Newspaper Page Text
CHRISTIAN INDEX AND SOUTH-WESTERN BAPTIST;
VUL. 49-NO. 30.
A RELIGIOUS AND FAMILY PAPER,
PUBLISHED WEEKLY IN ATLANTA, OA
AT $3.00 PER ANNUM,
Invariably in Advance.
J. J. TOON', Proprietor.
Thy Work, 0 God/isiMine.
To live and work for Thee,
Me Thou dost send
Amidst earth’s ruins. May I be,
Unto the end,
A living sacrifice. M» store
I* Thine—not mine—forevermore.
Thy work, O God, is min®
Daily to do;
My work, 0 God, is thine
While I pursue
The path in which my Saviour trod,
rr " r In suoshiue, or beneath Thy rod.
With Thee to guide aright
I fear no foe ;
Nor, in the darkest night,
Refrain to go
Where’er Thy voice is heard to call,
For Thou encirclest, rulest all.
S'x.',rr£.What though my passions rage, * .
~ And* urge retreat.
The warfare which I wage
Knows no defeat.
The conquering power is on my side,
While I in Jesus' love abide.
If, till I reach the end
Os life's short day,
I must the truth defend,
’Gainst error’s sway,
Oh! let Thy Spirit on my sight
Pour forth His beams of heavenly light.
Then, when death's icy hand
Shull touch my heart,
And from life’s weary strand
I must depart,
Let the dismissal, Lord, to me
Be but the entrance hour with Tliee.
-r -Hubert PargiUr.
Short Paragraphs.
Toleration is about the farthest limit that
most of us attain toward liberality of senti
ment. We allow others to differ from us
without burning them—perhaps without wish
ing to do so. But we forbear with a protest.
We would have them know that they are, in
our opinion, wrong, and very much to be cen
sured for cherishing such erroneous views.
Few yield a full hearty assent to the proposi
tion that every man has right to his own opin
ion, and that he who differs from us may be
as honest, sincere, and conscientious as we are
ourselves.
Their religious privileges are the last things
that some people think of paying for. They
first buy all that necessity requires for their
comfort, and all that taste or luxury requires
for the gratification ot vanity, and then if
there is a spare dollar, they may give half of
it to the church. To judge by their actions,
their religion is less in their estimation than
the most superfluius of their luxuries.
The shorter a weaper, the gr ater its effi
ciency. Snort words, short sentences, and
short speeches, are more powerful than their
opposites. This is a fact of which many .theo
logians, both young and old, have never
learned —greatly to the discomfort of those
doomed to be their hearers. Ihe art ot leav
ing off should bo taught in our theological
schools.
“T am wrong” arc words more difficult—
far more difficult, for most lips to frame, than
was Shibboleth to the Ephraimites, whom
Jeptha’s army slew. An opinion, however
hastily formed, if uttered, is retracted with
great unwillingness. We admire the heroism
of those who have submitted their faith to
the test of the st,ke. At the same time, we
fear that pride of opinion has had as much
influence as conscience, in making martyrs.
One who would win others to goodness,
must himself be good. Brave words from
lips pale with fear, will never infuse enthusi
asm into an army. To preach righteousness
and live sin, will never induce men to be bet
ter. One good action is worth more than a
thousand words in praise of goodness.
It is a stupendous thought, that the whole
system of worlds is so delicately balanced
that the destruction of the smallest asteroid
would spread disaster and confusion through
out the realms of the universe. May we not
reason by analogy, that the whole creation is
thus nicely adjusted, and that every creature,
however insignificant in our eyes, forms a
part of the stupendous and connected whole?
When you have found out the weak point
of a man, avoid touching it. There is as
much inhumanity in pressing the tender place
of one’s moral nature, as there is in treading
wantonly on a corn, or striking rudely against
a boil. Beware of mentioning anything, even
in jest, which you know your friend feels to
be a weakness.
Sympathy, we all appreciate; pity, few
like to receive. In the one is community of
feeling —an admission that suffering is com
mon to us all. In the other, there is an as
sumption of superiority —at least, a claim of
immunity from the particular form of suffer
ing which calls forth the sentiment. “1 feel
with you,” brings a soothing influence like
balm upon the wound. “ I feel for you,” is
caustic upon the parts already smarting with
pain.
Baptist Union.
1 have ever deplored the divisions and sub.
divisions in the great family of Christ, more
especially tne divisions in our very large
Btptist family. These divisions are m direct
opposition to the wili of Christ as expressed
iu flis prayer, John xvii; 21, and then in
divers places by the Holy Spirit through the
apostles. They are productive, if not of all,
certainly of a very large proportion of all the
scepticism and infidelity that cursed the past,
and most awfully blights and confuses the
present generation. Look at the already
gathered, dark volume of infidelity, in all its
active proportions, moving from the East to
wards the West, taking in its fell swoop these
United States, with the best and purest inter
ests of the great gospel kingdom, and then
say, my brother, how, and by whom is this
volume to be met? The only answer is,
God’s blood-bought people must meet and
successfully overcome it, or this world will
be engulfed by it.
Can we accomplish our design in a divided,
mutilated state and condition ; or would it
be wise to concentrate all our forces in the
great truth and panoply with all the selected
weapons of our warfare?
i am for union in the truth, and our stan
dard uplifted, with this inscription : “ One
faith, one Lord and one baptism.” How
shall we rally, and when? My proposition
is, that a convention of Missionary and Primi
tive Baptist ministers meet at some given
time and place for the social and religious
discussii nos such questions as will tend to
lessen ’their differences, remove their aliena
tions,and sweetly uniie them into oneness for
Christ and the salvation of souls.
To accomplish the above desired object, i
surest, the following religious subjects for
discussion:
Ist. Does the New Testament teach that
Cnrist, or the apostles by authority of Christ,
o instituted an organic body, called the church
of Jesus Christ ?
2nd. If yea, what kind of material did they
use in the organization—believers only, or
men, women and children indiscriminately ?
3rd, How ; or in what way was visibility
Is3 00 1 YEAR. 1 FRANKLIN PRINTING HOUSE, ATLANTA/ GA., THURSDAY, AUGUST 4, 1870. Isßoo A YEAR.}
given to the church? Was it by an oath of.
allegiance to Christ, publicly and voluntarily
taken in baptism, upon faith in Jesus, or did
the faith of the parent entitle the child, and
thus make children fit material for the build*
ing?
4ih. Does the gospel law of God regard
and recegnize the organic body, (or church)
of Jesus perfect and complete in its constitu
tion, laws, etc.? And is the pattern scriptu
rally binding upon all people, everywhere,
for all time to come?
sth. What (if any) are the duties and re
sponsibilities of the Church of Christ as im
posed and required by God Himself?
6th. What are the means, and how shall
they be used to discharge duty and liquidate
responsibilities, so as at last to hear from the
Master “ Well done good and faithful stew
ard, enter thou into the joys of thy Lord ?”
7th. What (if any) are the scriptural
grounds or reasons for annulling a church of
Christ, and withdrawing fellowship there
from ?
Now, if we can meet and discuss the above
questions as Christians ought to discuss them,
1 am satisfied that great good will result in
honor to the Master’s cause, and Baptists all
over the land will certainly rejoice in their
increased strength and influence. Let those
that feel and think that they can best subserve
the Redeemer’s cause in a mutilated state,
pursue that line of policy at their own risk
and responsibility. As for Baptists, they
cannot afford it. Nothing is more suicidal to
them. May God speedily heal all breaches
and unite all Baptists upon and in the great
gospel central truth.
If you, Mr. Editor, favor the above sugges
tions, please insert in the Index, and request
Primitive editors to copy, with such remarks
of approval as may suggest themselves. I
would be glad to have our own brethren,
if they think it prudent and wise, eniorse
the above plan through your paper. Breth
ren, let our prayer be that God’s spiritual
gospel Israel may “ walk by the same rule
and mind tne same things.” I shall await
developments, hoping and praying for gra
cious results. B. L. Ross.
Fort VaU*y, July 20th, 1370.
“Let Error Run its Course."
So say I, provided every lover of truth will
show his attachment to it by holding it up
before the world without fear oil-policy, and
thereby cut the course of error just as short
as possible. Did Christ and His apostles, and
(many years afterwards) the leaders in the
great Reformation, in view of the persecution
which awaited them, sheath the sword of
truth, and quietly say “ Let error run its
course?” No, indeed ! Although they knew
that truth was mighty, and would prevail,
they were not presumptuous enough to think
it had virtue and might sufficient to prevail
when lying on the shelf, or without being un
folded and enforced in all its bearings. The
same is no less true now. There are extrem
ists in both directions, who will do any cause
more harm than good. There are some in
all denominations (ours not excepted) who
are always harping upon controverted points,
and are much stronger partisans tnan Chris
tians ; tin'll there are others who never think .
it prudent to present the prominent doctrinal
features of the Baptist denomination; and
hence you find so many milk-and cider Bap
tists, and members of community, prejudiced
because they are ever hearing error presented
in private, through the press, or in public, in
its most plausible dress, and are never taught
the true reasons for our positions. Christ’s
ministers have the promise of His pres
ence only while teaching all things whatsoever
He has commanded. B.
“ A Libel on the Committee” of the S. B.
Convention.
I ask’.the use of your columns to place be
fore the brethren some facts that vitally in
terest us as people of the South, and especially
as Baptists. Much of the evil under which
we are now groaning owes its success to un
faithfulness in sounding forth Bible teachings
upon the relations of master and servant. The
warning voice was u<>t raised against the gen
eral disregard of the marriage and parental
ties of the blacks, though they were sundered
at will by owners. More silent was that
voice upon the statutes which made it a penal
offence to teach the servants to read and
write, thus erecting a legal barrier in the way
of their compliance with the command of the
Saviour to “ search the Scriptures.” Not be
cause the institution of slavery is wrong in
itself, but for our unfaithfulness it has been
swept from us, and evils, political and reli
gious, have flowed in upon us. Shall we now
go to the other extreme, and entail new woes
by another flagrant disregard of the teachings
of God’s Word, or shall we look to that chart,
be guided by its marked routes, and sail upon
waters of safety and prosperity ?
This article is induced by an unexplained
resolution which has gone forth among the
proceedings of the late session of the Southern
Baptist Convention at Louisville. The reso
lution was offered by me, and has been charged
as a libel, and as a pretext seized upon by me
to accomplish an evil end. I therefore earn
estly entreat you to publish this article, as an
act of kindness to one of Christ’s humble min
isters—not for the servant’s sake, but the
Master’s, that truth may be vindicated. In
doing so, the reward will be received from
the Master, who never forgets what is done
unto “one of these little ones who believe on
Him.” If I and those who believe with me
on this subject are wrong, let that wrong be
fairly shown, and none will be found more
ready to believe than we are; but that belief
must rest upon testimony of grammar and
logic, and not upon a mere statement that we
are wrong. The numbers who believe with
me are not insignificantly small (if such a
thing as an insignificant member of Christ’s
body can exist,) but embraces many faithful
servants of our Lord.
The preamble and resolution set forth as a
fact that the Convention at Macon, Ga., ac
cepted an overture from the American Home
Mission Society, “ to unite heart and hand as
far as we can, and the providence of God
shall direct, in aiding to lift up millions of
freedmen to the exercise of all the rights and
duties of citizenship.” And declared that
this Convention reply emphatically that we
cannot accept it without a plain violation of
scriptural duty ; nor can we recognize as true
exponents of Baptist faith, those who add to
or take from God’s Word.
The resolution was tabled, as being of minor
importance to the other great questions of the
Convention ; was refused a reference to a
committee for satisfactory explanation ; was
declared not to express facts ; and recently
Dr. Fuller, of Baltimore, writing to me upon
the subject, says: “What you quote sur
prises me. I beg you will inform me where
I can find this libel upon the committee.”
Ought not the Convention to have answered
the convictions of brethren upon such a ques
tion in a decided way, rather than dodge the
issue by tabling a resolution with a single
plain proposition that ought to commend itself
to every Baptist heart? Is it a thing of mi
nor importance to rightly reflect God’s truth
upon a question that has convulsed the (so
called) Christian world for a century, and
upon which the divine record is so clear?
False teachings upon this subject have dried
up channels of immense wealth that poured
their floods into the coffers of the French and
British empires ; have rent asunder the lead
ing religious societies of this great republic;
split in twain what was known as the Baptist
family, inaugurated the greatest of civil wars,
before which all others pale into insignifi
cance ; is the question engaging the thought
ful both in religious and political circles
throughout this land. Os minor importance,
indeed ! Sinks into mere insignificance in
comparison with the great work of properly
distributing a few thousand dollars!
If it was all a mistake as to the acceptance
of the overture by the Convention, why was
a committee refused, when asked for, to show
the mistake? It certainly needs an explana
tion to enable plain minded thinkers to see
there has been no acceptance. The Conven
tion, out of its able members, could have
found a committee to have explained anything
not rendered inexplicable by such stubborn
things as facts, grammar and logic. But
these all stand in the way of an explanation
here.
Now let us look at the question in point of
facts. The Convention, invited by the H. M.
Society, sent some of our ablest brethren to
New York to represent them. These repre
sentatives presented a letter of correspondence
to the Society expressive of the fraternity
that ought to exist between the two bodies, as
they belonged to the one great Baptist family,
but which had been separated by the conflict
of opinions and arms, now terminated. A
committee appointed on the part of the So-
ciety to respond, say, in substance, that no
organic change in the two bodies is at present
proposed, but hope the interchange of courte
sies will eventually lead to a union. But
whether operating in the same or different
lines, with mutual charity for one another,
“ let us unite heart and hand, as far as we can,
and the providence of God shall direct, in
giving the gospel to the destitute, and espe
cially in aiding to lift up millions of freedmen
to the exercise of all the rights and duties of
citizenship and Christian brotherhood.”
Asa minister of Christ, being shocked at a
proposal coming from one half of the Baptists
of the United States to the other half, to enter
the arena of political partisanship, as Baptists,
making the regulation of the politics of the
country the “ especial” work of those whom
I had regarded as the highly honored conser
vators (among men) of gospel truth, I intro
duced resolutions into the Central Association
of Alabama, declaring our disapprobation
thereof, and calling upon the Convention, in
its following session, to do likewise, or we
would feel constrained to withdraw from the
Convention. This was done in October, 1868,
and they were unanimously adopted by the
Association. When the Convention met at
Macon, in 1869, the committee that had rep
resented it in New York, reported that they
had repaired to New York according to ap
pointment ; “ were welcomed not only with
kindness, but with affectionate enthusiasm ;
that good was done by these mutual inter
changes ; they cannot doubt that these frater
nal overtures and interviews are eminently
proper, as becoming the disciple- of Jesus, as
tending to restore peace, love, confidence be
tween brethren ; and aJ in harmony with the
heart of that adorable Redeemer whose fare
well prayer was that they all may be one.”
Tne Convention adopted this report, whieh
made the sentiments those of the body. As
it is the organ of the denomination South, all
churches and brethren of the denomination
are also responsible until they enter their dis
sent therefrom.
Let us anal>ze the subject. It is not fairly
stated when the report says we (through the
committee) “ were received with kindness
and affectionate enthusiasm.” Would it be
kindness, or affection either, for one in receiv
ing to his home another whom he had robbed
of his property, and in so doing had slain his
sons, distressed his wife and daughters, and
desolated his home, upon the first greeting, to
ask the injured man to sanction all the injury
done and assist in completing the desolation?
I can see no more kindness or affection in the
greeting extended by the Home Mission So
ciety, when, joined with parade and other un
substantial stuff, they ask us to unite with
them, both with hand and heart, to complete
our own degradation by making our former
servants, wrested from us by force, not only
the political equals of ourselves, but the su
periors of those who formerly were our legis
lators and executive officers. Such is the
nature of the proposition ; for those acting in
sympathy with the Society have done just
this in their “reconstruction.” The negroes,
with all their ignorance, superstition and
looseness of morals, have been made conserv
ators of public weal; while those who, by
the free suffrage of the citizens of the coun
try, were the custodians of the common good,
have their voices silenced for no other crime
than that they enjoyed the favor of the peo
ple. Is this kindness? If so, I had mistaken
the meaning of the word.
Next, the report, without any exception,
denominates the overtures “ fraternal,” ( broth
erly.) The “especial” one is “to unite
heart and hand ” in making our negroes our
equals. Brotherly, truly! Negro suffrage
had not then been forced on the South, but
was pending. All the force left to this sec
tion was then being exerted to avoid the very
end proposed. No more insulting proposi
tion could have been submitted to us as men.
As Christians, the wound was far deeper, for
it asked us to wrong ourselves, neighbors and
former servants ; to obliterate the distinctions
of race which God had made; to lower the
gospel standard inscribed with the motto,
“The gospel to every creature,” and write a
new sentiment thereon, “ Especially, eitizen
zenship for the negro.” Brotherly! Not
only are the “overtures fraternal,” but the
“ interviews ” are also; and both are so
“eminently proper” that there is not even a
“doubt” about it. I must confess there are
some serious “ doubts ” about it to my mind :
for the Word of God tells servants to be
obedient to their masters, rendering them
good service, and if the masters are Chris
tiaus the more reason for obedience, and by
so doing these servants will adorn the doo
trines of God their Saviour; ministers of the
Word are told “to teach and exhort those
who are under the yoke to count their own
masters worthy of all honor, rendering them
good service;” and “if any teach otherwise
he is puffed up with pride, knowing nothing,
but doting about questions and strifes of
words; from suck withdraw thyself .” Is
there not at least a little ground for “ doubt ?”
Some one may say the altered circumstan
ces of the country demand of us a change.
How came the circumstances changed? Were
these servants legally made free? No;
neither in accordance with the fundamental
law of the land, nor with that of the divine
code, but in the face of both. Another may
say that the change must be right, or Provi
dence would not have permitted it. Are we
to look to varying providences for our rule of
practice and faith, or to the fixed, unchanga
ble law 9 recorded in the statute book of the
King of Zion? All will say the latter. Then,
until that code is changed by Him who alone
has the right to repeat or amend, let us abide
by its teachings. Obedience to magistrates
does not bind us to blind submission to every
thing, for those who taught us this obedience
also said to civil rulers, “ Whether it be
right to obey Go<J or you, judge ye,” and
went forward dome: the thing forbidden.
Again, the report says these fraternal over
tures (!) “ tend to restore love, peace, confi
fidence between brethren.” Love, peace and
confidence restored ! What interrupted it?
Because these R fti.ren (!) could not, with
their views, learned from a “ higher law ”
than Christ’s, appoint slaveholders as mis
sionaries. Southern Baptists, believing that
slavery was sanGskmed by the Bible, with
drew, and fraterns! (!) overtures and inter
views ceased. They are “restored” when
those brethren (!) jucceed in taking away the
servants from these Southern Baptists, and
ask them “to unite heart and hand ” in com
pleting the work,„by placing these servants
in an attitude of political power, where, com
bining with these brethren (!), they can effect
uallv crush down a?:d degrade their owners !!
Dr. Manly did net*think so when the matter
was undor New Y'ork, for, speak
ing to this prr«s||»r “ overture,” he said,
“it is sad ' t .. u‘ *ow, the turning over of
the Government to' ! ->.e hands of those whom
God and hja, '-a'gabitut not competent; we
will have toTeif/SWte homes and the graves
of our fathers, and find a home elsewhere,
where we can avoid the tyranny that ignor
ance and vice might heap upon us.”
Will some one please show the chapter
and verse which teaEiies that this overture is
in harmony with the hearfcof the Redeemer ?
I ask now, if any part of the resolution
offered.by me at the Convention was “alibel
upon the committee?’ If the resolution was
not eminently proper in proposing to undo
what had been done so much amiss? If I
have perverted facts or done violence to.gram
rnar or logic, in drawing the conclusion that
the Southern Bapti t Convention did accept
the overture? If it “is of minor importance
for a denomination so extensive and influen
tial as the Baptistsafe tb be wrongly on the
record in relation to a subject that has pro
duced such revolutions in the commercial,
political and religious world, and that has
been so fully legislated upon by the divine
Legislator? No! The church is the light
of the world under Christ. She must send
forth that light contacted in the gospel as it
bears upon man in the varied relations of
life, each of which has been carefully legisla
ted upon. She must not swerve from the
truth to suit the various changes the world
may make, for then she, ceases to be the salt
of the earth, and is but a weathercock,
shifting with varying- winds. Is it not non
obedience to these divine laws that- leads to
family, social, political and religious evils?
' Geo. E. Brewer.
Rockford, Ala., June 17, 3870
How Much to Live.
The articl *s, “A Peqk of Rve ’’ and “ Tffe
Bundle of Wool,” in n.e Index, recently, call
to mind* another incident in the same line. A
frontier church was coinsidering the making
of a call for a pastor. - At a preliminary in
terview, the deacon inquired of the minister
ing brotiier, “how much,” in case the church
called him, “it would cost him to live, pro
vided die was not taken tick?” These “Peck
of Rye,” “ Bundle-01-Wiiol ” members and
anti-sickness d*»aetn s, rtnfc it i>@ of tfiut class
of professed Christians who boast of their
having been members of the church for many
years without its hitting cost them anything.
There are altogether too many such mem
bers in the churches. They should remem
ber that the burdens they shirk must be
borne by others. They would do well, also,
to remember that, in the day of reckoning
the Judge may say, “Inasmuch as ye did it
not,” etc. * *
Hail, Lord Jesus!
Thou that art the door of Heaven,
Living bread in mercy given,
Brightness of the father’s face,
Everlasting Prince ot Peace,
Precious Pearl beyond all price,
‘Brightest Star in all the skies;
Hail, Lord Jesus!
King and spouse of holy hearts,
Fount of love that ne’er departs,
Sweetest life and brightest day,
Truest faith, and surest way,
That leads onward to the blest
Sabbath of eternal rest;
Hail, Lord Jesus!
— Dean, Alford,
Human Weakness.
As men toil up the mountain side,
The weary day,
And from the top behold the sky,
Yet far away;
So holiest men, from youth to age,
Make pilgrimage,
We may depart, the valleys deep,
And high ascend,
But yet around us is the earth,
Until the end.
Ourselves, alas! we cannot raise
Above our days.
—Knickerbocker Magazine,
Only One Mission Board for the Southern
Baptist Convention.
A recent editorial in the Religious Herald,
on “The Southern Baptist Convention and
its Boards,” seems to open the way for a
suggestion, which I have desired for years
past to make; which is, that there need be
but one Board for missions in that body.
The missionary force of both our Mission
Boards is painfully small, and their aggre
gate receipts for years past have amounted to
only forty or forty five thousand dollars an
nually. Does it require two Boards to
superintend this small missionary force and
to disburse this small amount of money?
That such a plan as I suggest would be more
economical than the present, none can doubt.
That it would be equally efficient, I fully be
lieve. The General Conference of the Meth
odist Church, iSouth, have just decided to
have only one Board for missions ; a measure
which, as is known to some of my correspon
dents, I have been in favor of, as among our
selves, for two years past. Asa life-long
advocate of missions, and as a friend of both
the existing Boards, I throw out this sugges
tion, hoping it may receive the consideration
which I think its importance demands.
J. 11. Campbell.
Thomatvillt, Ga., July 1, 1870.
How Is It?
The mutual hate of the Jews and the Sa
maritans was implacable; so much so that
even the disciples of Jesus “ marvelled that
He talked with the woman of Samaria.” This
feeling of hatred not only prevented the re
ceiving of a gift, but also the asking of the
smallest favor. The woman was, there
fore surprised at the request, “Give me to
drink,” by him who sat upon the well, and
expressed her astonishment by inquiring,
“ How is it that thou, being a Jew,' askest
drink of me, who am a woman of Samaria?”
Whether this woman nurtured the national
hatred in her breast, in common with all her
people, or whether she was an exception to
the general rule, we are not informed, At
the moment of meeting with Jesus, however,
this animosity, if it existed at all, was entire
ly suppressed, and forgetting that it was as
great a marvel for her , a Samaritan, to en
tain a request from a Jew, as it was fora
Jew to make the request, she modestly in
quired how He so overcame the traditional
hatred as to be on friendly terms with an
enemy, as usually regarded, of His nation.
The Saviour’s explanation is wrapped up
in the reply, “ If thou knewest who it is that
saith unto thee, * Give me to drink.’” Why
it was He who is love, and in whom is no
hatred at all; He who had already said,
“ Love your enemies, bless them that curse
you, do good to them that hate you, and pray
for them who despitefully use you and perse
cute you.” He as much desired the temporal
good and eternal salvation of the Samaritan
as He did of His own kindred, the Jews. To
those who really know Jesus, His conduct on
this occasion was no marvel. It could not
could not have been otherwise.
They are Christ’s who have His Spirit.
How changed would be the aspect of things
in our country, and in our American Zion,
were all who profess to be the followers of
Christ actuated by His Spirit in this respect,
and imitators of His example.
A Bible Baptist.
“The Tempter.”
“great destitution,” and “withafami
ly dependent on him,” and “ while suffering
from deep depression, Rev. Mr. Brentjnjgjj a
Roman Catholic priest—an old acquaintance
—who promised him support and employ
ment if he would join the Church of Rome.
Without delay, and evidently in temporary
aberration of mind, he accepted the proposi
tion and was baptized.” We are pleased to
state that his mind was soon restored, and he
was recovered from his unhappy situation.
A correspondent of the Episcopalian says:
“He was approached by the tempter,as Christ
was in the desert. And the church has al
lowed too many of her ministers to be sub
jected to temptations uuder similar circum
stances.”
Upon this the Editor makes the following
pertinent remarks: “But what can we say
when it is clearly shown that our Church itself
is the tempter ? who, by compelling her min
isters to use the unscriptural language in the
Baptismal service teaching the Romish doc
trine of Baptismal Regeneration, and by call
ing himself a ‘priest,’ and giving a ‘sacrifice
of thanksgiving,’ and an ‘altar,’ and telling
him to “ declar e and pronounce absolution/'
thus accustoms. one and all of them to the
ideas, the nomenclature, and the practices of
Rome. Is it any wonder that some go to
Rome f Is it not a wonder that any stay out
of that Church ?”
Dr. de Pressense on Baptism.
The readers of the Watchman and the
Christian public generally will be interested
to know the conclusions to which Dr. De
Pressense has arrived on the question of in
fant baptism after long and deep historical
researches. We translate from bis “ History
of the First Three Centuries of the Christian
Church
“No question,” says this learned theologian,
“ has been more discussed than that of infant
baptism. At the present time the most dis
tinguished church historians acknowledge that
this custom cannot be traced to the apostolic
age. Neander (Pflanz 1., 277,) and Bunsen
(Ilippol If., 127,) are very explicit on the
subject. In fact, if one will not satisfy him
self with slight indications, but will consult
the vast context of the New Testament, he
will be forced to acknowledge that the bap
tism of adults is &R>ne consonant with the
spirit of the churches that rejected circum
cision. As to the churches of Palestine, they
continued to observe all the rights of the Mo
saic religion, and particularly the circumcision
of children; we cannot, therefore, look for in
fant baptism in their midst.
J ‘Schaff has presented, in his ‘ History of
the First Century,’ a skilful defence of pedo
baptism. (See page 566 and the following.)
We will refute his principal arguments, which
are the best that can be produced on this sub
ject. First, he grounds himself upon the fact
that Christianity, as an economy of grace,
embraces all ages and all positions, and con
sequently gives the seal of salvation to chil
dren. He quotes the celebrated passage of
Irenajus, (Adv. Hceres 111., c. 2,) in which this
Father says that the Saviour made Himself a
child for children, — inf antibus infans factus.
But the only inference we can draw from this
passage —the import of which we adopt fully
—is, that the little child has a share in the
benefits of redemption. As without a per
sonal ratification he was enveloped in the con
demnation of his race, in like manner, with
out a personal ratification, he is enveloped in
the salvation of Christ; in other words, it be
longs to him. To maintain that without bap
tism he has no share in it, is to proclaim bap
tisinal regeneration, and insult the love of
God. The question is, whether baptism rep
resents objective grace or grace received and
enjoyed. It seems evident to us that it is not
connected with salvation in itself, but repre
sents the possession of salvation. If this is
the case, it is not proper to administer it to
those who are incapable of being converted.
“It is in vain that, to uphold infant bap
tism, the commandment of Jesus Christ is
quoted : ‘ Disciple all the nations of the earth,
baptizing them.’ (Matt, xxvii: 19.) The
inference is drawn —but it is groundless —that
baptism ought to be given to all whom we
consider as candidates for grace, to all we
wish to teach in the gospel. The word paOij
reuffaTi signifies to make a disciple, that is to
say, to produce faiih in the heart. The an
cient church has thus understood this divine
command; for instead of baptizing at once
the catechumens, these were subjected to a
most severe examination.
“ The passage 4 Suffer little children to come
unto me’ (Matt, xix : 14) has no connection
whatever with baptism.
“ Peter’s declaration, ‘The promise is made
unto you and unto your children,’ (Acts ii:
39,) simply means that grace, since Jesus
Christ, belongs by right to all generations of
men.
“ The passage (1 Cor. vii: 14 ) 4 Your ehil
dren are holy,’ has not the remotest reference
to baptism. It is designed to dispel a certain
scruple. A converted pagan, whose wife was
still a heathen, might have believed that his
children were rejected of God ; the apostle
removes this fear in saying to Christians in
this position, 4 Your children are holy by the
fact that you have consecrated them to God
by your prayers.’ To attach another sense
to the word holy here, is to fall back into bap
tismal regeneration. Besides, this passage
proves very clearly that infant baptism did
not exist at Corinth, for otherwise, the ques
tion raised would not have been mentioned.
“ Some have endeavored to establish infant
baptism on the testimony of the Fathers of
the seoond and third centuries. (Bingham,
Origines IV., p. 183, Schaff, p. 575.) In the
second century the baptism of children was
the exception. In the third, it is true, in spite
of the protest of Tertulliao, it made rapid
progress. We accept the testimony of Cy
prian (Ep,, ad Fedum ) and that of Origen
(Homil.in Levit VIII.,) but we find a strong
presumption against the evangelical origin of
infant baptism in the fact that it begins to
prevail precisely at the period in which the
idea of the church is deeply corrupted. Its
ultimate triumph waß caused by the doctrine
of baptismal regeneration, which, under Au
gustine, became a part of the orthodoxy of the
fourth century. Any defence of infant bap*
tism not based on this doctrine is illogical and
lame.”
The above is found in the second volume
(p, 488-490) of the work mentioned, and the
views of this distinguished theologian on this
subject are the more significant since he is not
a Baptist. Brought up in the French Re
formed church, he gained the conviction, while
a student under Vinet, that infant baptism
was not scriptural, and freely avowed his con
viction at the very commencement of his min
istry and never practiced infant sprinkling.
He is the leader of what is called the Union of
Free Churches; a synod embracing some fifty
churches nominally Presbyterian of a mild
order, in which Baptist principles have pene
trated to a considerable extent, both among
the ministers and laity. Comte de Gasparin
told the writer two years ago that infant bap
tism was constantly losing ground in these
churches. The truth is working by its own
power, and we cannot look with indifference
on its progress among these interesting
churches. If God still works by means, the
presence in France of an able French-speak
ing Baptist minister would doubtless hasten
this movement, although there are strong
prejudices against “ close communion.”
With regard to the mode of baptism, -Dr.
03 Pressense says positively that it is immer
sion, and that it was the sign of the entrance
into the primitive church. “ Consequently,”
he says, “ faith was required from every one
that received baptism. Paul never thought
that any one* could imagine baptism without
faith, the sign without the thing signified ; and
he does not hesitate, in the bold simplicity of
his language, to ideutily the spiritual fact of
conversion with the act that symbolizes it.
‘ We are buried,’ he says, ‘ with Jesus Christ
in flis death, by baptism.’ We must either
ascribe to him, in spite of all his writings, the
crude idea of baptismal regeneration, or we
must acknowledge that faith, with him, is so
intimately connected with baptism, that in
speaking of the latter he speaks at the same
time of the, former, without which this ordi
nance is only, a vain ceremony.”— N, Cyr. in
Watch, dc Ref,
“He l Edifi-1”
The following incident was related at the
funeral of the late Deacon Moses Pond, and
is worthy of the widest publication. Would
that the same principle of action might find
expression in the life of every Christian. The
case is stated in his own words:
“ I united with the First Baptist church in
Boston when it was under the pastoral care
ofßev. James M. WinchelL, and was V.im
tized by him. After his decease,
cis Wayland became his successor, and he
was a rnau so different from Mr. Winchell,
that I was not edified by his preaching and
did not enjoy it, and became disaffected to
ward him. I was troubled, and did not know
what to do, but concluded togo and talk with
my new pastor. Accordingly l called at his
fipuse. He came to the door and said, ‘walk
in, Moses, and take a seat:* AfW being
seated he asked, “ Well, what is it?” It was
painful for me to tcdl him,.and l hesitated.
At length I told him I was not edified by his
jaraa*t>jrf§. He replied, ‘I do not wonder, for
lam pot edified by it myself.’ At this we
each of us wept, and he said, ‘ let us kneel
down and pray.' After prayer, I arose and
went away relieved. And ever after that, I
found myself edified by his preaching.” •
It would Vie. both curious and painful to
trace out what would have been the result of
the disaffection of this good brother toward
his good pastor, if instead of pursuing the
true gospel course which he did, he had pro
claimed from the housetops, what he thought
to be the failings of his pastor.— Cong.
Dr. B.’s Quandary.
S. 11. Browne tells the following story in
the Independent. Infant baptism, when most
decorously administered, affects us as a sad
burlesque of a Scriptural rite, but when acci
dents happen, such as the writer describes, it
is no wonder that “to be grave exceeds all
power of face.”
If “ I tell you the taleas’twas told to me,”
I have no further responsibility about it.
Whatever may seem wicked, irreverent, or
scandalous, lam not to blame for; neither is
the learned and pious D.D. who was quite
cut down by it, and felt like keeping a day of
fasting and humiliation on somebody’s ao
count, he scarcely knew whose. But, not to
tantalize you, good, charitable reader, I will
proceed with my naughty story.
It was a pretty Spring Sunday in S—, and
everybody had come to church who usually
staid at home for muddy, or cloudy, or stormy
weather, or any other trifling reason ; so that
the church was brimful!, galleries and all.
Dr. B. was rejoiced at the sight; and mental
ly rehearsed some of the most telling para
graphs in the new sermon which lay before
him on .the desk, that he might deliver them
with greater power and eloquence.
A baptism was to precede the services;
and for this purpose the Doctor soon descend
ed from the pulpit to the platform in front of
it, according to the Congregational custom,
and gave notice that the child pre
sented at the font.
Now, the baptism of an infant is always
an interesting and touching spectacle to a
serious observer, without any reference to the
great and mighty controversy, which has di
vided pugnacious theologians for many years,
as to the proper scope and signification of
baptizo ; and it was easy to see how the sym
pathy of the large congregation, especially
the parents, went forth to the young husband
and wife who appeared in response to the
Doctor’s announcement, and walked with
their infant towards the altar. Neither were
remarkable for intelligence or sensibility, so
far as their countenances could indicate it;
but they were well dressed, and seemed de
vout and sincere. The baby was a nice,
plump object, suitably attired, and decidedly
well-behaved.
When the party were stationed at the al
tar, Dr. B. offered a short prayer, commend
ing parents and child to God, and asking his
benediction upon the rite about to be admin
istered, It was a solemn and affecting mo
ment, even to those who could not enter into
the spiritual significapce of the ordinance.
The prayer finished, the pastor made a sign
to the father, who approached and whispered
the name which was to be given to the child.
Apparently, the Doctor did not quite un
derstand what it was, and seemed to ask for
a repetition. The repetition of it, however,
appeared to puzzle the good man still more.
He looked somewhat bewildered, and grew
very red in the faoe. Again he whispered to
the waiting parent, which elicited a third ut
terance of the name in a more distinct man
ner. Dr. B. grew more embarrassed, and
the color mounted to the very summit of his
bald and reverend head.
By this time the congregation began to be
aware that something uncommon was going
on. The boys in the galleries began to snicker
and punch one another.
All at once the man, who evidently believed
he had not yet made the Doctor comprehend
the name, commenced fumbling in his vest
pocket; and, taking a slip of so'led paper
therefrom, handed it to the minister with an
air of confidence that this would settle the
matter. It was inexplicable, therefore, that
the Doctor’s confusion was only increased by
his attempt to decipher the scrawl written in
pencil. What was to be done 1 The audi
ence now looked surprised and expectant to
a painful degree.
It was not easy to drive Dr. B. into a cor
ner from which he could not extricate himself
WHOLE NO. fcgOO.
ny logic or strati gy, as the ease might re
quire. He collected himself, and proceed to
pronounce the sacred formula over the infant,
omitting the name altogether.
But he had not counted the cost of such a
dodging of the difficulty.' The disappointed
father only saw in it a proof that he had not
succeeded in making himself understood, and
in consequence one of the most important
parts of the ceremony had been left out. In
his eagerness to repair the mistake, he quite
forgot the proprieties of the time and place,
and actually “talked out loud in meeting'’
to this effect:
“Couldn’t you make it out, parson? Put
on your specs. It’s writ out plain here, don’t
you see] Good Scripsher name, too, and
not uncommon, ither. Halletvjer, Amen!
Boy, you see!”
This was too much for th'e Doctor. He
was human. He made a desperate effort at
self control. The sweat stood in huge drops
upon his lace; but the struggle was in vain ;
no doctors of divinity are infallible except
the Pope, and so the truth must be told
(though l am not to blame for it, 1 repeat.)
He suddenly jerked his handkerchief from
his pocket, and clapped it to his mouth, just
in season to smother the irrepressible laugh
ter that shook his sides in a most unministe
rial manner for. some minutes.
It was the signal for a general- explosion
through the whole congregation. A most
unehurchly spectacle was exhibited; such as,
perhaps, no large and respectable assembly
of the “ most straitest sect ” ever witnessed
in this country before or since. In the midst
of it the baptismal party withdrew.
The external gravity of minister and peo
ple at length returned, and the services pro
ceeded ; though the Doctor lost his place oc
casionally, *nud failed to make the impression
he had intended with the eloquent paragraphs
he had so carefully rehearsed. And he used
to say, years afterward, that ho could not
conduct a similar service without the most
painful trepidation, in consequence of the
vivkl recurrence of this scene to his mem
ory.
Praying.
“I often say my prayers,
But do I ever pray?
Or do the wishes of my heart
Suggest the words I say ?
“I may os well kneel down,
And worship gods of stone,
As offer to the living (Jod
A prayer of words alone.”
The Hen and the Diamond.
A hungry hen, in time of dearth,
PicKed up a diamond of great worth,
Aud buried it again in earth.
Said she, “ What, joy were it to me,
Could but this lovely stone I see,
A grain of wbuator bailey be I”
Well may abundance be deplored,
When all the riche» that men hoard,
No real pleasure can afford.
—From tin German.
The London Times on Infant Baptism.
A noteworthy article appeared in a recent
number of the Times , which grew out of the
rliscuscinn goiog on in E-.gbnid :t3 W the," re
ligious difficulty ” in the question or national
education. The extract we give has special
reference to the reading of the Sacred Scrip
tures in public schools: “The truth is that
the controverted passages in the New Testa
ment—that is, the passages invoked to sup
port differential doctrines—amount to a very
small bulk in comparison with the rest. Any
body who takes the trouble to count will be
surprised to find how few texts there are in
the Gospels, and even in the Epistles, that
have any bearing, one way or the other, on
the sacramental controversies, or on the na
tional churches. Perhaps the most critical
question between the Church of England and
Dissenters is that of infant baptism ; and upon
this point, as the Church of England cannot
adduce a single text plainly and directly on its
side, it must allow the proofs to lie wide, or to
rest rather on ancient usage than on the writ
ten Word.”
Testimony of the Catacombs.
The Catacombs of Rome have recently
been explored by a Christian traveller to as
certain what testimonies may there be gath
ered as to the hope and faith of the early
Christian church. Among the testimonies
gathered by him, as he wandered through
miles after miles of dead, are three that may
be of some value and significance. 1. No
cross is found till about A.D. 420. It then
begins to appear. Its absence from Christian
graves for four centuries is remarkable, and
furnishes a lesson against its improper use in
the later centuries. 2. The name Christian
is not found. Its absence indicates th it it was
first and for centuries applied to the disciples
by Pagan and Jewish opponents of the Naz
arene, and not appropriated by themselves.
3. The word Sabbath does not appear on the
tombs. But the phrase, Lord's day, is fre
quent among the inscriptions. This is a new
proof of the change of our rest day from the
seventh to the first day of the week —from
the Jewish Sabbath to the Resurrection day.
Didn’t Want to Know it.
A venerable Baptist lady was once earn
estly pressing upon a Pedobaptist friend the
Scriptural authority for immersion, as the
only mode of baptism, when the latter, fairly
brought to bay, exclaimed, somewhat petu
lantly : “ Well, if that is the truth, I don't
want to know it /”
A Presbyterian clergyman, of no mean
attainments, arguing with an eminent Baptist
scholar in support of the obedience-made
easy mode of baptism practiced in his de
nomination, was at length obliged to confess
that he had never looked into the subject at
all! Yet he was a teacher of the people,
constantly practicing, and doubtless preach
ing about an ordinance whose proper mode
of administration he was compelled to admit
he knew nothing of! Was it because he did
not want to know*or was it —laziness!
“A Shadow.” — Rev. Dr. Jones, in the
Memphis Christian Advocate, —now the West
ern Methodist, —says that Pedobaptist minis
ters in general neglect to preach on the sub
ject of baptism, because 44 they dislike to see
a whole community excited about the mere
form of a shadow !” Does Christ give us
shadows f To whom, then, shall we go for
substance f
“ One Baptism.” —Rev. Dr. Jacobus, as.
temporary Moderator of the Presbyterian
General Assembly, Philadelphia, welcomed
the deputation of the American Baptist .Mis
sionary Union. In his address, he smoothed
over the points of difference and magnified
the points of agreement between the two de
nominations. With this view, he asked:
“And is there not one Lord, one faith, one
baptism V’ We answer, (if the question be
as to external rites,) Yes, there is one bap
tism—only one —and Baptists have it.
“Somehow or ’Nother.” —We once beard
of an old lady, a believer in Milloijwn, who,
when asked how she was so sure tnat Christ
would come in the year 1843, when He Him
self had declared in the Bible, “Ye know
neither the day nor the hour when the Son of
Man cometh,” replied, “ I know they say so,
but somehow or ’nother we found it out.”