Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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