Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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.”