Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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-