more than an year’shubscription is due.
mhuftter of the Gospel who remits $8 in ad
vance for four new subscribers, may receive the paper
one year. -
Advertisements at the regular charge will be One
Dollar per square of ten lines or less, for the first in
sertion, and Fifty Cents tor each subsequent insertion.
AU advertisements not specified as.to time, will be pub
lished until forbid and charged accordingly. A liberal
discount allowed to those who advertise ; by the year.
Communications should be addressed to the Chris
tian Index, Macon, 6a.
Professional and Business Men.
Professional and Business Cards will be inserted
under-this head, at the following rates, viz:
For three lines, per annum $ 5 00
“ Seven lines, do .10 00
“ Ten lines, do 12 00
“Twelve lines, do 16 00
No advertisements of this class will be admitted, un
less paid for in advance, nor for a less term than twelve
months. Advertisements of over twelve lines will be
charged fro rata. Advertisements not paid for in ad
vance will be charged at the regular rates.
® MT The Office of the Christian Index is on Third
Street, over Thomas J. Lane’s Store, opposite the Ware
house of Messrs. Hardeman ft Sparks. Persons having
business with the office will find the Editor ready to re
ceive them during the usual business hours of the city.
fetter from Dr. Fuller.
article on re-baptizing appears
in the True Union, from the pen of*Dr.
Fuller. It was drawn out by two queries
from Baptist Laymen in or near Baltimore,
and the letter of Hr. .Manly, xacautly pub
lished in the same paper. Having pub
lished Dr. Fuller’s former letter with ani
madversions, and also Dr. Manly’s ; we
we cheerfhlly give place to this, making
such comments as the case seems to re
quire. The figures 1,2, 3, &c., will indi
cate the responses to those parts of the
document that seem to us objectionable:
REBAPTIZING.
Mr. Editor :—I believe that neither
Baptists nor Pedobaptists have ever re
garded me as very deficient in zeal on the
subject of baptism. Reposing on my
good name in this matter,-1 have not been
careful to notice many things which have
appeared on the subject of rebaptizing.
Once for all let this be remembered, that,
in the case submitted to me, there was no
question as to the conversion of the can
didate, or the piety of the minister, or the
propriety and solemnity of the adminis
tration. Admitting all these, is the act
absolutely null and void ? (1). This was,
and is, the only query:
M Would you recognize baptism by a
Mormon?” *
This plainly lias nothing to do with the
question. As well might I be asked,
whether I would sanction baptism by an
infidel, or Mohammedan, or by a band of
pirates. (2).
“ If the baptism be valid it ought not to
be repeated , even if the candidate wishes
it.”
Does not this writer admit that a deed
may be valid, and yet that there may be
irregularities to j ustifylhe repetition ? If
he does not see this distinction I cannot
help it. (3).
For Dr. Manly I cherish a love most
ardent, a deference and esteem most sin
cere; nor is it without great diffidence
that I venture to differ from him. Indeed
I concur fully in all he says, if regarded
as reasons to persuade ** the dear sister
that she ought to be baptized;” that it is
“ expedient;” and that she ought to do
this ** for the consciences of others.” In
this aspect of the matter I could go fur
ther than he does. My own experience
and observation lead me to believe that
as a Christian receives light, be will desire
to correct all irregularities in this solemn
ordinance.
At present, however, the dear sister
cannot repeat the act “ without doing vio
lence to her conscience.” (4). And what
now ?
They sddom fail” says Dr. Manly,
** to make it aridiculousfarce in their way
of administering it” dec. (5).
Too true. But does this awkwardness
vitiate the act ? H so, alas for many bap
tisms by Baptist ministers.
“ But it is their wish to make it so.”
I fear this again is sometimes too true.
But let us, in charity, hope otherwise. It
does not, however, apply to the case in
hand. (6). .
“ There are inconsistencies on the part
of the administrator , which vitiates the
his be affirmed? Will any one
pronounee all baptisms void, where incon
sistencies can be detected in the conduct
of the administrator? (7).
“ But there are inconsistencies on the
part of the candidate .” In a tract pub
lished by tlie Publication Society, I have
endeavored to expose the glaring incon
sistencies to which my brother alludes.
To be baptized and then identify one’s
self with a Pedohaptist Church, is so gross
a violation of all propriety—is such a de
reliction of the duty we owe to Christ, to
the truth, to ourselves, to Baptists and
Pedobaptists, that I have great fears for
the piety of any one who can persist in
such conduct. Such inconsistency, how
ever, is often seen in those whohave been
baptized by baptist ministers. And what
then? JBoes,this- nullify their baptism?.
I lAdt n it m\My uicir ofipUMii, u
is no argumMtm Me’ case before us. (8)i
“ But if me .principles on which the
Pedobapfost immersion proceeded are right ,
then there is no necessity for a separate or
ganization of Baptist Churches .”
If urjged to show that a Baptist ought
not to join a Pedohaptist church, this ar
gument is conclusive. But it has no force
in the present discussion. After it shall
have been scripturally shown that no bap
tism is valid unless performed by a bap
tized administrator, it would he sound logic
to infer that the Baptist organization alone
is scriptural. (9). As put here, however,
the reasoning appeals to denominational
feeling, without touching the Scriptural
argument. It is as if an Episcopalian
should seek to prove the divine origin of
prelacy, by saying, that if it be not right,
then the Episcopal organization is un
necessary ; or as if a Pedohaptist should
insist that infant baptism scriptural, be
cause, otherwise, Pedohaptist organiza
tions are not necessary. In such cases
we would see at a glance, that the advo
cates were only employing argumenta alt
invidia —only appealing to denomination J
al feelings.
Either the baptism is valid, or it is not.
If it is not, let this be proved. If it be
valid and Baptist organizations are good
for nothing, but to repeat it, every Bap
tist will say, let organizations which are
only useful for such a work of superero
gation cease at once. But Baptist organ
izations are necessary for far nobler pur
poses. Indeed the very case before us is
the strongest proof of the necessity for
Baptist churches. The candidate acted
up to her light, and was baptized. As
light increases, she sees the inconsistency
of remaining in a Pedohaptist church.
She leaves it, and Beeks a churchy where
truth*with no admixture of error is prac
ticedf (10).
“To come into a Baptist Church, under
thepreeent baptism could be no gain to her,
she receives nothing. Her coming in that
way could be no gain to the Baptist Church,
in the matter of baptism ; they receive
nothing and lose much. Under such cir
cumstances, her prospect of usefulness or
of benefit would be as good out of the Bap
tist Chu/rch as in it.”
Is not my beloved brother clearly mis
taken in all this? True, had she been
baptized by Baptist minister, the effect
would have been more direct on his con
gregation- But lier testimony for immer
sion was given where such testimony was
more needed. And now, in leaving the
Pedohaptist church, she again lifts lier
voice against error, and speaks for truth,
to those who are unused to such admoni
tions. In all this she shows a firmness,
and boldness worthy of all praise, honora
ble alike to herself and her Saviour. “ She
receives” a great deal, a great deal of
peace and strength, by her fidelity to
truth as it opens to her mind. The church
“ receives” a great deal, a great accession
of honor and influence, by lier testimony.
And by her painful training, her protract
ed conflict with, and triumph over, old
hereditary error, she is qualified for great
“ usefulness” in the church. (11).
After all, churches will differ on this
question, and, happily, no great harm can
come of such differences. In England
and this country, the matter has been
much canvassed. From a narrative be
fore me, (see Watchman & Reflector, on
the Philadelphia Association,) I find, that
in 1791, Dr. Rogers read a paragraph
from a letter from the Rev. Abraham
Booth, of London, directed to himself, in
which was intimated the expediency of
our reconsidering the decision of the as
sociation in 1788, respecting the “ inva
lidity of baptism when administered by
an unbaptized person.” Booth, the great
champion of Baptist principles, was op
opposed to these re-baptisms.
In the minutes of the Philadelphia As
sociation, 1765, there is this “ Query from
Smith’s Creek“ Whether it be proper
to receive a person into communion who
had been baptized by immersion, by a
minister of the Church of England, if no
other objection could be made ?” “ An
swer. Yea, if he had been baptized on a
profession of faith and repentance.”
In Benedict’s History, vol. 2, p. 472,
there is a query and a negative answer on
this question, taken from the Minutes of
the Richmond Association. But the his
torian thus speaks: “As persons are fre
quently applying for admission into Bap
tist Churches, who have been immersed
by Methodist and Congregational minis
ters, this question has, within a few years
past, been often proposed, and most As-
MACON, WEDNESDAY, AUGUST. 5,1857.
sociations have decided differently from
this. All agree that it is an unadvisable
measure, for a person to apply to unbap
tized ministers to lead them into the wa
ter, but after they have been properly
immersed on a profession of their faith,
it is generally thought that it would be :
improper to -immerse them the second
time. It is difficult to conceive why they
would not, in this case, come under the
denomination of Ana-Baptists.” (12).
Here I take leave of the subject. If,
as you say, severe things have been writ
ten, if, for giving my views to a brother
in the ministry, who, in grdfit distress,
solicited tliem, A ? Jiave4*een represented”
as 44 granting indulgences,” and “assum
ing to dictate to others what they ought
to. do”—such unkind things I have neither
seen —nor wish to see. Whoever is right
on the present question, he is certainly
wrong who betrays a bad temper. His
baptism may have been administered by
one who had been dipped seven times in
Jordan, but he is woefully in need of
another and nobler baptism—that of the
Holy Spirit.
God grant that everywhere all hatred
and uncharitahleness may cease; that
nothing may he done through strife or
vain glory; that we may be imbued with
that wisdom which cometh from above,
which is pure, peaceable, gentle, and ea
sy to be entreated; that we may have
unity in things essential, liberty in things
indifferent, and charity in all tnings! (13).
1. It may he wise on some accounts,
not to notice many things that appear on
the subject of rebaptizing,” hut Dr. Ful
ler’s “ good name” will not induce the
generally to adopts views of this
question. We hesitate not to pronounce
the “ act null and void,” and that because
the administrator had never himself been
baptized.
2. Dr. Fuller does not here represent
the query of “ a Baptist Layman,” fairly.
Here is his language :
“ Dear Sir lf an individual who had
been baptized on a profession of faith in
Christ by a Mormon preacher, were to make
application for membership in your Church,
expressing “ satisfaction with the baptism so
administered, would you be willing to receive
such individual to full fellowship.
“ A BAPTIST LAYMAN.”
Now then, as Dr. Fuller had defended
Pedohaptist immersion on the
ground that she was satisfied with it, the
above query was entirely proper, and de
served a different answer from the one
given.
3. The pastor of the seventh Baptist
Church betrays a little impatience here.
Such questions from laymen are annoying,
especially when difficult to answer. But.
“ the strong ought to hear the infirmities
of the weak.
4. How sudden the transition in style,
from these Laymen to Dr. Manly! Who
“ the dear sister,” is, we, of course, do
not know, but while we would not wish
lier to “ repeat the act in violation of her
conscience,” we should feel equally so
licitous for the consciences of the dear sis
ters and brethren in the Baptist churches.
5. We cannot believe that Baptist min
isters make “aridiculous farce” when ad
ministering baptism. They sometimes
perform the ordinance clumsily, but it is
baptism nevertheless, since they are them
selves baptized administrators.
6. “ The case in hand” must be a very
peculiar one, as objections that would he
valid in other cases, weigh nothing against
this.
7. We affirm that the fact of the admin
istrator’s being himself imbaptized, makes
void all baptisms administered by him.
8. Such conduct would not nullify the
baptism of Baptists—though it ought to
induce their exclusion from the Baptist
Church—because there was no defect in
their baptism originally, but when a Pedo
immersed Pedo applies for admission to
a Baptist Church, the baptism cannot be
received as valid, because of its original
irregularity —it never was baptism.
i 9. TJxbaptized ministers, in Dr. Euller’s
judgment, may lawfully baptize! Well!
if he take this ground, all reasoning is at
an end. Any professor of religion, though
connected with no church, may baptize.
If such views suit the Baptists of Balti
more, we can assure Dr. Fuller that they
would be universally repudiated in Geor
gia.
10. A new argument for the necessity
of Baptist organizations !—namely, to af
ford an opportunity to Pedohaptist error
iststo hold membership in Baptist Church
es ! Is this the “ noble purpose” for
which Baptist Churches were originated ?
Churches in which “ truth with no admix"-
; ture of error ” ought to exist, are to ad
mit errorists who bring their errors with
tliem-T We give it up—the**da no con
tending against each reasoning as tMd,
min
istaW© immerse for Baptist Chtirches.
-tiufer ” oYmWtmn for
,U|gyiear sister, wnose application iol
mojprship’ in a Baptist Church has oc-’
casmgyed so much discussion, gave her.,
where light was,Ylost needed”
ed.” And “ leaving the Pedohaptist
Church, she again lifts her voice, and
speaks for truth, to those who are unused
to such admonitions ’’—that is, she applies
to a Baptist Church for admission on her
Pedohaptist immersion!! Yerily, the
Dr. is doing great honor to the minds and
hearts of Baptists! But we forbear.
12. Booth, Benedict and others—though
advocates for immersions by Baptist min
isters only—would not re-immerse any
who had been immersed by Pedohaptist
ministers! This is the name and title
logic to which Dr. Fuller would not have
had recourse, if his views could otherwise
have been maintained.
Is. We, too, desire to take leave of this
subject—at least, so far as Dr. Fuller is
concerned. We can grieve over the atti
tude he exhibits towards a large portion of
the Baptist denomination, but we see no
prospect of convincing him of his error.
He esteems it a fortunate circumstance
that “he has not seen”—nor does he
“ wish to see”—what has been written
against his views. Yery well; those who
write against the notions of baptism which
he has recently put forth, do not write
for the sake of annoying him, nor with
the belief that his mind could be changed
or edified by anything which tliey might
say, but with the desire to arrest the er
rors they oppose. And though their ani
madversions maybe treated with a stu
died indifference, both by preachers. and;
a section of the Baptist press, there arpl
thousands of people who will read, under
starKfsmt actr&n the
own minds. For these we write, and not
without the hope of exerting an impor
tant influence in the right direction.
We hope the True Uuion may he able
to approve “ the spirit of the above re
marks, and remember that the Father
seeketh those to worship him, who do it,
not only in spirit, but also in truth. If
we and others are era the wrong side in this
matter, let the editor point out the wrong,
and not keep his readers from seeing both
sides by the pretence that what has been
written on one side is not fit to be seen.
We shall be greatly surprised if even
Baltimore Baptists will he content with
such a pretext.
Answer to “ Baptist in the Office.”
BY WM. 8. GREEN. ‘
If you love me, Brother Baptist, feed
me with spiritual food, and not with the
husks of controversy. It ought to be a
disagreeable thing for Christians to be
obliged to differ from each other; but as
the Bible is our only guide to faith and
practice in religious matters, we should all
be willing to be ruled by what it teaches.
[ have published a piece entitled “ The
Old Landmark,” in which I felt sure that
there was nothing offensive; hut to which
bbjection is made in many points. It
would requre too much repetition, and
too long an article to make a full rejoin
der, and therefore I shall rest contented
to touch a few leading points of difference
between us. My position, in short, is
this: ajiy baptized believer in Christ Jesus
has a right to become a minister of the
gospel; and any man whether a Christian
or not, has a right to preach the gospel.
The main text on which I relied to prove
the latter portion of the above proposi
tion, was omitted, (unintentionally I sup
pose,) in the publication of my article.
It read thus:
When some preached Christ for strife did Paul complain
Although intended to increase his ;pajA 1
Ah no she bade the blessed gospel flow
Wherever man a Savior’s love coaid show.
Philippians 1, 19—18.
The 18th verse reads thus: “What then?
notwithstanding, every way whether in
pretence or in truth, Christ is preached;
arid I therefore do rejoice , yea, and will
rejoice.” These preachers did not preach
Christ sincerely , but maliciously. Sure
ly a pious, sincere, Presbyterian or Meth-
Ydist preacher would be more acceptable
to brother ‘Baptist in the office,’ than these
persecutes of Paul. If Paul therefore
Christ ? Ilow hard hearted some modern
Baptists have become! John said, “ Be
hold the Lamb of God which taketh away
•the sin of the world.” Thus he preached;
but the woman of Samaria (a sinner) said,
“ Come see a man which told me all
things that ever I did: is not this the
Christ ? ” (John IY, 29.) Thus she preach
ed, and her preaching was effectual to
the conversion of sinners like herself.—
Would brother “Baptist in the office”
have held her hack, and said you have not
been baptized—you are not ordained;
you cannot lawfully go and bring your
kindred “the good tidings of great joy
which shall he taall people?” How
hard-hearted some modern Baptists have
become!
A number of Shepherds were once
keeping watch over their flocks by night,
when they had a heavenly vision which
made known to them the birth of Jesus.
When they had seen tlie Saviour of poor
fallen man, they preached Jesus as they
went. 11, 17.) Would brother
“Baptist in the office” have run before
them and hallooed in their ears—“ stop,
stop, sirs, you have not been baptized, nor
ordained to preach.” How liard-hearted
some modern Baptists have become!
Immersion, my brother, as I have said
before, is not the gospel. Some have sup
posed that the immersion of John was a
part of the gospel of Jesus. (From Mark
1, 1 ;) hut this refers to the preaching of
that believeth ; and in Ist Corinthians. 1,
17th, he says : “ For Christ sent me not to
immerse, but to preach the gospel. Here
he distinctly separates the word gospel
from the word immersion. Immersion is
a pledge of a reception of the gospel, and
the pledge or sign of a thing cannot he
the thing itself. The intrinsic value of a
coin consists in the metal of which it is
made, but the stamp on the coin is the
sign of its currency. The sign never can
he equal to the coin itself. We are thank
ful for tlie gifts of God, but our thanks
are not the gifts. The brethren on the
day of Pentecost, as also Cornelius, re
ceived the gospel, and then were immersed
in token of it.
I have also said that John’s immersion
was not Christian immersion, which posi
tion is denied by brother “ Baptist in the
Office.” As the subject would require
too much controversy, I am willing to
agree to disagree, and urge it no further.
To make the two immersions identical,
however, brother Baptist must show that
John’s was immersion in the name of the
Triune God—that the twelve brethren at
Ephesus had not properly received John’s
immersion—that they were not re-im
mersed —that Apollas did not receive the
same kind of immersion as these twelve—
that John had any authority to confer tlie
power to another man to immerse with
his immersion—that the intention and
sign of John’s immersion were the very
same as Christian immersion—that there
was no difference between the disciples of
John, and the disciples of Jesus, and that
John could use the name of the Holy
Ghost typically, and at the same time be
unable to cause it to descend on any one.
To my mind these are difficult points, but
perhaps brother “ Baptist in the office ”
can clear them up for me. It will he a
labor of and thankfully received.
Remarks on the above.-R may be that
“ A Baptist in the Office ” ought to apol
ogize for presuming to write poetry in
reply to brother Green’s, but his old muse
became enthusiastic on reading the rhimes
against the “ Land Markers,” and could
not be restrained. If brother Green has
been annoyed with a bag of “husks,” “A
Baptist in the office ” can only express
his regret, that “the food was not spirit
ual.” It was the best he had, and such
as the occasion seemed to demand.
Brother Green has sadly deceived him
self by his own premises. He proceeds
** ’ “ £ l _ • -fat.
•on the assumption that Pedohaptist prea- >
cliers are baptized —that a man who is
a Christian, may rightfully preach the
gospel—vliat infant-baptism and sprink
ling are less deleterious to gospel truth,
J.than was the spirit of those who preached
pbf envy and strife ” in Paul’s day—that
Lthe woman of Samaria wsff'&'sinncr, un-
she reported what Jesus
:.ihat this report was preach
that jefim s ‘baptism-’ differed essen
tially from that under thbfcommission,.and
that’ 4 ? thd;’pP||Rs are hard-hearted,” be
-1 cause tsiev join i.-Mie with him on these
lions, A Baptist- in the"office ” denies,
and consequently, puts the onus probandi
(burden of proof) on brother Green.
Such premises as the above would fill
our pulpits with disobedient professors,
mere worldlings, women and men, boys
and girls, and all who should either before
conversion or after, before baptism or af
ter, say a word to others in favor of Christ
and liis gospel.
“A Baptist in the Office”is sorry that
a verse of brother Green’s poetry was in
advertently omitted.
For the Index.
Not a Christian, but a member of the
METHODIST CHURCH.
Brother Walker: —The above is tlie re
ply of a gentleman “havingsome stand- -
ing as a scholar, and as a professional
man,” to tlie inquiry— 44 are you a Chris
tian.” Two conclusions will logically fol
low from the premises. Ist, That the
Methodist Society is not a Christian So
ciety. 2d, That membership in the so
called Church, is substituted *
for religion. The gentleman claims to be
a member of the Methodist Church, and
by this, .saws Christianity is not a pre-re
qU.isieo^ia\ein}>ershiP’ therefore the Meth
odist 4ses.£JßJ’ i s not a Christian society.—
To tlie Mqniry, “ are you a Christian,”
why should the gentleman reply, lam a
member of the Methodist Church ?
The question was not, are you a Metli
tfthsLbut simply “ are you a Christian.”
fei#the. reply wo mu%t, I think, con
he felt"that membership in the: !
Methodist Church, supplied all his lack
of religion, and was a full and satisfactory
answer to the important inquiry. This
gentleman may have been put into the
Methodist Church, as thousands are, in
his infancy; and this delusion may have
grown with his youth, and strengthened
with his strength, until he is so complete
ly manacled, he cannot come to the light.
If so, his fate is sealed in common with
many ten thousands in like condition, and
should afford a sufficient reason, for all
manner of Scriptural opposition to the
spread of Methodism—seeing it has no
foundation in the word of God. Frater
nize, fraternize! in the pulpit with the
teachers of such heresies, is tlie demand
of some Baptists, and because some will
not do it, they are called high church
men. This charge looses all its odium,
because there is no analogy between old
land mark Baptists in faith, and practice,
and those to whom they are compared.
I hold, that the old land-mark doctrines
are high churcliism, because they are the
doctrines of Christ and his Apostles, and
the doctrines of the churches they estab
lished. Tlieir churches being heavenly,
are of course the highest, and we being
members of Apostolic Churches, are of
course the high church party in truth.—
Brethren are you ashamed of the appella
tion ? If there is a high church party, of
course there is a low church party. This
low church party, is so far below tho
standard set up by Christ and liis Apos
tles, that scarcely a trace of them, can be
found in tlie hook of God. Yes, they are
so low that men even learn from tlieir
teachings, that membership in them, sup
plies tlie lack of Christianity. Let us re
member old land-mark brethren, that
sometimes hard names are use?? to supply
the place of hard argument, and let us
hold on our way rejoicing. M.
It is better to have recourse to a quack,
if he can cure our disorder, although he
cannot explain it, than to a physician, if
he can explain our disease, but cannot
cure it. In a certain consultation of phy
sicians, they all differed about the nature
of an intermittent, and all of them were
ready to define the disorder. The patient
was a king. At length an empiric, who
had been called in, thus interposed:—
“ Gentlemen, you all seem to differ about
the nature of an intermittent, permit me
to explain it, an. intermittent, gentlemen,
is a disorder which I can cure, and which
you cannot.’
NFMrtER 3T