Newspaper Page Text
THE CHRISTIAN INDEX,
PUBLISHED EVEBY WEDNESDAY MORNING
AT-MACON, GEORGIA.
BY A COMMITTEE OF BRETHREN,
FOR THE
GEORGIA BAPTIST CONVENTION.
TERMS OF SUBSCRIPTION,
Two DoLLARsin advance: or paid within the year.
If suffered to o v orrun the yea l- , Two Dot l ari ad
one-half will be charged in all caaea.
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 SIO.OO.
gy 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 all arrearges are paid;
and as far as such payment* may have been made
to an agent or agents , they should inform us to
whom , when, and how much.
py Persons forwarding thfcir names with pay
ent in advance, will be particular to inform us if
ey wish their when the
term of payment has expirJ|ppOt!jsrwise they are
supposed to be permanent
■try Agents and others in ordering the paper,
Bt-omitting payments, should be careful to have
post Office address of each subscri
naHE-'DISTINCT AND LEGl
'yf” pjlA’ .-i.r with caJjh fulncribci
■ \ a ith agents merely.
ordering the direction of a paper
from one Post Office to another,
Kid be careful to mention the names of both of
bces, 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 shall 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 “ CHRIS
TIAN INDEX,” Macon, Georgia.
Book Notices.
Blind Silas, or Fellowship with God, a tale for
the young, by a Lady. 408 pages. Carter & Bro.,
N. Y.
This is one of those book that so much edify
and improve young people. It is written and
printed in an attractive style and contains numer
ous handsome engravings.
My Saviocr ; or Devotional Meditations in
Prose and Verse on the names and titles of the
Lord Jesus Christ. By Rev. John East, A. M.,
R ‘ctor of Croscombe, Somerset, England. Carter
and Bro , N. Y.
The title of the Book explains it.
‘lt shows a beautiful, a great and a good mind,
breathing out its desires after the object of its su
preme love; searching itself to see whether its
affection be sincere, strong and always in action ;
and seeking, incessantly to ripen in Christian ex
perience.”
Upon every name which is given to Christ in
the Bible there is a devout meditation: all true
Christians will love this book.
CIIITRCII INDEPENDENCE.
BY X. M. CRAWFORD, D. 1).
Some of the “general principles”
which do bear upon the issue have been
discussed in my remarks on what i6
called church sovereignty. I add but
little more, for these principles are few
and simple.
Every church derives ali its power
from Jesus Christ.
Every act of a church which is ac
cording to Christ’s law is authorized,
and therefore valid , and every act not
according to Cnrist’s law is unauthor
ized, and therefore not valid.
Each church is independent of all
other churches, and at the 6ame time
subject in ali things to Jesus Christ.
Every Church, therefore, is bound * not
by tiie action or opinion of other
churches, but by the law of Jesus
Christ.
I can hardly conceive that any man
will deny either of the foregoing prop
ositions. In their application brethren
appear to honestly differ. I proceed
to point out what seems to me to be
their proper application to the ques
tion in hand.
A church is not bound to receive a
member because another cliureh has
received him. Usually, indeed, one
church does receive a member on a
letter certifying his fellowship in anoth
er church ; but this is a matter of cour
tesy and not of right; and I have
known t uch applicants to be rejected,
and properly rejected. The Greensbo
ro’ church, has, within my knowledge,
twice on this principle ; and no
of fellowship or good will oc
ALcdneM the churches <>n this
‘•"*£§& . u;.l to receive as
4 tiff • v. :. •:>: atiottier
■jp^pw\ x -- ~r or-iain? : hut de-
whether it will receive
u<-t : and 1 have known more
instance where churches have
to receive ministers recognized
aud received by other churches.
Again, a church is not bound to re
ject a member who has been rejected
by another church. If an individual
applies to one church for membership
on experience and is rejected because
his experience does not satisfy them,
he may nevertheless be received by an
other church upon the very same ex
perience. No one will deny this ; for
e\%ry church must judge and decide
for itself. These instances show that
neither in receiving nor rejecting mem
bers can one local church bind auy oth
er local church. Each is independent,
in its widest sense, of all others. To
it© own Master it standeth or falleth.
Cpoß the same principle one who
has been excluded by one church may
be received by another. But, it is said,
thjit this case differs from that of re
ceiving a member after a simple rejec
tion of the applicant’s experience. In
the one, we are told, there is a moral
disability and a censure ; in the other,
none. But this certainly is a mistake.
In the judgment of the rejecting
church, the applicant must have been
considered deficient in gospel faith;
#rgan 0f % feknfton: tototto to Jpssiutts, JUfipwi, aitir % fnfmsto of % baptist Jenammation.
and that surely ia a great moral disa
bility when the question is the proprie
ty of admitting any one into a compa
ny of regenerated persons. In regard
to the other point, a man may be labo
ring under charges froi* other tribu
nals than a church. An individnal
may apply to a church for member
ship while he is charged with crime ;
shall a church of regenerated sinners
reject him on that ground alone? Is
it not more according to the spirit of
the gospel to examine the tacts and re
ject him (if he ought to be rejected)
on account of his guilt ?
When a church receives a member
he confers upon him certain rights.—
What are those rights ? Christ has
established no great # hierarchy ; no
universal church visible ; no grand
confederacy of* churches, even, in
which membership in one confers rights
in all the rest. By admission, there
fore, an individual obtains rights in the
church admitting him and in do other.
And when an individual is excluded
from a church, he is deprived of the
very same rights which admission con
ferred upon him. • I do not see how he
can be deprived of more, for he posses
ses no more. They are rights in the
particular, local, visible church; not
in a church general, nor in a hierar
chy, nor in a confederated republic of
churches ; for none of these things ex
ist by the authority of Christ. I, there
lore, hold that the phrases to admit a
member into a church , and to exclude
a member from a church are correla
tive phrases, and represent correlative
ideas ; which are also co extensive and
commensurate ideas. When I stated
this opinion some months ago, Dr.
Dawson of the South Western Baptist,
said, with more candor than courtesy,
(I thank him for the former, and am
not ruffled by the lack of the lattter)
that they were “ truisms , clothed in
great svielling words,” which however
threw “no light on the subject-” He
has since endorsed enthusiastically
Corrective Church Discipline, whose
author boldly affirms that they are not
“ correlative” nor “ commensurate ”
ideas. The inconsistency of an individ
ual, however, is of little consequence
to a seeker for truth.
What strong reasons then, are offer
ed to disprove my position ? “Before
he is received, he bears no relation to
the church; but when lie is expelled,
he sustains the relation of one who is
the subject of its reformatory disci
pline.” Page 107. But is it true
that, before an individual is received
into a church, he bears no relation to
it f I cannot think so. The church
and the world do bear certain relations
to each other, for Jesus has said, “Ye
are the light of the world,” and again,
“Ye are the 6alt of the eaith.” Doubt
less au individual does bear some rela
tion to a church before he is received
into its membership. If, by the latter
clause of the sentence quoted, it is
meant that the excluded is a subject of
the church, there is a fallacy in the
proposition. A few years ago, Cap
tain Ingraham, released an American
citizen who was a subject of Austrian
discipline, though not a subject of the
Austrian government. In like manner
it may happen that one may be the
subject of church discipline who is not
a subject of the church.
To confirm his proposition the au
thor adds that the expelled “can never
be received again in the same way as
he was from the -world at first. 1 Then
he was admitted by experience and
baptism ; now , he must be not admit
ted,but restored according to the Scrip
tures, by satisfaction rendered, without
baptism.” But the man may not have
been admitted into the excluding
church at first-from the world : he may
have come from another church, not
by baptism and experience, but by let
ter. As he was not therefore admit
ted by baptism into the expelling
church, the manner of his re-admission
does not vary. But really this matter
does not appear to me to touch the
merits of tne question. The member
is not admitted by his experience and
baptism in the first instance ; nor by
his letter in the second ; but by the
vote of the church , based upon his ex
perience or letter : and when he is re
stored, it is by a similar vote based up
on his repentance.
(Concluded next weeJci)
Rejoinder to Dr. Crawford.
BY P. H. MELL, D. I).
NUMBER 4.
“Has one church the right to receive
a member excluded from another?”
There are three ways in which an
innocent man may be unfortunately
excluded from a church :
1. Where the charge may be for
holding or practicing that which oth
er churches conscientiously belive to
be according to tbe Scriptures; as,
when the oftence is that the member
is a slaveholder, or contributes to mis
sion Boards, or believes and teaches
that the Gospel should be preached to
sinners, &c.
2. Where he may be expelled for
that which the Scriptures do not in ex
press terms forbid, but which they do
not either expressly or by implication
enjoin ; as when one joins the Masons
or Odd Fellows, &C.
3. Where the charges on which he
is expelled are for such things as the
Scriptures reprehend—such charges
as, if they had been proved upon him ,
would have made him, in the opinion
of all, worthy of expulsion.
If this discrimination were kept in
mind, much of the apparent disagree
ment among candid brethren would
disappear.
MACON, GA., WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1860.
In regard to the first class above, I
believe there is no difference of opin
ion. All maintain that a chnrch in
order may rightly receive such exclu
ded member. I lay down the princi
pie that in no case during the exis
tence of an expelling church with
which we are in Christian union, are
we authorized to receive its excluded
members, without its consent, unless
the grounds of its action were snch as
would justify us in withdrawing fellow
ship from it. But when it excludes its
members for holding or practicing that
which we conscientiously hold our
selves, its act is a virtual withdrawal
of fellowship from us. “When, there
fore, we take such churches upon their
own terms, and receive those of their
members who have been excluded for
conscientiously maintaining the same
truths [or engaging in thes,ame prac
tices] oa whose account we ourselves
have been withdrawn from, we violate
no church comity, we disturb no Chris
tian union.” p. 118.
In regard to the second class, I say
that, while one church may act very
foolishly in expelling a member for
joining the Masons or Odd Fellows,
.another church may not interfere. Ist.
Because there is.-jiot sufficient ground
for the withdrawal of fellowship un
less the interposing chnrch is prepared
to say that members are conscientious
ly bound to join the Masons, Ac.; and
2d. Because “when a man allows him
self to be expelled on this ground, it is
because he is headstrong, because he
offends against charity, and because he
esteems that whichls merely expedient
to him of more value than the peace of
the church, and the confidence and af
fection of his brethren.” p. 116. The
errros of the church, (growing out of
ignorance, if you please,) may be easi
ly remedied by the brother complain
ed of, if he will consent to make a
slight sacrifice on points of convenience
and expediency, in matters not at all
affecting his conscience. This is my
position on the second class of cases.
If others differ from me, 1 will enter
into no further discussion with them
here. Under this head I have nothing
more to say than what is contained in
my book, pp. 115, 116.
The true question, and one which
will admit of the discussion of the scrip
ture principle without embarrassment,
is found in the 3d class of cases, and it
may be stated thus: “Has one church
the right to receive a member exclu
ded from another, when the charges on
which he was excluded are for such
things as the Scriptures reprehend—
such charges as, il they had been prov
ed against him, would have made him,
in the opinion of all, worthy of expul
sion?” This ia the question I endeav
ored to discuss in my book. “Excep
tional cases,” such as are referred to in
classes Ist and 2d, I treated of by
themselves. This question I answer
in the negative. Dr. Crawford and
others, in the affirmative.
Before proceeding to reply to his ar
guments, let me make a few prelimi
nary remarks :
1. Let the reader dispossess himself
of the idea, if he has it, that this ques
tion has any connection, direct or re
mote, with the Nashville embroglio,
in order that he may, without preju
dice, consider the arguments on both
sides. How can it be connected with
the Nashville case ? The minority in
sist that they have never been excom
municated ; aud all the world knows
that if they have been, they have nev
er been received by another church.—
Let the question then be decided on
its own merits, without embarrassment
from partizan bias.
2. Bear in mind too, reader, that the
principle we are deciding is to have
reference to your church and to mine,
as well as to any body else’s. The
question is not only whether we shall
have a right to interfere with our neigh
hors’ churches, but also whether our
neighbors’ churches can interfere with
ours.
3. Remember, again, that the posit
ion I take is that held by the great body
of the Baptists from time immemorial.
Do you doubt this ? I will give you
the testimony of one whose qualifica
tion as a witness you will not call in
question. Bro. Joseph S. Baker, in
answer to the query, “Is it right for
one church to receive into her fellow
ship individuals who have been exclu
ded from another ?” replies, “such a
course would conflict with the long es
tablished usages of our denomination ,
and consequently tends to promote dis
cord in our churches,” &c. (Ch. Index,
Yol. 11, No. 22.) (Italics mine.) This
testimony is all the more weighty from
the fact that brother B. is not fully
satisfied of the Scriptural authority for
the usage.
Let us now attend to Dr. Crawford’s
arguments. If one church has the right
to receive a member excluded from
another, the origin of that right can be
shown. It must be derived directly or
indirectly from the Scriptures ; for Dr.
Crawford acknowledges that “every
chuich is bound ... by the law of Je
sus Christ.” Is there a special precept
in the New Testament enjoining or au
thorizing such reception ? Our breth
ren frankly answer in the negative. Is
there an example in which one pri mi
tive church received the excluded
member of another ? Dr. C. answers,
“It is freely conceded that we have no
New Testament example of a church
receiving an excluded member of an
other.” Whence then is the right ob
tained ? Dr. C. attempts
1. To argue it from ’the general
principle that all churches are inde
pendent ; and
2. To corroborate the argument by
the objection that if the church does
not possess it, then, “the action of one
church is binding upon all others.”
I take up the principle of independ
ence now—next week I will consider,
the objection , Does the fact that a
church is independent give it right to
receive the exclnded member of an
other?
_l. To assert this is to reason in a
circle. How do you know that chur
ches are independent ? The New Tes
tament nowhere says so in direct terms.
You know it to be so simply by the
fact that every church in primitive
times attended tD its own business
without the co-operation,dictation or in
terfence of other!. The items usually
cited to prove this are, that each church
made a final adjudication of cases of
variance between its members ; tbatit
excluded those .were
mT/restored them, after repentance
and reformation, without asking the
permission or co-operation of other
bodies. Dr. Dagg, in “Church Order,”
a work written before this discussion
was sprung upon us, proves the inde
pendence of the churches as follows :
“Each church, as a distinct organization, was
independent of every other church. No intima
tion is anywhere given that the acts of one church
were supervised by another church, or by any ec
clesiastical judicatory established by a combina
tion of churches. In the direction given by Christ,
for settling a difficulty between two members, the
aggrieved brother is commanded to report the
case to the church, and the action of the church
is represented as final. The church at Corinth
excommunicated the incestuous person, by its own
act and without reference to a higher judicatory.
As if to settle the question of church independence,
Paul, though possessing apostolic authority, and
though he commanded the act to be done, yet re
quired it to be done by the assembled church, as
the proper agent for performing the work. Again,
the same individual was to be restored, the
action of the church became necessary, and this
action completed the deed,” &c. p. 83.
This line of argument is the only one
which you or any one else can use to
prove church independence from the
Scriptures. Now see your reasoning
iu a circle. You prove, in part, that
the church is independent because it
can itself restore its own excluded
members, and then claim that it can
restore excluded members because it is
independent! So long as you need the
power to restore to prove independence,
you can never prove the power to res
tore by independence. Here is the
fallacy in brethren’s reasonii g. They
proceed upon the supposition that the
Bible says in distiuct words, “Every
church is independent.” Now, if you
need the power of the church to res
tore its own excluded members, to
prove thrt it is independent, you can
never use independence to prove that
one church can take away the right of
another to restore its own excluded
membert. That would be to make in
dependence cut its own throat! Nay,
it would be to transform it into a law
lessness aud a usurpation that tyranni
cally destroys the author of its being,
and the friends that gave it, and main
tain it in position. Not contented with
making independence commit suicide,
you compel it also to recklessly mur
der one of its staunchest friends.
2. But the indep’dence brethren make
the basis of their argument that it is not
the “technical” independence of the
Gospel, but the absolute independence
which consists in separation, isolation
and non intercourse. They reason as
if each church is surrounded by a wall
of fire, and thus utterly isolated from
all others. Now, the “technical” inde
pendence of the Gospel is consistent
with the closest and most intimate
union between the churches. They
have “one Lord, one faith, one bap
tism ;” and they are designed to be
connected together by the strongest
and most intimate ties of love, and fel
lowship, and co-operation in every
good word and work. Our brethren
w ho oppose us, themselves, if they will
but a moment reflect and examine
themselves, will see that the thing
which excites their sympathies the
most for their imaginary innocent man,
is that he is cut off from the denomi
nation, which is made up of the ag
gregate of Gospel churches. Jesse
Mercer wrote a “Circular Letter”* in
1821, which was adopted by the Geor
gia Association, “on the unity and de
pendence of the churches of Jesus
Christ.” He says:
“By the unity of the churches, we mean that
they are all under one head, all members of one
body: and by dependence, that necessary con
nection which forms them into the same body, to
which they owe their greatest competency for
practical and virtuous excellence, and their high
est felicity in perfection and beauty.”
“And though seDarate and distinct churches
were constituted under the New Testament for
these all-important purposes, (discipline, &e.,) yet
the unity of the body of Christ, and the depen
dence of these churches on him as their common
head, and on each other for ‘the perfection of
beauty’ and the most complete fitness for exten
ded usefulness, are in nowise impaired, but every
where asserted and maintained.” (Hist. Ga. Asso.
p. 244.)
Now the same sovereign who con
stituted His churches with a “ techni
cal” independence, united them to
gether also by the bonds of love and
fellowship. The independence He gave
them can be exercised in harmony with
love and fellowship; but it is impossi
ble for one church to receive the exclu
ded member of another—thus arresting
and reversing its process, and passing
implied censure upon it for its act,
without destroying fellowship and
Christian union.
Thus it is shown that Gospel inde
pendence does not give to one church
the right to receive the excluded mem
ber of another.
But it is asked, Do the Scriptures
furnish no remedy for an innocent man
unjustly dealt by ? To this I answer.
1. That a church composed of regen
erated materials, but seldom, in the
aggregate, commits this injustice by
recklessness and haste, and never,- it is
to be presumed, by design. The ten
dency of our ehurches is to err the,oth
er way. From love to an erring broth
er, and too great an extension of “the
judgment of charity,” they retain in
fellowship multitudes that ought to be
expelled, to one who has been excom
municated hastily, recklessly or vindic
tively.
2. Where a church of regenerated
members expels an innocent man, the
error is very soon corrected, if he is a
pious man , and outsiders abstain from
interference. But if he is a man of
turbulent spirit, and bad passions—if
he raises a great commotion in the
fe §hurch, and induces partizans from oth
eY churches to espouse his cause,—the
evil is indefinitely prolonged. All the
more if another church, on the plea of
independency, or any other ground, at
tempt to rescue him.
3. Thus far, I have reasoned with
brethren upou their own terms, and,
for the sake of the argument, impliedly
admitted that they bfive a means of
infallibly ascertaining who are inno
cent, without going into a formal in
vestigation. I have done this design
edly in order to show that even if this
advantage be grauted to them,their the
ory cannot be sustained. But how
can they ascertain who are unjustly
expelled without a formal and rigid in
vestigation ? Such conclusions cannot
be arrived at intuitively. Ifinvestiga
tion is to take place, of what kind is it
to be ?— ex-parte f Are the assertions
of the expelled to be taken unques
tioned ? If not, will you demand that
the expelling church should appear
and plead before your bar ? Suppose
it should refuse to acknowledge your
jurisdiction, and decline to make to
you the showing which, in 4s opinion,
you have no right to demand—what
then ? For you will doubtless confess
that you have not the power to compel
the church to appear before you. Os
course, if. in that case, you act at all,
you do so exclusively upon the show
ing of the alleged culprit. Now, as
there is to be no one to, challenge his
showing, and to join issue with him in
his statements, the more unscrupulous
he is, the more satisfactory will be the
case which he will make out. Just add
to this now the statement which some
writers on your side make,that a church
is under religions obligation to give
membership to every one of whom it
can be shown that he has been unjust
ly expelled, and then we have this re
sult: Every excluded member who
makes an unchallenged showing that
he has been unjustly dealt by, is of
right entitled to membership with the
church to which he applies ! The more
unscrupulous then the man is, the more
certain is he to regain membership;
and no bad man can be kept out of
church relations ! Do brethren shrink
from this ? Do they remind me that it
is only an innocent man unjustly dealt
with that they propose to receive ? I
ask again, How do you find out he is
innocent?—with an investigation, or
without it? A thorough investigation,
with a showing from both sides, is
impossible. If you. resort to an ex
parte investigation, you are either to
be bound by it, or you are not. If you
are to be bound by it, then, the more
unscrupulous the man expelled is, the
more certain is it that he will secure
membership with you : If you are not
to be bound by it, then, the investiga
tion is a farce—nay, it is worse—it is
a deception resorted to to conceal your
intention, and to justify before the
world a foregone conclusion. And
here I will assert that which, I think,
cannot be denied, that in all those ca
ses where persons have been received
who have been expelled on a charge
for such offences as the Scriptures rep
rehend, the“receiving church acted un
der high excitement and partizan feel
ing ; and those formalities observed,
either by the church itself, or by an ex
parte council, were resorted to not to
ascertain the guilt or innocence of
the expelled, but to justify the church
in that which it had determined to do
anyhow. ISIT’ There never was a case
where a church received one expelled
by another, unless the interposing
church had taken the side of the ex
pelled man as his partizan, previous to
his expulsion.
“But,” says Dr. Crawford, “suppose
I happen to know that the excluded
man is not guilty.” I answer, in that
case, he would have been a very com
petent witness before the church deal
ing with its member. He need not,
therefore, incite his own church
violent interference. His testimony
before the church would be sufficient
to clear him if still on trial, or to re
store him if expelled.
On the whole, then, may we not
claim the following to be legitimate
conclusions ?
Ist. A church that should propose
to interfere in behalf of another’s ex
cluded member, is utterly destitute of
any reliable means of ascertaining
whether he is innocent or guilty.
2d. Even though it may possess the
most infallible means of ascertaining
his innocence, it has no scriptural au
thority for interference.
The proper mode of proceeding in
any supposable case, has been so well,
and so scripturally indicated by Bro.
Joseph S. Baker, that lean do no bet
ter than quote it here :
“In cases of exclusion, the church is either
unanimous in their opinion of the demerits of the
excluded member or they are not; and the mem
ber has either been justly or unjustly excluded.
1. In a case where a member has been unani
mously excluded for good and sufficient reasons,
JV. S., VOL. 28, NO. 49.
the only proper way for one to obtain restoration,
is to evince, by a godly life and candid acknowl
edgement of his wrong, his repentance for the
past and his full purpose of amendment for the
future.
2. In a case where a member has been unani
mously, but wrongfully excluded, it is his painful
duty to submit, with meekness, to the deoision of
the church, jmtil God, in his Providence, enable
him to prove his innocence, or the church - volun
tarily reconsiders and reverses her decision.
8. In a case where there is not unanimity in
the decision, at the time that it was made, it be
comes the excluded member and his friends to ab
stain from recrimination, and submit to the major
ity, until they have it in their power to throw
new light on the subject, or until they have evi
dence that some of those who voted for the exclu
sion have changed their views of the case. It
will then be perfectly in order to move for a re
consideration ; and if the individual making the
motion will affirm his belief that the evidence col
lected is sufficient to establish the innocence of
the excluded person, or that the views of a major
ity of the church have undergone a change favor
able to the accused, we think the church ought
to grant a reconsideration. If they at any time
become satisfied of the innocence of the excluded
member, they ought not to hesitate, on account
of their former act, to receive him again to their
fellowship without an acknowledgement.
4. In a case where a church is much divided in
sentiment, parties are formed, strife prevails, and
there exists little prospect of settling their difficul
ties among themselves, helps may be called in
from sister churches. Each of the parties should
be allowed to select an equal number of persons
to compose the council to whom the case is to be
submitted but they should be invited to attend
and act by the church, and not by the parties by
which they were selected ; nor should they con
sider themselves, or be considered by others, as
the counsellors of parties, but as the counsellors of
the church. But we should avoid giving unneces
sary publicity to church difficulties, and, there
fore, should never call in a council to settle a diffi
culty that can be settled equally well by the church;
nor should we unnecessarily expose to the world
our difficulties, the shame of our nakedness, thro’
pamphlets or periodicals.” [Ch. Index, Yol. 12,
No. 13, [1844.]
My next, and last number, will con
tain a reply to Dr. Crawford’s objec
tion, and aq exposure of the fallacy
contained in the use of the word
“bound.” P. H. MELL.
* I shall furnish to the Christian Index this
Circular Letter and request its republication. It
is well for us to enquire in these times what were
the sentiments of our fathers.
ANNUAL PASTORAL CALLS.
BY REFORMER.
The connection between a pastor and
church is of Divine appointment. Re
sponsibilities of great moment rest
mutually upon them. To the pastors
it is said : “Take heed, therefore, unto
yourselves, and unto all the flock over
which the Holy Ghost hath made
you overseers, ,to feed the Church of
God, which he hath purchased with
his own blood.” They watch for souls
as they that must'give an account.—
To the churches it is said: “ And we
beseech you, brethren, to know them
which labor among you, and are over
you in the Lord, and admonish you ;
and to esteem them very highly in love
for their works’ sake.” “It is ordained
of God, that they which preach the
gospel shall live of the gospel .”
The pastor.is to “-take heed to him
self,” watch his heart, life and doctrine;
he must feel rightly, live correctly, pi
ously, and preach God's word. He
must also watch the flock—know and
superintend it, teach it, nurse and feed
it, and see that it imbibes no heresies,
and falls into no sins—for it is the pur
chased possession of Jesus—and he
must watch for souls. The bow of Sa
tan is bent, and charged with an arrow
of death bearing upon every soul. The
pastor throws himself, shielded with
the Divine armor, between the arrow
and the soul, warns it of its danger, and
entreats it to fly for safety in Christ.—
While he is thus engaged, the church
must esteem him very highly—love
him dearly, sympathize with him in
his trials, pray for him, encourage
him, and support him—furnish him
with the necessaries of life. That these
mutual obligations may be carried out
according to the Divine mind—the
mo3t intimate knowledge, the tender
est affection, and the utmost confi
dence should exist between the Pastor
and his church. These attachments
are not formed and matured without
mutual labors, sufferings, trials and
successes. They are not the result of
a day’s, or a year’s connection. A man
must be tried fully to be known well.
He must be known well before a just
estimate can be placed upon his char
acter, and the same will hold good as
to the church. It is important, then,
that the relation between a pastor and
a church, should b e permanent, or at
least dependent upon the usefulness of
the pastor on the one hand, and the
co-operation of the church upon the
other.
Owing to the fact that many of our
churches make annual calls, the pas
toral relation has not, with many of
them, been fully appreciated and its
importance felt. A minister is called
on account of convenience, or for his
reputation, or because he requires but
little, or perhaps nothing for his servi
ces; while the church is perhapß ig
norant of his pastoral .energy, his
preaching ability, or his spirituality ;
and too often motives of a purely world
ly character leads to a temporary pas
toral connection.
These are evils which need to be re
formed, for the following reasons:
Ist,. For the Pastor’s sake. He ac
cepts the call and enters upon his du
ties, not knowing how long he may re
main, or whether his continuance will
depend upon his faithfulness, or upon
the caprices of a few restless spirits,
such as we have in almost all our
churches.
Terms ot Advertising.
For all transient advertising OneDollarper square
of ten lines for the first, and 50 cents per square for
all subsequent publications.
RATES FOR CONTRACT ADVERTISING,
l square of 10 lines per 3 m0nth5....... . ...
“ “10 lines “ 8 <* “**■** uo
“ “loitaes i y ear . 10
These lines are the text advertising lines andth
charge is for the space occur, r d byten such line
is are used in the body of an advertisement u
geradvertisementsin the same ratio. 011
He feels either as an underling on tri
al,or an unhappy indifference as to sue
cess takes possession of him to a great
er or less extent-—whereas, if his call
was permanent, he would feel he had
the confidence and affections of the
church, would be untrammelled by a
limited time, and could labor with a
hearty good will, feeling that the only
contingency which could separate
them, would be a want of success on
his part, or of co-operation from the
church. Again. If the pastor during
his year should have a call from anot£
er church, he is at a loss to decide
what is duty ; if he should decline he
would be out of the pastorate, in the
event his services were not desired in
his present field should he acjpept, he
might sadly disappoint his present pas
torate, and as he has no means of poll
ing his church till the day for a call ar
rives, he and the church calling him,
must both remain in suspense, or the
church call another, and perhaps leave
him unoccupied.
. It is best for the church. It has
just been stated that there are discon
tented,censorious members in almost all
churches. At every annual call they
have a party, small or great, accord
ing to their influence, arrayed against
their pastor. They want a change.—
Hie pa6tor is too ignorant, or too indo
lent, or too proud, or some other ob
jection they will urge, gives the
church some annoyance, and the pas
tor much pain. These malcontents
nurse their objections in view of the
annual call, when they will endeavor
to carry their point. Thej are always
upon the lookout for errors to urge
against their pastor at the expiration
ot the year. If, however, the call were
permanent, they would cease to be up
on the alert, as no opportunity would
likely arise when their objections might
be urged. Annual calls foster discon
tent and jealousies, and render the
condition of church and pastor uncer
tain.
3d. Annual calls are unscriptural.
{There is neither precept nor example
for them in the New Testament.
4th, The Pastor who knows his con
gregation, if he be truly a man of God,
feels a deeper interest lor their souls,
and can exert a greater influence over
them, than anew, unknown, and un
tried man.
Lastly, as a security to churches
against inefficient pastors, and to pas
tors against worldly churches, it might
be well to have it always understood
that three month’s notice, given by ei
ther the church or pastor, will dissolve
the connection.*
No church should call a pastor with
out a day of prayer set apart for that
purpose.
BRIEF HISTORY OF INFANT
BAPTISM.
The Edinburgh Encyclopedia, Ar
ticle Baptism, says :
“It is impossible to mark the precise
period when sprinkling was introduced.
It is probable, however, that it was in
vented in Africa, in the second centu
ry, in favor of clinics. But it was so
far from being approved by the church
in general,that the Africans themselves
did not account it valid. .The first law
for sprinkling was obtained in the fol
lowing manner. Pope Stephen 111,
being driven from Rome by Astnlphus
king of the Lombards, in 753, fled to
Pepin, who, a short time before had
usurped the crown of France. Whilst
he remained there the Monks of Cres
sy, in Brittany, consulted him whether,
in cases of necessity, baptism perform
ed by pouring water on the head of
the infant would be lawful. Stephen
replied that it would; but thought the
truth of this fact should be allowed,
which some Catholics deny, yet pour
ing or sprinkling was only admitted in
cases of necessity. It was r->t until
1311 that the legislature in a Council
held at Ravenna declared immersion
or sprinkling to be indifferent. In this
country, however, sprinkling was nev
er practiced inordinary cases till after
Reformation. And in England, even
in the reign of Edward VI, trine im
mersion—dipping first the right side,
secondly the left side, and last the face
of the infant, was commonly observed.
But during the persecution of Mary,
many persons, most of whom were
Scotchmen, fled from England to Ge
neva, and there greedily imbibed the
opinions of that church. In 1556, a
book was published at that place con
taining “The Form of Prayers and
Ministrations of the Sacraments ap
proved by the famous, and godly learn
ed man,-John Calvin,” in which the
administrator is enjoined to take water
in his hand and lay it on the child’s
forehead. These Scottish exiles, who
had renounced the authority of the
Pope, implicitly acknowledged the au
thority of Calvin, and returning to their
own country, with Knox at their head,
in 1559, established sprinkling in Scot
land. From Scotland this practice
made its way into England in the reign
of Elizabeth; but was not authorized
by the Established Church. In the
Assembly of Divines held in West
minister, in 1643, it was keenly deba
ted whether immersion or sprinkling
should be adopted. Twenty-five voted
for sprinkling and twenty-four for im
mersion, and even this small majority
was obtained at the earnest request of
Dr. Lightfoot, who had acquired great
influence in that assembly. Sprink
ling is, therefore, the general practice
of this country. Many Christians,
however, the Baptists especially, re
ject it. The Greek Church, universal
ly adhere to immersion.”
In the light of such testimony we
think two facts are evident ; that the