Newspaper Page Text
JOSEPH WALKER, Editor.
SAMUEL BOYKIN, Associate Editor.
Volume 37. —New Series Vol. 26.
CHRISTIAN INDEX.
rrBUSHKI) EVERY WEDNESDAY MORNING
At MACON, Ga.,
AT A COMMITTEE OF BRETHREN,
Mac tto ©tarsia Baptist Contention.
Belief and Baptism Before Com-
MUHION.
We propose to submit, for your con
sideration at the present time, a few
reasons >vhy our churches should ad
here to the practice inviting to the
TMc of the Lord only those persons
*ckom they believe to be the baptized
orderly followers of the Lord Je.
At a time when, in consequence of
>nr views on this subject, we are con
amtlj assailed with the charges of ex
ivu-m sad illiberality by Christian
n with whom we love to co
nemte : ■- ;>raver and other efforts in
ren.:v,i advance the Kingdom of
Ch.w'. it is proper for ns to review the
f*r onr practice. If these he
f mod sufficient let us maintain with
renewed zeal the rules by which we
have heretofore been governed. But
it we have been defending a position
which a njaturer and more searching
investiiration discovers to be untenable,
let as as honest people abandon it, and
relieve ourselves from the imputations
under which we have so long labored.
L Our first reason for restricting
these invitations to the persons whom
ere have designated is. that the prac
tice accords t rith the late and the testi
<f the Holy Scriptures. We
mention this as our first reason, be
cause we hold it to be the foundation
on which all arguments entitled to our
respect on this subject, must be built.
Whatever may be urged in favor of
the practice by other considerations,
\ e should not insist upon its retention
unless it be enforced by the command
• *f Jesus Christ and the practice of the
Apostles. It especially becomes us,
dear brethren, who profess to discard
all merely linmam traditions and su
petitions, to inquire, when seeking
the truth on this subject, What is
taught in the Sacred Oracles ? and to
only unto that doctrine which
baken delivered by “holy men of
the* were moved by
the Holy Ghost.^
1. Let us inquiries on this
head with the institution of the ordin
ance. It can be shown, beyond a
reasonable doubt, that all the persons
who participated on this occasion had
been previously baptized. The admin
istrator certainly had submitted to the
ordinance. There is not the like men
tion of the baptism of each of the apos
tles. It wonld be unreasonable to ex.
pect records which would embrace
those particulars of their history which
from the circumstances of the case,
may be very properly taken for gran
ted! We believe that they were bap
tized :
(1.) Because a rite which tlieir lead
er deemed so important, that lie sub
mitted to it in his own person, could
not have been neglected by any of
those whom he recognized as his fol
lowers.
(2.) Because those who baptized many
of the converts of the Lord, must them
selves have been baptized.
(3.) Our Lord would not, after his
ascension, send forth men to “baptize
all nations” who were living in the
neglect of that which he enjoins on
othere.
(4.) As'soiue of the apostles had been
baptized by John, a?d as the disciples
made by the personal ministry of the
Saviour were baptized, all of his apos
tles must have been baptized.
s v s.) When an apostle was to be elec
ted in the place of .Tndas, the
qualifications of the candidate for the
vacancy was (we may justly conclude),
that he had been baptized; and refer
ence is made to this qualification in
such terms as to carry with it the
strong implication that they had all
been baptized. “Wherefore of these
men which have companied with us
all the time that the Lord Jesus went
in and out among ns, begining froin
the baptism of John , . . . must one
be ordained,” <fcc. Acts i. 21, 22.
(6.) If a requisition was laid upon
the converted Saul to be baptized be
fore he could enter upon liis work, a
similar requisition must have been laid
upon the other apostles.
(7.) When our Lord was preparing
to receive baptism from John, he said:
“Thus it becometh ns to fulfill all
righteousness.” We cannot suppose
that he wonld have chosen, as the de
positaries of a most important trust,
those who were willfully neglecting
their duly with regard to this right
eousness.
Can there be, then, a reasonable
doubt, that the first Supper was cele
brated by a baptized company? Wheth
er you choose to call it John’s baptism,
or Christian baptism, it is the baptism
THE CHRISTIAN INDEX.
which God appointed; and all present
on this memorable occasion had sub
mitted to the divine command.
2. The terms of the Great Commis
sion show that baptism precedes the
Supper. This is the law by which we
are to be governed on this subject. —
(See Matt, xxviii. 19, 20; Mark xvi.
By this charter we are direc
ted, 1. To make a proclamation of the
Gospel; 2. To administer baptism to
believers; and 3. To instruct the bap
tized in their duty to Christ. If we
suppose, as we have sufficient reason
for doing, that the Lord’s Supper was
one of the things to be taught the bap
tized converts, then we find the Com
mission clearly establishing baptism as
a prerequisite to the Lord’s table. It
will not do to say that the Commission
prescribes no particular order in which
we are to proceed. This argument
wonld prove too much. For if we are
at liberty to make a transposition and
to teach men to observe the Supper
before they had been baptized, we
might by the same liberty transpose a
little further, and administer baptism
before there had been a profession of
faith. But as no one among us will,
we presume deny that faith is an indis
pensable preliminary to baptism, so no
one ought to dispense with baptism as
a prerequisite to the table of the Lord.
The order of the Commission, reported
in the same way by both the Evange
lists, is not a matter of accident, but of
design, and should be conscientiously
observed by all who love the great
Lawgiver. We most cordially concur
in the views of Baxter, that “The par
amount law of the great Institutor, the
Commission, is not like some occasion
al historical mention of baptism, but
is the very command of Christ, and
purposely expresseth their several
works in their several places and or
der. Their first task is, by teaching,
to make disciples, which Mark calls
believers. The second work is to bap
tize them. The third work is to teach
them all other things which are after
ward to be learned in the school of
Christ. To contemn this order is to
renounce all rules of order; for where
can we expect to find it, if not here?”*
3. The practice of the apostles shows
that they understood baptism to ho
the first duty of every believer, and
therefore antecedent to the Supper.—
Any one who will read the Commis
sion, and observe the action of the
apostles under this law, must be struck
with their constant adherence to the
order which their Divine Master en
joined. On the day of Pentecost “when
they heard this (i. e., Peter’s dis
course), they were pricked in their
hearts, and said unto Peter, and to the
rest of the apostles, Men and brethren,
what shall we do? Then Peter said unto
them, Repent and be baptized every
one of you in the name of Jesus Christ.
. . Theii they that gladly received
his word were baptized. And they
continued steadfastly in the apostles’
doctrine and fellowship, and in break
ing of bread and in prayers.” Here
then we have, 1. The preaching of the
Gospel; 2. The belief of the hearers; 3.
Their baptism ; 4. Tlieir participation
of the Lord’s Supper; being one of
those things which they were taught
after their compliance with the pre
liminaries ot faith and baptism. All
this is in exact conformity with the
terms and the order of the Commission
which Peter had received from his
divine Master. Again, “Philip . .
preached unto him Jesus. . . And
the Eunuch said, See, here is water
what doth hinder me to he baptized?
And Philip said, If thou believest with
alltfiy heart thou mayest. And he
answered and said, I believe that Je
sus -Christ is the Son of God. . . .
And he baptized him.” Here again
we have the same order rigidly observ
ed. Philip first preaches Jesus to his
hearer. The latter then expresses his
belief. Next he is baptized. Was
the practice of Philip an undesigned
coincidence with that of Peter, or did
it springfrom the same interpretation
of the Commission ? Who can doubt
that they understood the order to be
authoritative ?
When Ananias addressed the con
verted Saul, he did not first direct him
to commemorate the sufferings and
death of his Lord ; there was a duty
which took precedence of this requisi
tion. He mu3t be buried in the same
watery grave in which his Saviour had
been laid. He had already heard and
believed the Gospel. In those memor
able words which entered his soul, “I
am Jesus whom thou persecutest,”
Saul had heard a sermon from the
skies. When his belief followed this
preaching, there came the command :
“And now, why tarriest thou? Arise
and be baptized, and wash away thy
sins, calling on the name of the Lord.”
in “Howell on Commnion,”
p. 49.
OE.C3-.A- IST OF THE BAPTIST CONVENTION OF THE STATE OF GEORGIA.
Having been baptized, the same Jesus
who had preached the sermon under
which he was converted, teaches him,
among the many things which he
learned, that lie must celebrate his
sufferings and death. And when he
writes to the Corinthians, enjoining
this duty upon them after they had
been baptized, he can speak withes
feet, when he says : “I have received
of the Lord that which also I deli vered
unto you, that the Lord J*esus, the
same night on which he was betrayed,
took bread,” &c. Here we see the
Son of God co-operating with his apos
tles in carrying out his own commis
sion in the order in which he delivered
it. Paul hears, believes, is baptized,
and learns that lie is then to “show in
the Supper,” the “Lord’s death till
he comes,” and so teaches the churches.
And when this Saul, afterwards a
minister of the Cross, hears from the
jailer the anxious cry—“ What must I
do to be saved ?” he first directs him
to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.—
As the next step he does not receive
the Supper, though this would have
been much more convenient, in the
judgment of Some of our friends, than
what was required, but he is baptized;
and one act of obedience in this case
follows another so rapidly, that we see
the close proximity in which Paul
placed belief and baptism.
But perhaps some may say : Gran
ted that the apostles invariably ad
ministered baptism before communion,
their example in this particular, is not
binding upon iis. We answer: When
the apostles acted officially, they acted
under divine direction, and their con
duct and teaching, when so acting, are
invested for us with all the authority
of law. It is, in fact, Jesus speaking
to us through his servants, and illus
trating by their teaching and practice
his own requisitions. Why do we feel
safe in saying to every inquirer after
life, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ,
“and thou shalt be saved”? Because an
inspired apostle once gave this direc
tion to an inquirer. Why do we resist
the doctrine of celibacy, as held by
the Romish church ? Because an apos
tle has pronounced marriage to he
“honorable in all.” wonlfl wo
feel no hesitation in excommunicating
a person charged with the offence for
which the opostle recommended ex
cision to the Corinthian church ? Be
cause we hold his directions to them
to be inspired, and therefore incum
bent on us. No one questions that
the instructions of the apostles on
these subjects are rules by which we
must he governed ; and when we find
these apostles uniformly insisting on
baptism before believers are invited
to approach the table of their Lord,
we should hold this rule to he as ob
ligatory upon us as though we had an
express command, in every instance,
from our great Lawgiver.
4. The incidental reference to bap
tism in the Epistles confirm what we
are tau ght by apostolic practice, viz :
That the first visible act of homage
which believers paid to Christ was
baptism. Writing to the Corinthians,
Paul addressed them in these terms:
“Were ye baptized in the name of
Paul ? I thank God that I baptized
none of you but Crispus and Gains. —
And I baptized also the household of
Stephanas : besides I know not wheth
er I baptized any other.” The ques
tion in this passage assumes that every
one connected with the Corinthian
church had been baptized. Paul does
not ask, “Have you been baptized ?”
but taking this as granted, he inquires
whether they had been baptized in his
name. Next, he mentions several per
sons whom he had baptized, and though
he is not advised- of the baptism of
other members, his language implies
that they had all submitted to this or
dinance. -Who, in reading this Scrip
ture, can resist the conclusion that the
church of Corinth was composed of
believers who had been baptized in
the name of Christ ? Now it was to
those who had paid the act ofhornage
which baptism implies, that the apos
tles delivered the command of his Lord
respecting the Supper, “This do in re
membrance of me.”
In the Epistle to the Galatians we
find this language : “For as many of
you as have been baptized into Christ,
have put on Christ.” All the mem.
bers of the church in Galatia must
have put on Christ. They must there
fore have all been baptized. But when
did this symbolical putting on of Christ
occur? Was it before or after they
, partook of the Lord’s Supper ? If after
they had received the Supper, why is
i the fact ignored ? Why is the apostle
so careful to mention the second rite
i whilst he omits the initiatory ordin
ance of the Supper ? As baptism was
’ the putting on of .Christ, surely we
may conclude that the symbol was in
MACON, WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1858.
dicated so soon as the faith symbolized
existed in the heart. The putting on
of Christ was the act by which they
proclaimed their allegiance to the Son
of God. This of course would very
naturally and properly take precedence
of all those who have act 6 ‘which are
prescribed for those who have taken
the oath of allegiance.
The interpretation which we have
now given of the Commission, and of
practice of the apostles, is accepted by
the Christian world at large. Though
some now deny that baptism is a pre
requisite to communion, there has
heretofore been very great unanimity
among our Pedobaptist brethren on
this subject. Those who deem us so
exclusive, recognize, ijindarde!
of their churches and in the opinions
of their accredited expositors, the ne
cessity of baptism before communion.
“In the very depths of the Romish’
apostasy,” says Mr Booth, ‘ and abroad,
the general practice has been to re
ceive none but baptized persons to
communion at the Lord’s table.” Says
Dr. Wall, (History of Infant Bap.,
Part 2, Chap. 9), “No church ever
gave the communion to any persons
before they were baptized Among
all the absurdities that ever were held,
none ever maintained that any persons
should partake of the communion be
fore they were baptized.”
In the Discipline of the Methodist
Episcopal Church we have these
■ words: “Let none be received into
the church until they are recommen
ded by a leader with whom they have
met at least six months on trial, aud
have been baptized.” In the Order of
Confirmation in the Episcopal Prayer
book, baptism is a prerequisite to con
firmation, and confirmatior is a prere
quisite to the Supper. According to
the Presbyterian Confession of Faith :
“Baptism is a Sacrament cf the New
Testament, ordained by Jtsus Christ,
for the solemn admission of the party
baptized into the visible church.” The
Lord’s Supper is an ordinance for those
whom Presbyterians believe to be
baptized. It would be easy to quote
from standards and individuals in cor
roboration of the views which is now
prpKAntod The i- ‘-crihed for >
this paper forbid. We submit, in ad
dition, only the testimony of Dr. Grif
fin, learned and eminently useful min
ister of the Congregational Church.—
“I agree with the advocates for close
communion on two point: 1. That
baptism is an initiating ordinance,
which introduces into the visible
church. Os course, where there is no
baptism, there are no visible churches.
2. That we ought not to commune with
those who are not baptized, and of
course are not church members, even
if we regard them as Christians.—
Should a pious Quaker so far depart
from his principles as to wish to com
mune with me at the Lord’s table,
while he yet refused to be baptized, I
could not receive him ; because there
is such a relation established between
the two ordinances that I have no right
to separate them; in other words, I
have no right to send the sacred ele
ments out of the church.”
Thus, from the “law and the testimo
ny” as understood both by ourselves
and by Pedobaptist commentators,
submission to the ordinance of baptism
is an indispensable preliminary to an
orderly participation of the Lord’s Sup
per. If this point be made out, (and
we humbly conceive that it is estab
lished beyond successful assault,) it is
not really necessary for us to add any
thing more. Having a “thus saith the
Lord” for our practice, we may submit
quietly to whatever of opprobrium it
may involve. cuts us off
from a sacramental fellowship with
multitudes whom we believe to he the
children of God, and whose zeal in the
service of our common Lord awakens
our constant admiration and gratitude,
and though it constrains us to dwell in
a painful isolation making us the
“sect which is everywhere spoken
against,” yet we must adhere to that
rule which we honestly believe to have
been prescribed by our Lord and his
apostles. “Let it he admitted,” says
the gifted Hall, “that baptism is, un
der all circumstances, a necessary com
dition of church-fellowship, and it is
impossible for the Baptist to act other
wise. The recollection of this may
suffice to rebut the ridicule and silence
the clamor of those who loudly con
demn the Baptist lbr a proceeding
which, were they but to change their
opinion on the subject of baptism, their
own principles would compel them to
adopt. They both concur in a com
mon principle, from which the practice
deemed so offensive is the necessary
result.” The hypothesis of this writer
is, we humbly conceive, established.
“Baptism is, under all circumstances,
a necessary condition of church-fellow-
ship.” It is therefore impossible for
Baptists to invite to the Lord’s Supper
those who have not complied with the
Lord’s preliminary.
11. The next reason which we otter
for adhereing to our practice on the
subject in question, is because, in so
doing, we bear our testimony against
those who depart from the scriptural
law of baptism, both as to its mode
and subjects. Holding baptism to be
a prerequisite to the Supper, it is plain
that, if we invite those who have not
been immersed on a profession of their
faith to partake, we recognize some
thing else besides immersion to he
baptism. Most of the members of
Pedobaptist churches have not, in our
view, been baptized ; many others
have nbt received even that which they
hold to be baptism, on a profession of
their faith—the rite havin g been ad
ministered at an age so tender that it
made no impression on their minds. —
To invite such persons to the Lord’s
table, would he in effect, to say, We
believe that you have complied with
the terms of the Commission and with
the practice of the apostles —an asser
tion which no Baptist could conscien
tiously make. In withholding our in
vitation, we express the convictions
that their custom of adopting infants
into the church, by what is termed
baptism, is without a warrant in the
Word of God ; and that their refusal
to submit to the baptism which Christ
appointed, qualifies them for a scrip
tural participation of the Supper.
If our Pedobaptist brethren should
say, this surely is magnifying the rite
of baptism into very great consequence;
can the question of the application of
of water in a particular way, whether
before or after believing, be a matter
of so much moment as to produce a
separation at the communion table, of
those who are the regenerated friends
of Jesus ?We answer,’ that we make
no more of this ordinance than did our
Divine Exemplar—we dare not make
any thing less. If he deemed it so
important as to submit to it, in his own
person, and that in a particular way,
and when lie was in the full maturity
of his powers; if that baptism was al
io wetlumi foifovor by
the first simultaneous appearance of
the whole Godhead, the Father,
and the Holy Ghost, to men; if the
Son of God gave this ordinance so con
spicuous and well-defined a place in
his valedictory charge to his apostles ;
and if these apostles invariably en
joined baptism on those who believed;
and if the rite he so important that
they deem the fact of its observance
worthy of especial record in so many
instances ; it is not easy for us to mag
nify it into an undue consequenc,e so
long as we only insist upon it as the
first duty of all who “believe on the
Lord Jesus Christ.” Nor do we lay
a greater stress upon this ordinance
than do our brethren who differ from
us as to the circumstances. We would
respectfully ask, What Pedobaptist
confession of faith ignores it ? We have
seen that it is mentioned in the stand
ards of their churches. Which one of
these churches, in practice, dispenses
with as a matter of too trivial a na
ture to be insisted upon ? The truth is?
that in their estimate of the ordinance,
they attach to it a value greater than
that which we accord. We are satis
fied if it be administered to believers
they administer that which they re
gard as baptism to unbelievers —to
persons at an age when belief is an
utter impossibility.
If our brethren with whom we differ
on this subject should say, We have
submitted conscientiously to what we
believe to what we believe to be bap
tism, and we therefore claim our place
at the table; we answer, That it is
Christ’s table, and we have no author
ity to invite there any persons than
those whom we believe to have com
plied with Christ’s conditions. We
rejoice, dear brethren, in the evidences
of piety which you exhibit; we love
to hold spiritual communion with those
wfiose lives abound in so many good
works ; but Christ has not taught us
how we may hold sacramental commu
nion with those who remain, in our
view, unbaptized. It is painful to us
not to meet you at the table ; we es
teem you for your works of faith, and
labors of love, but we love the Lord
Jesus Christ more. Loyalty to his
commands, devotion to the truth as it
is in Jesus, compel us to withhold our
invitations to the Supper. By this act
we say to you, We believe, in the
matter of baptism, you include sub
jects for which you have only the
commandments of men, and are satis
fied with an administration which the
Scriptures do not recognize.
TIT. Another reason for our position
is found in the fact that we thus ex
press our dissent from the practice of
GEORGIA TELEGRAPH STEAM POWER PRESS.
those churches who do not insist upon
repentance and faith as a condition of
admission to the table of the Lord.—
That multitudes of our brethren who
have not complied with the other pre
liminary on which we have insisted,
possess, notwithstanding, the funda
mental requisites of which we row
speak, we rejoice to believe. But at
the same time there are churches in
which satisfactory evidences of spirit
ual regeneration are not reqnired as
terms of admission to the Lord’s Sup
per. In some of these churches, all
that is reqnired after the baptism of
the candidate in infancy, is his confir
mation by the proper officer. This
rite introduces him into full commu
nion. Many of those who are thus in
troduced do not even profess to he con
verted. That we do not speak harsh
on this subject, appears from the tes
timony of Archbishop Wliately, who
says : “Confirmation is too often so
mistaken and perverted, as to become
an empty and unmeaning form, or a
dangerous snare. - ” [“Charges and oth
er Tracts,” Lond. 1836, p. 93].
Says Dr. Smyth, an eminent minis
ter of the Presbyterian church, when
speaking of this prelatical rite of con
firmation, (“Conf. Examined,” p. 115),
“As to any serious belief in the neces
sity of regeneration as a prerequisite
qualification, they dream not of it.—
They have bee taught, as Bishop Mant
words it, to ‘believe in baptismal re
generation,’ and they now therefore
confirm their belief that there is no
other, by becoming communicants
while impenitent and unconverted.”
So, again, it is well known that there
are other churches in which persons
are invited to the Lord’s Supper, that
they may be converted by the ordin
ance. In the terms which they pre
scribe for admission to the Supper,
though baptism may he specified,
there is no distinct intimation that the
candidate must have experienced the
renewing power of the Holy Spirit.
To invite such persons to the com
munion-table, with our principles, is
to say to them, “We believe that you
have been converted ; when thanks
were returned for your regeneration in
baptism, we belijeve you - passed trom
death unto life J in connecting your
self with a Christian church, you be
came a Christian.” We are not pre
pared to encourage their error; we
are not prepared to sanction a viola
tion of that law which, (as we have
seen), requires belief and baptism to
be antecedent to communion ; and as
we spread the table, we must throw
around it the fence which the Lord
Jesus has constructed, and say : “This
is for baptized believers in his holy
name.”
FV. The last reason which we assign
for adhering to our practice is, that by
such a course we advance most effec
tively, under the Divine blessing, those
great principles for which we contend.
If we believe our practice with regard
to church communion to be scriptu
ral, we should he obliged to conform
to it, whether our views be acknowl
edged by multitudes, or by a very lim
ited number of adherents. But when
the policy we adopt is obviously the
most favorable for the dissemination
of those doctrines which are taught in
the Word of God, this surely supplies
an additional reason why it should be
faithfully observed. It has often been
said that, if restricted communion were
abolished, our principles would achieve
a much more speedy triumph. But
the question of success or of defeat
should not affect our action. We have
but one inquiry—'What is right ? What
is according to the “law and the testi
mony ?” Better is it for us to fail whilst
clinging to the truth than to triumph
(as men count triumph) whilst submit
ting to an error.
But facts demonstrate that our views
have always been most successful when
we have adhered most uncompromis
ingly to the practice of inviting to the
table of the Lord only those whom we
believe to he scripturally - qualified.—
If we institute a comparison betwixt
the United States, where strict com
munion prevails, and Great Britain,
where to a great extent our brethren
recognize mixed communion, we shall
discover that our principles have
progressed much more rapidly in the
former than in the latter country,
e. g. : In the year 1850, the number of
communicants in the United States, of
Baptist churches holding our views on
the communion question, was 754,652.
In Great Britain and Ireland, the total
number of Baptists is reported, in the.
same year, to be 132,719. From this
statement, copied from the Baptist
Almanac of 1850, it appears that the
number of Baptists in the United States
is nearly six times as great as their
number in Great Britain and Ireland.
Difference of population does not ac-
Number 44.
count for the difference ; for at the time
of the comparison, the population of
the European countries was a little
greater than that of our own country.
Nor is the disproportion explained by
the earlier introduction of Baptist prin
ciples into this country. In this res
pect Great Britain h.is enjoyed a deci
ded advantage. Nor can any thing
be assigned in the different govern
ments of the countries as an adequate
explanation of the fact, though we be
lieve our government to be most fa
vorable for the spread of a spiritual
Christianity. We believe the chief
cause to be that which has been men
tioned. Nor are we alone in this judg
ment. After a fair statement of the
relative advantages and disadvantages
which the denomination has experi
enced in both countries, Prof. Curtis
well concludes, in view of the superi
or progress of our churches in the Uni
ted States, that, “under God, this has
originated in their assuming an inde
pendent and uncompromising basis;
their churches being formed, not on
Robert Hall’s plan of mixed member
ship, but upon that derived .from the
apostolic practice of making baptism
a prerequisite to membership in their
churches.”
In our own country, our Free-will
Baptist brethren practice open com
munion. Does this promote their
prosperity ? Let us see. In 1844 the
whole number of Free-will Baptists in
the United States, was 50,634. In 1858
they report 50,312. Thus it appears,
that in the course of fourteen years,
instead of increasing, they have really
declined in number. (See Baptist Al
manac.) It will not do to say that this
decline is due to their Arminianism ;
for our Methodist brethren, who agree
with them in this view, do not appear
to have been much hindered on this
account. But whilst the mixed com
munion Baptists of our country have
lost 322 members in fourteen years,
those who insist on the New Testament
requisition have gained in the same
period nearly 300,000 members. If
we institute a comparison betwixt Eng
land and Wales, we shall have a like
result. The number of those who hold
our sentiments in Wales is greatly
larger, in proportion to the population
of the country, than the number of
Baptists in England. The Welsh Bap
tists, it is well known, insist upon invi
ting to the communion those only who
have been baptized on a profession of t
their faith. Thus it appears, that whe
ther we compare the denominations
holding different views on this subject,
and found in different countries, or
whether we compare those pursuing
these different practices in the same
country, the result abundantly con
firms the position which we have tak
en.
Yes, brethren, God has blessed us
whilst we have been contending for
what we believe to be the turth on this
important subject. Never have our
principles been so triumphant as in
this country. Look at your own As
sociation. Though you have been fre
quently dismissing churches to join
other Associations, your number is to
day nearly three-fold as great as it was
twenty years ago. We believe that
one source of our prosperity has been,
under God, our stedfast adherence to
the teaching of Christ and his apostles,
respecting the ordinances of the Chris
tian church. And “as we have receiv
ed Christ Jesus the Lord, so let us
walk in him let us continue to con
tend for the faith on this subject, which
we believe to have been delivered to
the saints; asking on this, as on all
other questions, Lord, what will thou
have us do ?
In the meantime let us endeavor to
cultivate a closer spiritual communion
with our brethren of every name.—
Let us emulate the earnest piety, the
enlarged benevolence, and the self-sa
cvaficing zeal, which they so beautiful
ly exhibit in the service of that same
Jesus for whom we toil. Let us, as far
as we possibly can, co-operate with
them in efforts for the extension of the
kingdom of Christ. And when they
say to us, that as you expect to com
mune with us in heaven (as most as
suredly we do), you ought to welcome
us to the table now ; let us remind
them that there will be no table spread
in heaven ; and that we can have, and
do have the same communion with
them on earth which we hope to en
joy, in a higher and holier degree, in
that bright world where
“ Perfect love and friendship shall reign
Through all eternity.”
Watchfulness. —He is the safest who
is the farthest from dangers gunpowder
must not stand near the fire.
Conveksion.— As God first made man,
the living creature, so he must now make
man, the ever-living creature. N. M.
Crawford.