Newspaper Page Text
THE CHRISTIAN INDEX,
I*UBIjIBWKD EVERY WEDNESDAY MORNING
AT MACON, GEORGIA.
BY A COMMITTEE OF BRETHREN,
TOR THE
GEORGIA BAPTIST CONVENTION.
TERMS OF SUBSCRIPTION,
Two DotLAßsin advance: or paid within the year.
If sufTVred to overrun the yea r , Two Dollars and
one-half will be charged in all cases.
SAMUEL BOYKIN, Editor.
VOLUME XXXIX.
STANDING RULES.
AGENTS.
Rev. F. M. Hayoood, General Agent.
All Baptist Ministers are Agents; and any one
remitting #B.OO and the names of four new subscri
bers will be entitled to an extra copy. By Club
bing six persons can procure the paper for #IO.OO.
Subscribers wishing to have their papers
discontinued, should give express notice to that ef
fect—not by the return of a paper, but by letter. —
They should be sure that jill arrearges are paid ;
and as far as such payments may have been made
to an agent or agents , they should inform us to
whom , jphen , and how much.
£3gf Persons forwarding their names with pay
entin advance, will be particular to inform us if
cy wish their subscription discontinued when the
term of payment has expired; otherwise they are
supposed to be permanent subscribers.
Agents and others in ordering the paper,
and remitting payments, should be careful to have
the name and Post Office address of each subscri
ber with the amount paid, DISTINCT AND LEGI
BLE. Our accounts are kept with each subscriber
individually, and not with agents merely.
Persons ordering the direction of a paper
to be changed from one Post Office to another,
should be careful to mention the names of both of
fices, with the County and State.
Bank-notes, if properly secured from de
predation may be sent to us by mail, at our risk ;
provided that, if the receipt of the money is not ac
knowledged in the paper within one month, the
sender sh ill promptly notify us that the money was
sent.
When the amount is large send by Express, or
by Check.
TERMS :—Two Dollars, in Advance.
NOTICE.—To send money with safety—Seal
the ietter carefully and mail it yourself, saying no
thing to any one about the money, not even the
Post Master. Don’t register. Address 14 CHRIS
TIAN INDEX,” Macon, Georgia.
REVIEW OF “COR RECTI YE
CFIURCII DISCIPLINE.”
“ Third Plea.”
BY A. S. WORRELL.
(Conclusion of No. 13.)
But let us notice the grounds on
which such as have been expelled ‘for
favoring the .Missionary cause, or for
preaching the Gospel to sinners,’should
lie received into our churches. He
says, when a church expels a member
for this reason it is clearly of a differ
ent denomination from us, or has so
departed from the faith, as to author
ize us to withdraw fellowship from it.
In that case, church sovereignty is not
violated if we receive those who are
martyrs to the same truth we consci
entiously hold ourselves. The princi
ple here is that which I avowed in a
previous number, that when a church
ceases to be a Baptist church, we may
withdraw fellowship from it. * * *
The clufrch must not only appear to
us, to act in opposition to what we con
sider the law of Christ, but it must a
vow that to be its intention, before we
can be authorized to withdraw fellow
ship from it, and afford a refuge to its
excluded members.’
Observe with reference to this ex
tract —
1. That a church, professedly Bap
tist, that excludes a member for the
above cause, does not belong to the
Baptist denomination.
2. That the reception of their ex
cluded into our churches does not vio
late the sovereignty of their churches.
3. That we cannot receive the ex
cluded of other churches, unless they
avow it to be their purpose to act in
opposition to the law of Christ.
With regard to the first, I remark
that such churches are either true
Churches of Christ, or they are not. If
they are true churches, they have sov
ereignty as well as any other true
churches ; if they are not true church
es, Prof. Mell ought not to refuse to re
ceive those who have been excluded
from them ibr joining the Masons —
not, however, on the ground that the
excluded ever were members of the
church, but just as other members are
received from the world; nor ought
lie to receive those who have been ex
cluded from them ‘for favoring the Mis
sionary cause,’ without first hearing
their ‘experience of grace’ and bapti
zing them. Why ? because nobody but
a true church can administer valid
baptism. It seems, therefore, that Pro
fessor Mell’s theory and practice both
oppose his ‘Corrective Church Discip
line.’
Let us look into the next —
2.) That the reception of their exclu
ded does not violate their sovereignty
as churches.
If the reception of the excluded of
one church into the fellowship of an
other, does, in any instance, violate the
sovereignty of the former; then does
the reception of such as have been ex
cluded ‘for favoring the Missionary
cause,’ violate the sovereignty of the
churches excluding them, provided
these bodies have any sovereignty.—
They must have sovereignty, if they
are churches. Therefore, the recep
tion of such excluded persons does not
violate the sovereignty of the church
es excluding them ; because these bod
ies are not true churches. But if they
are not true churches, why- would Pro
fessor Mell receive their excluded
without baptism? I ask this question
on the strength of the fact stated in my
last. If Prof. M.’s church baptized the
individual referred to, before admit
ting him into the fellowship of the
church, then is this question out of
place ; but if his baptism was omitted,
the question has peculiar force. But
whether the church received the indi
vidual with, or without baptism, Prof.
Mell is in a strait. The refusal to re
ceive into our churches those who
have been excluded for joining the
Masons, on the ground that such re-
orpn of % §n. skjr. (tfonknfron: Mofeir to Httssions, Religion, anfo tlje interests of tire baptist
ception would destroy ‘church union,’
is an admission that the churches ex
cluding them are true churches. Now,
if anti-Missionary bodies are true
churches, with all their avowed oppo
sition to ‘the Missionary cause,’ and
continue to be churches, whose ‘union’
(with us) ought not to be severed for
expelling a member because he joins
the Masons or Odd Fellows ; but cease
to be Baptist churches when they ex
pel a member for ‘favoring the Mis
sionary cause;’ there is no escape from
the conclusion that the act of expul
sion, for the above cause, unchurches
them. But this is, as we have already
seen, a death blow to one of the lead
ing principles of ‘Corrective Church
Discipline’—viz: that no error in dis
cipline can annihilate a church. But
it these bodies are not true churches,
then it follows—lst. That those who
have been excluded from them, for any
cause, whatever, ought to be required
to tell the church their Christian ex
perience and be baptized just as if
these things had never been done ;
and 2d. Those excluded for joining the
Masons ought not to be denied a place
in the Church, for the sake of preser
ving‘church union ;’since there can
be no true church union, where there
is no true church. Os course, Mission
ary churches do not wish to perpetuate
church union with the anti-Missiona
ries, unless the latter are true church
es ! We see, therefore, that Prof. M.
is in a dilemma.
The truth is, if I understand it, the
reception of the excluded of one chuj-ch
into the fellowship of another, andb e§ *bt,
in any wise, affect the ‘soveidf>£/,
‘independence’ of the former ; .cf e it
merely shows that the church, reviv
ing the excluded, has little or no res
pect tor the church passing the act of
expulsion. This is the most that can
be said of it. The ‘union’ of the two
churches will, very likely, be destroy
ed. But what if it should? Is one
church to sanction, and take part in,
the guilt ot another, in order to pre
serve the ‘union’!! Those who have
been justly excluded, ought not to be
received into any other church; but
those who have been wickedly exclu
ded, have a right to apply for mem
bership in any other church of Christ,
unless, forsooth, it is right to exclude
a member ‘wickedly,’ and keep him
out of the church ‘wickedly.’ But
if this be true, then ‘wickedness’ may
be one of the prominent laws in the
government of Christ’s Kingdom !
Prof. M., I think, stands very nearly
alone in the advocacy of such doctrine.
The last proposition—
-3) That a church, excluding a mem
ber wickedly, must ‘avow’ it to be her
intention to act in opposition to Christ’s
law, before another church can receive
the excluded of the former.
It astonishes me that a man of Pro
fessor Mell’s intelligence should plant
himself upon such an absurd position.
If his doctrine be true, then it follows
that we ought not to receive, into our
fellowship, those who have been ex
cluded ‘tor favoring the Missionary
cause,’ for preaching the gospel to sin
ners, for believing that the immersion
of a believer, by the proper authority,
is baptism—it matters not for what
cause—unless the church excluding
the member, or members, ‘avow’ it to
be her intention to act in opposition to
the law of Christ! ! ! But what church,
or what body professing to be a church,
ever avowed it to be her intention to
act thus ? An instance of such avow
al would, I suppose, be very difficult
to find ! !
But if it is meant that the church,
body or assembly, that expels a mem
ber ‘wickedly,’ does not avowedly act
in opposition to the law of Christ, but
avows it to be her intention to act as
she does act; if that act, in our opin
ion, does violate the law of Christ,
must we receive their excluded ? If our
interpretation of the law of Christ is
not to be made the basis of our action
in such cases, then it is evident that
Missionary churches have always done
wrong whenever they have received
the excluded of anti-Missionary chur
ches, whatever may have been the
cause of the exclusion. This part of
‘Corrective Church Discipline’ Profes
sor Mell ought, for the stike of consis
tency, to expunge.
Moreover, if we are not to take our
own interpretation of God’s word as the
basis of our action in regard to the re
ception of those who, we believe, have
been ‘wickedly’ excluded; then why
should we make our interpretation of
God’s Word the basis of our action in
anything else ? Will Prof. Mell tell
us why ? If a man who, we believe,
has been uuscripturally baptized—i. e.
has been immersed by a wicked man
(who, however, does not avow himselt
to be such ;) should apply to the church
in Athens, for membership, and should
inform that church that he had not
‘avowedly’ submitted to be baptized
by one who, he thinks, is unqualified;
but affirms that he believes his bap
tism to be valid—would the church in
Athens receive him without bap-
The absurdities of this po
sition are too numerous tj be even
numbered.
I am prepared to conclude that Pro
fessor MelPs analysis does not help his
cause in the slightest. There are a
ffiw other positions in the article, but
they have been previously noticed. —
One of them I will barely mention —
viz: that one church cannot receive
the excluded of another, even though
it may be known that they were wick
edly and unjustly excluded. Baptists
will be slow to swallow such a
draught.
I have now completed, for the pres
• entat least, my “Review of‘Corrective
MACON, GA., WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1860.
Church Discipline-’” I will, howev
er, add one other article by way of
‘summing up.’
LITERS BOREALES.
Number 8.
COMMENCEMENT AT BROWN UNIVERSITY.
Providence, R. 1., (
Sept. 15, 1860. \
The city of Roger Williams has pas
sed through one of its chief annual ex
citements, since the date of my last
letter. I allude to the Commence
ment of Brown University, which oc
curred on the sth instant. Unlike
most ot our Colleges, Brown begins at
the beginning, by which I mean that
her “Commencement” is at the Com
mencement ot the collegiate year,
whereas other institutions hold their
“Commencements” at the end of a
scholastic year. There are some dis
advantages, it is true, attending this
seemingly proper way of doing things.
It obliges graduates to assemble them
selves, after the long vacation, and
sometimes from very distant points at
considerable expense and trouble. But
then, it gives eclat to theopening year,
and it carries the “Commencement”
Exercises almost out of the dog-days,
and into cooler weather than that
which commonly Yoasts or broils the
alumni of Harvard and Yale and Dart
mouth and Union and Amher&t, in
their midsummer festivals.
We had delightful weather for the
recent anniversary of our venerable
college, and there was an unusually
large gathering of her sons and friends.
The day before the proper college cel
ebration was devoted to the anniversa
ry services of the Literary and other
associations of the graduates and A
lumni. In the forenoon the Phi Beta
Kappa had an oration from a promi
nent Providence Lawyer, Hon. Thom
as A. Jenckes, who discussed “The Re
lations of the Educated Classes to the
great Motive Powers of Society.” He
declared progress to be the only safe
watchword, and dealt severely with
the conservatism of the times. Right
in theory, lie was nevertheless extreme
and erroneous in some of his deduc
tions and practical applications of his
theory. At all events he did not dis
gust one with “conservatism” as I un
derstand it, nor shall I become a “radi
cal” all at once.
In the afternoon of Tuesday the Lit
erary Societies had a speech and a po
em—the usual double dose of such oc
casions. Their orator was a son of the
college, and a very*p ipnlar Baptist
preacher—the Rev. J. Wheaton Smith,
of Philadelphia, whom I have regard
ed as decidedly the most eloquent
platform speaker among the younger
ministers of our denomination. He
did not quite justify tin's opinion on
the occasion to which I refer, and, in
deed was less brilliant, less effective in
manner than I ever remember him to
have been. Perhaps his theme embar
rassed the usually free play of his mind
and tongue. It was not only a grave
theme but a great theme, and beyond
this, it was a delicate and difficult
theme. It was “The Relation of Chris
tian Faith to Scholarship,” and the
aim of it was to show that this Faith
is essential to the perfection of Schol
arship.
In a speech delivered either memori
ter, or else extemporaneously the ora
tor occupied more than an hour in il
lustrating and defending his position,
with a somewhat variable success—as
estimated by the attention and inter
est of his audience. But in the sever
est judgment of the effort, it was still
a successful one, and the tall, slender,
palefaced young man looked and spoke
the man of genius and the orator.
After this speech there was some
thing that, when it appeared the next
morning in print, everybody saw was
poetry, which before they had only
taken for granted. The poet was Geo.
H. Calvert, Esq., a great grandson of
Lord Baltimore. Ilis theme was the
kingly poet Shakespeare—but the au
dience hardly found it out at the time,
the verse was so badly recited. How
ever, the poem was only twelve min
utes long, and its closing passage was
exceedingly well received.
On Tuesday night the Rev. Dr.
Turnbull, of Hartford, (the author of
several books and among them ‘Chris
tian History’) preached the annual
Sermon before the “Society for Mis
sionary Inquiry.” His text was, ‘Who
hath dispised the day of small things?’
I doubt if he knew how apropos it was
to the condition of the Society he was
addressing—which is composed of less
than a score—perhaps less than a doz
en members ! A large audience, how
ever, generally honors this annual ser
mon and did so that night. It was
hardly up to the tone of the occasion
—lacking in force, if not in servo
breadth, if not in beauty of diction.
The Commencement services are al
ways held in the fine old edifice, built
in 1776, for the First Baptist Church
and “Rhode Island College.” It will
seat 1,500 persons, and Commence
ment crowds it to its uttermost capac
ity. There were fifteen young speak
ers, about one half the number of grad
uates, and they acquitted themselves
finely—displaying thought, taste and
culture in good degrees. All these,
and some others, took the degree of
Master ot Arts, which was conferred
tor the last time, I believe, on a grad
uating class. Others took the A. 8.,
and one the B. P., or Scientific Degree.
Ot honorary degrees old Brown was
not lavish—making one Doctor of
Laws and two Doctors of Divinity.—
Both the latter were Episcopalians, to
the disappointment of Baptist aspi
rants for this honor from the hands of
their Baptist Alma Mater. But Col
leges have sometimes to do things that
don’t seem exactly cornme ilfaut.
There was a great dinner in a broad i
tent on the college grounds, immedi
ately after the exercises at the church. -
Ibis was followed by after-dinner
speeches at the tables, in which Pres
idents, Governors, Mayors, Judges and
Alumni were as wise, or as witty, as
they could possibly be; and where
moderately good wit told well aud
brought a high price—in applause.
Alter the dinner, the greater part of
the guests went to pay their respects
to Dr. Way land, who has invited his
tormer pupils and his friends to an in
formal ‘re-union’at his house. Sever
al hundred persons, probably, availed
themselves of his invitation, to ex
change pleasant greeting with their
‘old philosopher, guide and friend,’ as
he was called by one of them.
The evening of Commencement day
belongs to the President oTtbe Col
lege, and his house is always open to
visitors. Dr. Sears is exceedingly and
deservedly popular with the students,
trustees and the public alike. They
throng his gates, and on Wednesday
night the crowd of visitors was very
great from eight until eleven. The
abundant ‘ices’ which circulated, were
needful to keep the internal tempera
ture below that of the rooms.
Thus ended the ninety-second Com
men cement of Brown University, or
Institution, still standing in the front
rank of American Colleges—admira
bly equipped with men and means for
its great work. About seventy-five
new students have been admitted, I
learn, the present session.
SOUTHERN BAP?PUBLICATION
Society.
I regret the recent action of this So- i
ciety relative to a late work written
by a brother of this State. I regret
their action because of the party, and
partizan face which it wears. The So- <
ciety was organized by the whole Bap- i
tist family at the South. It was estab- :
lislied to meet the wants of the De- i
nomination as they were then felt to <
exist. Men of every peculiarity of
opinion united in building up a great
Southern Society which should aid in 1
circulating a Southern and Baptist lit- <
erature. It was, like our common
Territory, procured by the blood and
treasure of all.
Recently a strange and unnecessary
controversy has arisen among our lead
ing men, excited by certain local pre
judices, which has led to the produc
tion of the work referred to. It has
been offered to the Society for endorse
ment and publication. It has been ac
cepted and sent forth with imprimatur.
By many the book is thought 4o con
tain radical and ruinous error. A re
view of it, (not perhaps the best that :
might have been made, or that its au
thor could have made it,) has been pre
pared and offered to the Society, which <
was promptly and unequivocally re
jected. This is greatly to he regret
ted. Either those gentlemen should <
have had nothing to do with the first i
work or they should have published
the second. Either of those courses
would have satisfied the friends of the 1
Society ; and showed a disposition to j
fair dealing. It never hurts any man i
or society of men to deal fairly. Be- ‘
sides these gentlemen should have re- ‘
membered that a theological work i
brought out in the midst of heated con- ]
troversy is not likely to be a safe guide, i
No man at such time is free enough <
from partiality and prejudice to see or
state truth clearly.
But aside from this, it does appear -
to me that the errors in the work itself
which they send forth, with their ap
probation, should have caused them to
reject it. In it there is some truth—
truth, however, from its familiarity,
need not have been written, and hard
ly worth the printing—while there is
error, both radical and destructive.—
Nothing is stranger to me than that *
these gentlemen did not detect it—ex- 1
cept it may be the of its J
friends that the system of church poli- j
ty which it advocates is the old and ,
scriptural system. It contains error
‘radical and destructive’ in teaching
that for the wrong decision of a church 1
there is no remedy ; and that the acts
of one church, in matters of discipline, 1
are binding upon all others. Andsome 1
of the abettors of this new theory af- ]
firm that the wroDg decision of a i
church in matters of discipline, binds 1
even God himself. This shows the ex- <
treme to which even the best of men
will go when laboring to establish a 1
favorite theory, or effect a favorite <
end. May the Lord save us from the <
teaching of such Doctors of Divinity J
‘and professors of Theology. Christ I
gave such directions to his Apostles <
as he knew they could, and desired 1
that they should follow, and, when 1
they did obey promised to ap- ;
prove their acts. That is what he de- i
dares, and it seems to me all he inten- <
ded to teach. So far from a wrong de- 1
cision of a church being binding upon 1
all others, all others are bound by the <
most solemn obligations to the Master,
to repudiate, and contemn them. Andi
so far as my knowledge extends, this <
has ever been their practice. A few <
years ago application was made to a 1
church not far from this for member
ship, by a man who had been a mem- i
her of an abolition church. He had ]
been excluded for no particular im- <
morality, but like that which is often 1
true of young persons for lukewarm
ness, and general indifference to the <
cause. He could not be restored to \
the excluding church. They would re
ceive a horse thief, or follower of the
“Murrell clan” rather than a slavehol
der, as was he. Slaveholding was too
great a sin. The slave owner sinned
in'company with Abraham who own
, ed, perhaps his thousand slaves, ‘born
in his house and bought with his mon
ey !! What then was he to do ? and
what was the church to do ? They did
what has a thousand times been done,
and done by the very men who advo
cated this new theory—receive him to
their fellowship by voucher, and give
him the privilege of the church upon
his proper profession of repentance for
the past. But the advocates of this
new theory would have kept him stan
ding in ‘sackcloth and ashes” at the
door of that abolition church till the
day of his doom. It is nonsense to talk
of‘justice, and a returning sense of jus
tice,’ in such a case. But thank God,
in the plain law of the Redeemer and
in the independence of every church
there is provision for such cases. And
in all charity it does appear to me that
the sophistry with which these gentle
men and brethren seek to evade the
plain force of truth is but a condescen
sion to the most contemptible quib
bling. 1-repeat what 1 have already
said, if a plain sense of justice would
not compel the brethren in Charleston
to publish both sines of a matter invol
ving so much consequence, the errors
in the first work presented should not
have escaped their notice ; but should
have met their prompt condemnation.
They greatly mistake the Baptists if
they suppose that, after this temporary
excitement passes away, they will re
ceive such works as standard. Such
works will die with the excitement
which produced them. But there is
another thing which will not die in the
memory of those who should have been
the friends of the Society. They will
ever remember that a Society which
should have promoted the interests of
truth, has been prostituted to partizan
if not to personal ends.
Now, sir, I ask you what can those
of us who have been the fast friends of
the Society up to this time, speaking
and writing, and paying our money
liberally, every time called upon; what
can we do in the present state of
things? I ask you, what can men,
holding to my views do as to the rot
tenness of all taught by the work in
question which could have called it
forth, do relative to this Society ? The
necessary result, it seems to me, must
be, that either we must patronize
those Northern Publishing houses, all
of which are owned by freesoilers or
abolitionists, and are enemies to us
both religiously and civilly—we must
do that, or else we must aid in build
ing up individual enterprises for pub
lication purposes, and buy our books
as best we can, many of them, perhaps,
from other denominations'. For my
own part, I am disappointed, mortified
at the part which the brethren in
Charleston have thought proper to
pursue. And lam sorry that I have
even one dollar in a Society which is
perverted to partizan ends, and is daily
used in reproducing and circulating
error, both radical and subversive of
the great interest of the churches.
But I must stop. My dear sir, I was
in hope that the So. Bap. Pub. Socie
ty would have held itself aloof from
all these local and partizan affairs,
and went on upon the vantage ground
which it occupied in supplying the
vault of the great Baptist family? But,
in this I find I am doomed to disap
pointment. For this lam sorry, and
it was to express this sorrow that I un
dertook to write these line3.
B. F. THARP.
REVIEW OF “THE SUPPER IN
STITUTION.”
A New Book , by Frederick Denison.
BY REV. ROBERT FLEMING,
of Brunswick, Ga.
[We lad been intending to notice
this'wo:.: for sometime,’ having read it
for that purpose; but seeing Bro.
Fleming with a copy in his hand, as he
left our office on the occasion to which
he alludes,’we asked him to send us
his opinion of the book. Our readers
will find what he says interesting.]
This is anew book published in
Philadelphia, by the Americarußaptist
Publication Society, containing 130
pp. duodecimo/ I purchased a copy
at the Depository in Macon, as I re
turned from the great mass-meeting
of the Southern Baptist Sunday School
Union at Rome, and I have read it
with some care and much interest. I
deem it a pretty good Baptist book,
containing only six short chapters, the
first of which treats of the origin of
the institution. The chapters are so
divided into paragraphs as to make it
very easy for the reader to find any
thing treated of in the chapters. The
author asserts, at page 11th, what can
not be denied by any consistent think
er, and what every well informed Bap
tist will unhesitatingly admit: “Puri
ty of faith is indispensable to purity
of life in individuals and in churches.”
Page 12 : Sect. 4th. “The Supper
is a purely Christian Institution—it
can be rightly observed and enjoyed
only by those who have felt the Chris
tian faith as a divine life in the heart.”
liow absurd then, is the practice of
those who administer the Lord’s Sup
per to such as are unconverted,such as
do not profess to have felt the Chris
tian faith as a divine life in their heart!
What communion hath light with
darkness ? This is a question put by
the apostle. Those who common at
the Lord’s table should be able by
faith to discern the Lord’s body. The
author of the book we here notice, is
clear-headed in this important view,
and wields a ready writer’s pen.
Page 14. “In all religious things
the Bible is our perfect and only stan
dard.” “We must give account unto
God ; hence the word of God should
be the only rule of our judgments and
actions.” This is a distinguishing fea
ture in the creed of true Baptists.—
The opinion of a fallible man, or of
ten thousand fallible men, constitutes
no rule of action for Christians.
Page 16. “Some have also attached
to the supper the idea of a communion
with our fellow-christians. This idea,
as we shall hereafter show, does not
belong to the institution, and ought al
ways to be excluded from it. Hence,
(continues the author,) it is very im
proper to speak as many do, about
“communing with the church,” and
“communing with the denomination,”
and communing with one another.”—
In all this, the writer of this little
book is scripturally correct, and all
Baptists should regulate their dialect
accordingly. How often do we hear
the expression made by others, “you
will not commune with us, because you
do not think we are Christians.” it is
a perversion of the true design of the
Lord’s Supper to view it as an appoint
ed medium through which we are to
express our Christian esteem and fel
lowship among ourselves. “This do in
remembrance of me,” is the Lord’s
command. By this the spiritual chil
dren of God, “shew the Lord’s death;”
not their fellowship for each other.—
They “show the Lord’s death until he
shall come.” But we have heard it
said even from the pulpit, that “we
shall all commune together in Heaven,
then why not all commune together
here on earth ?” This is surely a wild
expression. The Lord’s supper will
not be administered in Heaven. Its
administration in the church of his
saints on earth will cease forever when
Jesus comes the second time, without
sin unto salvation.
Page 18. “It is the Lord’s Supper,
and not our feast. In observing it, we
are to commune only with Christ.”—
The church of Jesus Christ gets all
her rules of admission to the Lord’s
table from the Lord himself. She can
not make any terms of communion—
He has ma le them all. It is bold pre
sumption to attempt to regulate the
terms of ad mission at a table prepared
by our fellow man, how .much more
presumptuous to attempt to regulate
for the Lord’s table !
Page 22. “Jesus says not one word
about our communing with ooe anoth
er, or one word about making the in
stitution a test of our fellowship with
other disciples.” How clamorous on
this subject are modern professors,
even professed ministers of the gos
pel of the Son of God! They take
this method of holding up the Baptists
to the contempt of the w'orld. But
thank God, the religious world, and
the irreligious world too, are begin
ning to see this fallacious reasoning in
a better light. Our author sees
these in the clear light of revealed
truth. He has traveled too far away
from the boundaries of Popedom to be
bewildered in the fogs of her misty
theology. Baptists following the Bi
ble must follow the author in this view.
In the second chapter, the author
says: “The Jewish Passover was
sublime in meaning, but the Christian
Passover has a meaning immeasurably
higher. Still, the Old Institution was
in a measure a type of the New. Both
speak of a deliverance by the election,
power and grace of God.” It will be
remembered by the Baptists of Geor
gia, especially by those who know El
der Jesse Mercer, that he wrote a most
valuable essay on the analogy between
the Lord’s supper and the Jewish Pass
over. That essay is preserved in the
“Georgia Pulpit.” It ought to be
published by the Southern Baptist
Publishing Society. By the by, in a
very brief way, the author of the book
under notice has treated this subject
in a very forcible manner. .
will do well to read the chapter jsare;
fully.
Page 39. “The Institution was giv
en not to the Apostles, not to ministers,
not to deacons, but to churches as
churches. Churches are the only cor
porations or legally organized bodies
known in the New Testament, and ap
pointed by Christ.” This view of the
subject cannot be denied, while the
New Testament is to be considered as
authority.
Page 39. “All ordinances and insti
tutions must, from the nature of the
case, be given tb corporations or le
gally organized bodies. The Supper
institution therefore is given to each
New Testament church.” To this quo
tation, no objection can justly be made.
But when the author says in chapter
3rd, sec. 2nd. page 44th.—“In seek
ing after the design of the supper our
views may be somewhat assisted by
glancing at the purpose of the Pass
over which the Supper has supplant
ed,” we do not so clearly understand
his meaning. Surely he does not in-
to say that the Passover among
the Jews, has, by our Lord, been sup
planted by the introduction of the
Lord’s supper among Christian church
es. The Jewish Passover was notgiv
en to the Christian church, and there
fore the Lord’s supper could not sup
plant it in the clfurch. There may be
an analogy between two things exist
ing in different localities and very far
apart, and there may be an analogy
where there is no supplanting.
Page 59. “The Supper Institution j
was not designed to express our fellow-
Terms of Advertising.
For all OneDoliarper square
of ten ljjies for
all subsequent publieptions. • 0 * j 1
RATES FOR CONTRACT ADVERTISING.
1 square of 10 lines pe#3 months ® i 00
“ “10 lines “ € “ 700
“ “10 lines “ 1 year 10 0 0
These lines are the text advertising lines and the
charge is for the space occupied by ten such liift *•
as are used in the body of an advertisement. Lt> n- ■
geradvertisementsin the same ratio.
N. S., VOL. 28, NO. 39.
ship for one another. Manifestly there
is nothing found in the narrative of the
origin—nothing in the plan of the
structure—nothing in the mentioned
or implied design—nothing in the
part taken separately—nothing in the
order of the whole of the institution,
to convey the idea that bv means of
it we are to commune with one an
other.” This I think cannot be dis
proved.
Page 61. “Some think that Judas
shared the supper with the eleven.—
Certainly he participated in the Pass
over. In this participation there sure
ly was no pledge of spiritual fellow
ship. The Savior did not appoint the
supper as a mode of expressing his ap
probation and fellowship for those who
loved him.”
“He did not invite the seventy, or
the 120, or even his dear mother, so
tar as we know, to thus evince their
communion with tiieir fellow disci
ples.” If this view be correct, then it
is evident that each church in its sep
arate and independent capacity is not
required to invite members of like
churches, (Bapiists if you please,) to
participate together for the purpose of
showing their fellowship and Christian
affection for each other. Nor should
the members of the same church so far
forget the great design of the Lord’s
supper as to view it only in the light
of a mere formal assemblage of the
church in which they are required to
give an expression of their fellowship
one for another. The Savior has set
this Institution in each church, that all
his true followers might have Him be
fore them as the Founder, Head, Law
giver and Life of the church, and hab
itually cherish Him as the object of
their contemplations ands^&ctions.
( To be concluded
■” A I’! :.\TI 1
No. 6.^^i- ; , y C
TEACHING.
As has already been observed in
a previous number, when facts are
to be treasured up in the store
house of memory, they should be
learned in accordance with that well
known law of mind called suggestion
by some, and by others association. A
fact that stands in isolation, is most
difficult to be brought up for use—fre
quently years elapse before it cornea up
to sight, any t
’ h !!..•
it up readily, and as tIiCTWI^BpF
multiplied so are the
its appearance w r hen its use may be de
sired. Because inspired men teach in
accordance with the law's of mind, the
sacred text is to be preferred to any
substitute, whatever may be its name,
whether Question Book, Catechism or
Scriptural helps.
One of the strongest arguments, to
the student of mental philosophy, in
favor of the scriptures being the word
of God, consists in this, that its laws,
precepts, and moral instructions are
in such harmony with the laws of mind
that the author of the one, must be
the author of the other. This pecu
liarity too, w'ill be found in the ar
rangement of its facts, long before
science had discovered the fixedness of
those law's under which all useful clas
sification must be made. For illustra
tion, the Ist and 2nd verses of the 11th
chapter of Matthew may be taken. —
“Now when Jesus was born
liem of Judea, in the
the King, behold there
from the east to Jerusalem,
Where is he that is born King of thW
Jews ? for we have seen his star in the”
east, and are come to worship him.”—
How beautifully the facts cl -•< r? Je
sus, the city of his birth, tin province
and its capital and king, the
star, the w'ise men of the east an™
their views of Christ’s kingly dignity,
and their obligations resulting there
from ! The question book w’ould iso
late them, making nine or ten sepa
rate facts !! The former consults Jje
Jaws of memory; the latter violates
them. The learner of the sacred text
will retain more of the facts, and w'ill
be enabled to call them up more read
ily than he can, who has pursued the
mode adopted by question books and
catechisms.
SUBJECTS.
The must profitable mode of learn
ing the leading truths and doctrines of
of the Bibles is to consider them sing
ly. Let clear and distinct view's of
each be first obtained and then they
may be viewed in their relationships.
The pupil, for instance, approaches
this declaration of the son of God,
“except ye repent, ye shall all like
wise perish.” Here the subject comes
up in all its solemnity. The teacher
should study this in his class and with
his class, r.nd with his concordance
bring forth what God says upon the
subject. What is Repentance? What
its antecedents? What its conse
quents? By some puipits the antece
dents, and by some the consequents
are put for repentance, some say sor
row’ is repentance, and some teach that
it is reformation. It cannot be both.
It is not either. No mistake should be
made here. The subject is vital.—
Eternal consequences are attached to
it by the Redeemer. Glaston’s collec
tions may be mentioned here as fur
nishing much valuable help to Sunday
school teachers. All of the leading
topics are alphabetically arranged, and
the proofs texts are furnished to the
hands of instructors.
When then a subject has been prop-