Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

CHRISTIAN INDEX AND SODTH-WESTERN BAPTIST. VOL. 49-NO. 33. A RELIGIOUS AND FAMILY PAPER, PUBLISHED WEEKLY IN ATLANTA. OA AT $3.00 PEE ANNUM, Invariably in Advance. ,T. T. TOON, Proprietor. Christ is All. T entered once a home of care, For H«;y and penury were there, Yet peace and joy withal; I asked the lonely mother whence Her helpless widowhood’s defence? .She told me Christ was all. I stood beside a dying bed, Where a sweet infant drooped his head, VV .itmir for Jesus’ call. I markad his sniile, ’twas sweet as May; And as his spirit passed away, lie whispered Christ was all. I saw the martyr at the stake, And not fierce flames his faith could shake, Or dca.h his soul appall; I asked him whence such strength was given ? He looked triumphantly to heaveD, And answered, Christ is all. I saw the gospel herald go To A trie’s sand and Greenland’s snow, To save from Satan’s thrall; Nor hope nor life he counted dear; ’Midst wants and perils owned no fear; He felt that Christ was all. I dreamed that, hoary time had fled, And earth and sea gave up their dead, And fire dissolved this hall; I saw the Church’s ransomed throng, 1 heard the burden of their song, ’Twas, Christ is all in all. Then come to Jesus —come to-day; Come, Father, Son and Spirit say ; The Bride repeats the cull; Come, He has blood for all your stains; Come, He has balm for all your pains; Come, He is uli in all. Seminole Camp Meeting—No. 4. 1 must cut short my account of the camp meeting, lest 1 weary you. It rained neatly all the time, yet none left the ground on that account. The Indians manifested great inter est in hearing the word. On Saturday night brother Murrow, after appropriate remarks, addressed mainly to backsliders, opened the door of the church —to use the common phrase —and four backsliders came forward, stood up and asked forgiveness ol their breth ren, and were restored to fellowship. On Sunday there was preaching by myself, Dr. Ramsey., the- Presbyterian missionary, and brother Murrow. On Sunday night, one of the native brethren preached ; alter which they sang, and prayed, and exhorted, without intermission, all night, and until time for breakfast Monday morning. Nearly all the members kept their places all night, notwith standing the continued rain. My chair, which had a skin bottom, would catch a pint of water during one prayer! \ou in the states can understand but little of the zeal and interest of these people in the worship of God. llow important that that zeal should be according to knowledge ! How responsible and ardu ous the dutieg of the missionary ! “ Who is sufficient for these things?” 1 retired at eleven, leaving the brethren engaged. Bro ther Murrow saf up all night, After break fast Monday morning we were to meet for the parting services. How solemn the occasion ! 1 felt that my woi'k was not yet done. I hai been troubled all the time at what 1 consid ered innovations since the war. 1 believed that our surrender of truth and consistency was the reason that none had been converted and baptized. But my time had not yet come. 1 had been absent five years, and was there as a visitor, apologizing for myself and the Board. Dr. Ramsey, the Presbyterian, had been in vited there by the church, and brother M., rather than myself, was their missionary. 1 mentioned my troubles to him, and he was partly, if not entirely, of my mind. We called on the leading members of the church to meet us under the arbor after adjournment, for consultation. At the sound of the conch after breakfast all assembled for the last time, at least for that meeting. After singing and prayer, the principal chief and others arranged the parting exercises. The programme, as announced by brother Jumper, was for all the visitors to form a line outside the harbor ; 1 was to stand head of the brethren, and Dr. Ramsey next to me ; my vile was to head the sisters, and sister Ramsey next to her. The line was long. Brother Murrow was to head the membership of that particular church, and while all sang, they were to give us the parting hand, one by one. I never wit nessed a more melting scene. Every heart was touched, and every eye o’ei flowed. After the membership got through the line,it was mv turn, as head of the visitors, togive Dr. Ramsey my hand, and so on through the line, he following me, and the one below him fol lowing him, and so on through to the last. This was my time ; I could defer it no longer without violating my conscience. I took him by the hand, saying : “ Brother Ramsey, I give you the hand of Christian fellowship. I believe you are a Christian, and I love }OU as such; but it is my duty to say that Ido not regard you as having been baptized, and, therefore, I do not consider you to be a mem ber of Christ’s visible church. With these views, 1 do not hold that you have authority to preach, or that you are any church privileges until you obey Christ in aufbaptism. I feel it my duty to tell you this candidly, that you may understand my future course.” The Doctor took it all in good part, expressed a desire that we might be together more frequently, and become better acquaint ed, to which l also assented; and after mu tual invitations to visit each other at our re spective homes, we preceeded on in the sol emn and affecting exercises. All this time we held each other by the hand. The singing was delightful, and Christians rejoiced in hope of meeting in a heavenly country. Brother Murrow was altogether overcome with feel ing, so much so that he had to retire, and could join in the exercises no more. It was noon before the final dismission. I went to brother Jumper’s tent and found dear brother Morrow helpless on the bed, and it was late in the evening before he had strength to get up. This imposed a heavy responsibility on me. We had agreed to have a Baptist eon sultation, and I had depended greatly on bro ther M’s presence and influence ; but he was unable to attend. I felt that it would never do to leave without correcting what 1 consid ered irregular, and to let those people sup pose that we endorsed all that had been done and said. If they could all have read their Bibles, the case would have been different; for, we have nothing to fear from error, so long as truth is left free to combat it. But in this case the Indians have to look to the mis sionary. Dr. Ramsey had told them that it made no difference what church a man joined, so he was converted. He rejoiced in being permitted to worship with three races, and three denominations in that congregation; when he might have added another to each class, for my driver was a Mormon, belonging to one of the “ branches,” and there was an other treble-mixed race present, as incapa ble of propagating their kind as so many mules. Should we tacitly sanction all this buncombe l Should Baptist missionaries leave these uuread Indians believing they had done right in inviting an unbaptized man to preach, who was not a member of the church.? Did Paul invite a Pedobaptist? Did Peter, who once carried our keys, invite a Presbyterian? Is3 00 A VEAR.f FRANKLIN PRINTING HOUSE, THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 1870. If it is best to join the Presbyterians, then it does make a difference; if not best, then they do wrong who join them. This will hold good |of all the other sects. The Book of Nature ' vetoes a mixture of races as much as it does the marriage of near kin ; and the Book of I God vetoes the mixture of different and con flicting sect-, because it requires that there should be none such, but that all should be one, and speak the same things. Having these views myself, and believing that God required me so to instruct those to whom He sent me as a missionary, I called the brethren together under the arbor, and told them plainly all that was in niy heart. 1 reminded them also of the interpretation they had given of the commission, and of all places where baptism was mentioned. I spoke plainly of the inno vations, ass considered them, and told them that for these things Grid would not bless us, but that He would send leanness into our souls, and withhold true converts from our churches. Tfie brethren expressed satisfac tion at what I said, thanked me for my talk, and agreed to act accordingly. I never in my life felt so much the need of some white brother to give me his moral support; and hence I could but grieve the more for brother Murrow’s affliction. 1 have been rather tedious in my account of the Seminole camp meeting, because, from the questions asked me while in Georgia, I know that the brethren wish to know all about the Indians, and all about our work among them. I will conclude this series of articles in my next, by giving you the “ ups and downs,” but chiefly the downs, of our return home from the Seminole camp meeting. I hope to make it interesting, as it will contain an ac count of our stay all night with Dr. Ramsey, and of the prairie scenes, together with some notes of the death of our favorite horse by the way. Till then, adieu. H. F. Buckner, Missionary of Friendship Association , Ga. Micro , Creek Nation, Aug. 25, 1870. The Atonement. My last article on the Atonement was de voted to a consideration of the debt theory. Before proceeding to others, I will offer one word more on that theory. Calvinists are very partial to it. The difference, according to them, between saint and sinner, saved and lost, is that the account of the one is cancel led, settled, or paid by the surety, and the oth er’s debt remain undischarged, and hence his punishment is sure. We may, therefore, imagine a bill to this effect: John Banyan , Debtor to God. To all defects of nature on account of Adam’s sin .p To personal shortcomings after conversion, or ne gation of good in deed, word and thought r To positive evil work, and word, and thought be fore conversion P To all acts, etc., of evil since conversion. p For all positive evil, or breach of Divine law, punishment must be inflicted, lor all negation of good, or lack of positive right eousness, some other righteousness must be given. The pain (3p) and the righteousness (r) have been fully paid by Christ, man’s surety. According to the Calvinistic theory, our Lord paid all for the elect by name, as John l>unyan, and paid nothing for the tifiil elect: therefore are the elect free from all obligation to God, and their salvation, as far as God is concerned, is of mere justice, and in no sense of mercy ; while the salvation of the non-elect always has been, and ever must be impossible, they being unable to meet the liabilities of the bill, and having no friend to pay the sum required. According to the viefvs of those who believe in a universal atonement, the bill is cancelled for every man, and God, therefore, cannot, in any case, with justice, demand a second payment. We shall now consider the atonement of Christ as explained by the theory of Com pensation. This theory is but a slight modi fication of the theory of debt. The only difference being that, in the latter, our Lord is supposed to give to God an exact equiva lent for benefits conferred upon sinners, while in the former, a general compensation only is given; and those theologians who adopt this theory, find it very convenient to leave that compensation undefined. Man, they sav, having sinned, has forfeited all good by dis obedience, and it would be impossible for God to bestow any good upon him, now that he is a sinner, without seeming to sanction sin, unless He received an equivalent, or was in some way—nobody knows how—compen sated, not for the injury done to His charac ter and government by individual sinners, but by sin absolutely, without any reference to names or numbers. In consequence of this compensation, though no one pretends to say what it was, or how it answered its pur pose, the Divine Being is at liberty, without making light of sin, to bestow any favor on sinners. He therefore bestows upon some of them spiritual influences to make them be lieve, and gives them eternal life for doing what they could not refuse to do. That is the Calvinistic view of it. The non Calvin istie theory regards the Divine influence as sufficient only to make it possible for man to believe,vin spite of his evil propensities, and not as sufficient to annihilate the free agency of believers. This theory requires (l) The separation of God and Christ, as it would be absurd to talk of one person compensating himself. This theory (2) makes salvation of right and not of grace, and renders the punishment of the wicked impossible; for if a man were robbed, and afterwards received a compensa tion, and acknowledged it satisfactory, he would have no longer any moral right to prosecute the evil doer. (3) If the compen sation be a full equivalent, as in the case of the Atonement it is supposed to be, then is there no room for forgiveness. The great fundamental objection to this theory of explanation, is this, (4) That if it was impossible for God to bestow upon the sinner the smallest gift without compensation, it was surely impossible for Him to bestow the greatest gift—His only Son—without compensation. It is, however, supposed that God could give, and actually did give His Soil or Self, for man’s good, with out anv compensation whatever. If this w'as possible, l ask the unsophisticated reader, why could He not give, on the same terms, freely and without compensation, any other smaller gift? Why not give full pardon, or eternal-life, on condition of true repentance? I submit the following query : G cannot give B to M without receiving A I Sis greater than B. Therefore, a fortiori, G cannot give S to M without receiv ing A II C is equal to or greater than S. Or, C=S--|-N. N in the last equation in some positive quality or zero, therefore, a fortissimo, G cannot give C to M without receiv ing A HI But, G has given C to M without receiving A.IV Therefore propositions I, II and 111 are false. Any how, the four propositions cannot be true. If I, II and 111 be true, IV is false; and vice versa. Note. The word “ cannot," in propp. I, II and Ilf, may refer to physical, legal, or moral (dispositional) inability; as, the sheriff can not spare (give) the criminal’s life without receiving authority from the government, (legal inability.) The physician cannot save (give) the patient’s life (who has taken poison) unless he has in his possession (without re ceiving) an antidote, (physical inability.) The master cannot emancipate his slaves without receiving their value, ( moral or dis positional inability.) Application. God cannot give the smallest blessing to sinful man without receiving atonement or satisfaction 1 Salvation or eternal life is greater than the smallest blessing. Certainly then, God cannot give eternal life to man with out receiving an atonement, or satisfaction.il Jesus Christ , the Son of God, is a gift, equal to, or even greater than the world’s salvation. ( The. value of Ndepending on the theory of the value of the Saviour's merit adopted.) Much less, then, can God give Christ to man (for man’s .benefit) without receiving an atonement or satisfaction .... lil But God has given Jesus Christ as a Sa viour to man without receiving any atone ment or satisfaction. (Johniii: 10.) IV As, then, prop. IV is True, propp. I, II and 111 seem to be false. Query. —is this a real, or only an appa rent paradox ? 1 now proceed to discuss the theory of Substitution. There is no explanation which is more popular among what are called Evangelical Christians, than this; and, in fact, no expla nation is supposed to be satisfactory, unless it embraces the idea of substitution. Let u.s suppose the existence of an imag inary ideal man, representing the human race ; a man in whom every other man finds him self fairly and fully mirrored. As some men are thieves, the ideal man must be a thief; and for a similar reason; must he be guilty of every crime and vile deed and purpose of which any member of the human race is guilty. God, as a just ruler of the universe, must punish every form of transgression, and, there fore, must the eternal wrath come down in showers upon the guilty head of this ideal man. The sword of justice H unsheathed, and God, the righteous King ®f all, is about to'plunge it in the sinner’s heart. But just at this point, according to the theory of sub stitution, Jesus Christ conns forward and offers to enter the sinner’s place. God is to regard him as if he were a sinner, though he is innocent, and to deal to him the fatal stroke. The ideal representative man, moves out of his place, and Christ enters the place of dan ger, when, in a moment, God strikes the vic tim, and the innocent suffers for the guilty. As it would be wrong to punish the inno cent, it is supposed that by agreement, Christ is reckoned guilty. This, of course, is not true, as He is innocent, but is mentioned as a legal fiction. How that fiction may act upon God—how He can look at things in any way except as they are, it is difficult to ex plain, and these theorists seldom care about explanations. In many pulpits —by far the majority—this is represented as the Gospel. One of the most popular preachers of the day put the matter thus, in commenting on the words : “ He tasted death for every man.” lie said, “ Yol) and 1 were at the bar of tice, and Just'ce (i. e., God as a just being) was there to enforce His demands. There we stood, with a cup of poison in our hand. Justice ( i. e., God, as a just being) insisted on our drinking the last drop. But Jesus then appeared in the room, and he said, ‘May 1 drink it for them?’ God consented, and the Saviour took our cups of poison from our hands, and, blessed be His name, He drained them all.” The sermon was on the crucifix ion, and those scenes* were painted up which made one feel as if he had been to a place of execution. The impression produced by the discourse, as a whole, was that Jesus was a most kind being, but as for God, He was just like the Jew Shylock, in Shakespeare’s “ Merchant of Venice,” heartless and exact ing—would have his pound of flesh. Had the sermon been preached to men of mind, or even to savages, who had not been intel lectually blinded by their education, some would have shouted the praise of Christ, and all would have disapproved of God. Yet, these notions, which make it impossible to love God, because they deprive Him of every loveable quality, are supposed to be the gos pel, which, on the contrary, shows God’s love to man. Many suppose the substitute m of Christ to have a reference to the punishment of sin. and yet it is not supposed that the punish ment which He endured was the same as that which should have fallen upon the sinner. This is manifestly a fault in the theory. Some of these theorists are of opinion that our Lord was not only treated as a sinner, but actually, that He became a sinner. Lu ther expresses himself thus: “And this, no doubt, all the prophets did foresee in spirit, that Christ should become the greatest trans gressor, murderer, adulterer, thief, rebel and blasphemer that ever was or could be in the world. If it be not absurd to confess and believe that Christ was crucified between two thieves, then it is not absurd to say that He was accursed, and of all sinners the greatest.” —Luther on Gal. Hi . 13. Rev. Dr. Cand lish, of Scotland, in that book of his, entitled, “The Fatherhood of God,” —in which the most glorious subject within the reach of a crea ture’s thought, made the most meaningless fiction upon which any bewildered imagina tion has fallen—speaks of our Lord’s work and character thus: “ He became one of us, one with us, as fallen creatures, guilty, cor rupt, condemned." Pape 93. “The incarna tion of the Son of God is His entering into our relation to God, as a relation involving guilt to be answered for and the wrath and curse of God to be endured." (Page 95.) The theory of substitution ' involves the following particulars: I. That Christ offered to God to suffer punishment equal to that which man, as a sinner, deserved. 2. That God accepted this offer, though He knew that the innocent, and not the guilty, would suffer ; and, 3, That He inflicted on Christ a punish ment equal to that which all guilty men de served. These particulars enter into every conception of the theory of substitution; but in some, this also is involved : 4. That Christ became a sinner—that by submitting to be treated as a murderer, He became guilty of murder. If this had been possible, then the punishment He endured would be only what He deserved on His own account. Let us now examine the ground of this theory. Is there auy foundation in either Scripture or reason ? The whole scriptural argument turns upon the meaning of the word, “ for,” in such expressions as these: “ Christ died for us,” “ died for the ungod ly,” etc., etc. These expressions, it is said, denote that Christ died in our place—died in the place of the ungodly. And yet there is confessedly no foundation for this but the ambiguous meaning of the word sor — unep. In a separate article I propose to dis cuss the meaning of this and other Greek words fully, and am prepared to show that they give not a shadow of support to the theory. Even if it be granted that u-ep (for) means in some cases, “in the place of," it must be oonfesed that, in many places it means on account of, and for the good of , etc. Hence it is manifest that no stress can be put on that wor4-KAnd the Scripture ar gument, it will be TTfflri, for the idea of sub stitution, vanishes irY > thin air. It fares no better iiuhe province of reason, for then God and must be different parties, one and one being pun ished; and if each “P-J3rod, you have two Gods, one inflicting pain upon the other. This is the old Pagan mythj.iogy revived. The Scriptures speik much of t\\v forgive ness of sin. No one Fan read the words of either prophets or ijpostles without being struck with the impoJTMPCe attached by them to this glorious doctrine; but if sin has been punished according t![ law, whether in the sinner or in the sutf£itute, it matters not, then it cannot be forfeit. The forgiveness of sin is a mere figjjsjAfnrd if these theorists are right, the sacred Siters must have been lost in hopeless seems to me that it would be far betterVi accept the errors of inspired men, than tR* theories of substitu tion's. k There is yet anotßj®lifficulty ' n relation to this theory, whicffßjst appear to thought ful minds insurmougfcLie— a difficulty in volved in the questioii*s it right —r.s a mat ter of mere justice— on any condi tion or under any circumstances whatever, to punish the innocent for the guilty ? “Oh !” says Trench, and othefk- “ this world is full of vicarious sufferings. - That may be, but the examples are. nothiiL to the point. My friend may become a diwßor through his own folly, and I may deprive, myself of comforts to pay it for him. BuHthnt case is no par allel to the work of Chfi.-t, for the latter is an agreement accepted ky a government, the former is the isolated ict of an individual. If 1 ask Justice if I mijrlt pay the debt, Jus tice would reply, No. 1 1 my act Igo beyond Justice; but Christ is 4 represented by the theory of substitution nf agreeing with Jus tice, to die instead of mqp. I might prevent a man from going to. prfson by paying the fine imposed upen him by magistrates, but if he be sentenced to go to prison, by the Court, no substitution that I ikuy offer will be ae cepted. y Now, if Justice demands the punishment of sin, does it not equally demand its pun ishment in the Nay, it seems to me that Justice seek? ?he sinner rather than the sin—the sin is s*>.ught only to regu late the measure of the punishment. It must be carefully remembere>iTjn all these consid erations, that there is au essential difference, too, between being punished for crime, and being the victim of misfortune. Let us take a case in point, which actually occurred, and which will show the absurdity of the theory of substitution. A man pois oned his wife and her mother in the most brutal and unmanly way,find for the vilest purpose. He deserved if pity- He had a daughter—his eldest child-f-who clung to him to the last. Neither his rtrime, nor his cru elty, nor his degradation, either break or slacken the chords of affection which bound her heart to his. Now suppose that, previ ous to execution, this kinii daughter had of sered to be executed in sis stead, would it have bean right on the rx t of the govern inent to have accepted of»ie voluntary sub stitute? Would the deaM of that innocent child be I’.2a til the oci i. an ill/. 1 of justice, or an act of viljwiny ? Would the., government which aceepUVof such a substi tute have been honored ot disgraced by it? There are many men whosft consciences would no more justify such an .“act of substitution, than a positive act of muJder. The accept ance of Christ, the innoctfnt, as a substitute for man, the criminal, is ajease in every way parallel. When we speay of God punishing sin, we begin at the wrcgig end. It is tiie sinner that justice seeks td punish, and there fore it is blasphemy agaiu-st the government of God —against God as the governor of the universe, to suppose that. He would agree that the innocent should be punished for— in the place of —the guilty. This theory is fur ther objectionable inasmuch as it furnishes infidels and unbelievers with a weapon against Christianity. , Other theories in our n?xt. Galileo. The Lost Sheep. There were ninety and nine thalLsafely lay In the shelter of the fold; fj And one was oat on the hills away, Far off from the gates <>f gold a Away on the mountains wild aqd bare Away from the tender bhepherCA.eare.. “Lord, Thou hast here Thy ninety and nine; Are they not enough for Thee ?” But the Shepherd made answer, “ Yhia.of mine Has wandered away from nie*,’—' And although the road be rough and steep, I go to the desert to find my sheep.” But none of the ransomed ever “knew How deep were the waters crossed; Nor how dark the night that the Lord passed through, Ere He found His sheep that was lost, Out in the desert He heard its cry, Sick, and helpless, and ready to die. “Lord, whence are those blood-drops all the way, That mark out the mountain’s track ?” They were shed for one who ffiTid gone astray Ere the Shepherd could bring him back.” “ Lord, whence are Thy handjf so rent and torn ?” “They were pierced to-n ght by’many a thorn.” And all through the thunder-riven, And up from the rocky stee^ There rose a cry to the gates ot heaven, “ Rejoice, I have found my,teeep !” And the angels echoed round jsp throne, “ Rejoice, for the Lord His own !” —Little Sower. I y Baptist Looking Glass. I.—How to Injure of your Pastor. Ist. Neglect to support him. While his mind is perplexed with ’.he questions, “What shall I eat? What shall li drink ? Wherewithal shall I be clothed?” he cannot give his full at tention to the work ofvJS ministry. He may seek another charge, or try some secular busi ness as a help. 2nd. Neglect to attend the services of the Sabbath and the prayer meetings in the week. The minister of the gospel whose heart is in his work, does not look upon the work of the ministry in the light of dollars and cents. He is not satisfied simply with having his tempo rat wants supplied , but he earnestly desires the spiritual good of his people, and he fears that they are not growing in grace, when they absent themselves from the house of God. If this is the case, he may feel that his labors are vain, and conclude it to be his duty to labor elsewhere. 3rd. Not only neglect to attend the prayer meetings and the Sabbath services, but re main at home on thp Sabbath on account of company, or leave home on the Sabbath to spend the day at the house of an acquaint ance. 4th. While praising your pastor’s services and professing to respect him because he is faithful, profit by them for a short time and then relapse into your former habits. sth. Show a fondness for novelty ; instead of being satisfied with the regular ministra tions at your own plage of worship, go to other places of worship, when your own is open ; and to hear every new minister within reach of you ; go where you expect to find the largest crowd, ami to the meeting where you expect to find the greatest excitement, leaving the ministry of the one whom you have helped to call to preach to you. YY here this prevails to a great extent, your pastor may suppose you are not satisfied with hi3 ministrations, and that you regret your choice. 6th. Though generally regular in attendance on religious services, yet occasionally stay away for several meetings in succession, w hile you are in good health, and with no apparent reason for remaining at home. It perplexes *both your pastor and your brethren, to whom you should communicate the cause of offence, if they have aggrieved you. It you are not aggrieved, it would seem that your religion is of the spasmodic kind. 7th. When your pastor is faithful with you in setting forth your neglect of duty, try to find out something against him, in order to show that he is inconsistent. Bth. When you hear your pastor spoken against, neither defend him nor inform him of what is said, but join others in speaking against him. 9th. Do not encourage your children to attend religious services. Debar your pas tor from thinking of your children as the “ lambs of his flock,” and consequentl y from hoping that, through his ministrations, they will ever become the “sheep ot Christ’s fold.” v 10th. Discourage your pastor when*'he would enforce discipline. When he tells you that he has visited delinquent members,prayed with them, and counselled them, and yet all seems to be of no avail, and suggests that they be cited for non-attendence of religious ser vices, discourage him in it. Keep these mem bers in the church, a reproach to the cause of Christ, and a clog to its advancement. Let their names be kept on the church books, though they may be absent from religious services for months and even for years. Tell your pastor it will create trouble it you dis cipline them. 11th. Treat his family disrespectfully. Be ashamed to be seen with them in certain places, on certain occasions, and with certain persons. Show a disposition not to make them acquainted in the community. A pas tor of nice feeling would not be disposed to remain long with a people who do not treat his family with a reasonable degree of respect; nor need they be surprised if Dis usefulness is crippled while he is laboring for them, for by so doing they are injuring his influence. 12th. Call your pastor from year to year. Make him think you cannot trust him for more than twelve months. You need not be surprised if he thinks that, in all probability, the connection will soon be dissolved. A Correspondent of the Index. Isolated Action Deplored. “ Audi alteram —Hear both sides.” As articles have appeared in the Index and Bap tist in favor of isolated action (on the part ofStates and Associations) in conducting mis sionaiy operations, I hope the editor will pub lish the enclosed extract from an editorial of Dr. Teasdale in the last number of the Home and Foreign Journal. It appears under the caption prefixed to this article. Your present correspondent, who has had many and favorable opportunities for learning the sentiments of his brethren, is firmly per suaded that our denomination never was more united in sustaining our B krds than it is at Tl'js tst*pe r tie ula r t an i fes t. ,in the case of the Doro. Miss. Boa no. That Board is ‘doing ten-fold more towards the support of missions in our own bounds than our State Convention ever did while it undertook to supply the destitution existing around us. It has now more missionaries in the field than our State Board (or Convention) ever had at any one time.* Besides this, it has led some Associations, whose leading men are opposed to a general Board, to sustain missions within their own bounds, and elsewhere —a thing, it is believed, they never did until some of our good brethren became dissatisfied with the action of our general Board, for some cause or other—probably because they did not, and could not, (for lack of adequate funds,) supply the existing destitution as fast as their benevo lent hearts led them to desire to have it sup plied. As in the days of the apostles, what appeared to militate against the cause of Christ has evidently tended to its furtherance. Here follows the extract referred to : “ It is a lamentable fact that despite all our efforts to effect cooperation with State and district organizations in the great work of the Southern Baptist Convention, some of each class still evince a disposition to stand aloof from our general Boards, and restrict their efforts to their own State, or their own Dis trict Associations. This course, we think, is greatly to be deplo’ed. From very child hood we have believed in the truth of the maxim, ‘ union is strength.’ And what is needed to day in our denomination more than anything else, next to higher attainments in personal piety, and a more exact conformity to the will and im ige of Jesus, is a rri6re per fect organization in our benevolent operations, and greater concentration of our moral forces. In a letter to our predecessor, Dr. B. Manly says : ‘ I think this whole scheme of localized, isolated working is injudicious. It does well enough, perhaps, for the strong, but leaves the weak both unsupplied by others, and unslimu lated to work for others. It may help the rich, but not the poor. It is, in comparison with more general organizations, both costly and ineffective. I never have believed in it, either for missions or for Sunday schools. But there are strong influences bearing that way, as you see. And these have been nur tured and strengthened by the antagonism some brethren have indulged against, our more general organizations.’ We heartily endorse these views of brother Manly, and regard them as preeminently judicious and opportune just at this timp.” I would respectfully submit for the prayer ful consideration of our brethren, who object to our General Board system, the following inquiry : Whether, in cases where a differ ence of sentiment exists, in reference to mea sures proposed to be used to advance the cause of Christ, it is more in accordance with the teachings of leason and revelation that the majority should defer their judgment to that of a minority than that, the minority should defer the judgment of the majority? My voice is for peace, brotherly love, and unity of effort. An Old Baptist. *Tbe D. M. B. has now an agent, who preaches Christ wherever he goes, and nine or ten missionaries under appointment. If our State Convention ever employed mine than two or three ii- any one year, it has wh lly escuped my memory. Its minutes for more than u quar ter of a century are in my possession. Earnest Faith. — A sea captain related, a a prayer meeting in Boston, a short time ago, a thrilling incident in his own experience. “ A few days ago,” said he, “ 1 was sailing b\ the island of Cuba, when the cry ran througl the ship, ‘ Man overboard !’ It was irnpossi ble to put up the helm of the ship, but 1 in stantly seized a rope and threw it over th ship’s stern, crying out to the man to seiz it as for his life. The sailor caught the rop just as the ship was passing. I immediately took another rope, and making a slip noo of it, attached it to the other, and slid it dow to the struggling sailor, and directed him t ■. pass it over his shoulders and under his arms and he would be drawn on board. He wa rescued ; but he had grasped that, rope wit such firmness, with such a death grip, that i took hours before his hold relaxed, and hi hand could be separated from it. With such eagerness, indeed, had he clutched the object that was to save him, that the strands of the. rope became embeddedin the flesh of hishands! And so it seems as if God had let down from heaven a rope to every sinner on the earth, that every strand was a precious pro mise, and that we ought to be so intensely eager to secure these promises as to lay hold on them as if for our lives, and suffer neither the powers of earth nor hell to shake our con fidence or disturb our hope.— Christian Treasury. Oldest Baptist Church in Great Britain. In the circular letter of the Bristol Associa tion, 1860, by the Rev. F. Bosworth, A. M., formerly of Salem Chapel, Dover, it is slated that the origin of our denomination as it now exists among us, is to be traced to Holland. The commercial intercourse between the two countries, the marriage of Henry VIII. with Anne of Cleves, and the cruelty of the Duke of Alva, led many Dutch Baptists to seek a home in this land. They formed a few churches. Among them was one at band wioh, an offshoot of which, Eythorne, is the oldest existing church in our union. Many of our countrymen, too, seeking a refuge in Holland (in Mary’s reign) “ imbibed Baptist views there.” Sandwich, it must be rernem bered, was the chief port of debarcation from the continent. Thomas A. Becket landed there after his exile. Though at the present day it is regarded as an old and somewhat decayed town, its site was once a part of the bay known as Pegwell Bay, which extended to the walls of Rutupis (Richboro.) [See Hasled’s History of Kent.] It was therefore probable that the Dutch exiles would land there and locate themselves in the town and neighborhood. In a “ Brief Sketch of the Life and Charac ter of Rev. John Giles,” who was pastor of the church of Eythorne from 1793 to 1827, his biographer (Dr. Cramp) remarks : “ It is stated that for more than 180 years the church enjoyed the ministrations of pastors bearing the name of John Knott.” The last of this name removed to Chatham in 1780, a few years after the church had ceased to be con nected with the General Baptist New Connec tion (in the formation of which Mr. Knott took a part) and had become Particular Bap tist in iis faith and order. These “ more than 180 years” would place the date of the set tlement of the first pastor somewhere between 1590 and 1600. Joan Boucher, who was martyred in the reign of Edward VI., was undoubtedly a Bap tist. It is currently believed in this neigh borhood, and by many who are acquainted with Baptist history, that Joan was a mem ber of the church at Eythorne. In Lis “ Early English Baptists,” Dr. Evans writes in refer ence to her, “The information about this no ble-minded woman is only scant, and tradition identifies her with' the town (village) of Ey thorne with a small congregation of Baptists there.” Vol. i. p. 72. In “ Memorials of Baptist Marty rs ” issued by the “ American Baptist Publication So ciety,” a brief sketch is given of Joan, and it is stated that “ uninterrupted and uncontra dicted tradition reports her as a member of the church then meeting at Canterbury and 'jtC_y7hui ne, uiKv St ill in the latter village.” If these statements be received as correct, the origin of the church seems to date back to at least 1540. Joan Boucher was the friend and associate of Anne Askew in the work of circulating Tyndale’s Bible and other books and tracts. She was imprisoned in the reign of Henry VIII., finally arrested in 1547 and burnt in Smithfield May 2, 1550. In this little village, where was one of the Roman military stations, and near to which Caesar first placed his foot on British terri tory, a church of Christ has been preserved for at least more than three hundred years, without a single unfriendly division, and with a steadfast adherence to the faith and practice of the primitive church, still giving itself to works of faith and labors of love. May the spirit of love and peace ever abide with us.— London Freeman. Wilful Disobedience: Baptism. Whichever way you may judge, you can never enter heaven’s door, to wear Christ’s Crown, unless you are here willing to be Christ’s servant and bear Christ’s cross. “ Well, but I do not like this; I do not like that.” Refer to the Bible; that is the Mas ter’s Book. As it is written there, so let your life and actions be ruled. You remem ber what the mother of Jesus said to the servants at. the wedding in Cana of Galilee! “ Whatsoever He saith unto you, do it.” 1 do not see how you can serve Christ if there be anything in that Book, which you see to be there, and yet willfully neglect. Perhaps there are some of you whom that sentence will hit very hard. I know persons who say they are Baptists in principle, but they have never been baptized. Baptists without any principle at all, I call them; persons who know their Master’s will, but will not obey it. I can make great excuse for brethren who do not see it: I think they might see it if they iiked : but if they do not discern the precept, lean understand their not obeying it; but when people know their Lord’s will and do it not—though I am sure I would not wish to speak hastily on such a matter —I am not certain whether willful disobedience to a known command of Christ may not be a token of their rejecting Christ altogether. I should not like to run the risk for myself at any rate. I should feel it unsafe to say that I believed I was saved, while these was some command of my Lord which I could obey, which 1 clearly saw to be my duty, and yet from which I solemnly declared l would with hold my obedience. Surely, in such a case, I have not let Christ come into my heart. If you would have Christ, He will be absolute Lord and Master—every humor and crotchet of yours must be set aside, for where He comes, He comes to reign.— Spurgeon. Requisites to the Study of Theology. The student of a true theology must first of all be born of God by His Spirit; and, born of God, must become a disciple of the Spirit of God, as the Spirit of truth and life. Unless so taught by that Spirit, all else will be in vain, and worse than in vain. Amidst these sacred and dread verities of God, and the things of God, he will be like a blind man groping in darkness, and feeling after God, if haply he may find Him; or, at best, like a man of disordered vision, seeing the things after which he inquires in false lights, deluding himself with mere illusions, and embracing the dark and empty shadows of these divine things themselves, and thus be a blind leader of the blind, to the destruction both of him self and of them who are misled by him to their eternal ruin.— Dr. McMaster. Ministerial Sins. —To show how ill found ed are any reflections on ministers as a class, because one occasionally falls into a grievous sin, the Rev. T. K. Beecher says: “There were twelve apostles, and two of them fell into very great scandal. One-sixth part of the apostles fell! This is more in propor tion than fall from ministers. Asa class, the record of ministers is better than that of the twelve apostles in the matter of grievous defectious!” Is3oo A YEAR. 1 WHOLE NO. 2508. Song in the Night. Oh I sing to me of Heaven, When I am called to die! Sing songs of holy ecstacy, To waft my soul on higu. When cold and sluggish drops Roll off my marble brow, Burst forth in strains of joyfulness, Let heaven begin below! Then to my ravished ears, Let one sweet song be given ; Let music charm me last on earth, And greet me first in heaveu 1 Then clobo my sightless eyes, And lay me down to rest; And clasp my pale and icy hands Upon my lifeless breast. Then round my senseless clay Assemble those I love. And sing of heaven —delightful heaven! Hr glorious home above. Were the Apostles Baptized? A fair statement of the case is as follows: We have no explicit statement either for or against the baptism of all the Apostles, so the question must be settled by indirect evi dence. In favor of their baptism the proof we have may be thus given. 1. Two of them, John and Andrew, were John’s disciples, and were, of course, baptized. John i: 5 —40. 2. All the indications given make it proba ble that Peter was another disciple of John. John i: 41. It is significant that, as soon as Andrew found Christ he went immediately to find his brother, Peter, and brought him also to Jesus—-and that Peter at once under stood who Christ was, and accepted Him as his Lord and Master. 3. The probability is strong and decided, that all the disciples wore John’s disciples. For this opinion we have the fact, that the first eleven were pious disciples,—that such would be best fitted, by having accepted John in his work, to be the disciples of Christ, that Christ would best sanction and endorse John and his ministry by such a course. He would practically repudiate it otherwise. It all were pious disciples, then all the Apostles musi have been baptized. 4. Christ Himself was baptized. The same reasons that led Christ to be baptized would apply to the Apostles as well and have led them to follow their Master in that ordinance. Matt, iii: 15. 5. The law of the Gospel dispensation is, Faith in Christ and baptism. 11 the Apos tles were not baptized, they were living in direct known disobedience to the primal law of that gospel which they had professed to receive, and of which they were the author ized preachers. (i. The Apostles themselves preached the duty of all to believe and be baptized, and baptized such as had become disciples of Christ. John iv: 2. If they themselves were not baptized, the Apostles were guilty of the gross inconsistency of requiring of other disciples the discharge of a duty de clared to be fundamental, one which the chosen preachers of the truth had never performed. 7. That the Apostles were baptized, is fair ly implied at least, in the address of Peter, recorded in Acts i: “Wherefore of jhese men which have coinpanied wijjb usyiAL the time that the Loild Jesus went id and out aJidiig u», 1/tyi.iitMff f/’/'otn the laptisiW"/"'* -• ■ ■ • unto that same day that He was 'taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a wit ness with us of Ilis resurrection.” To fill the place of Judas, it was necessary that the one chosen should have lived and associated with the Apostles all the time through the ministry of Jesus, beginning with John s baptism. So that all the disciples came into the Gospel Dispensation at the time of John s biptism, and were disciples of his, must have been baptized therefore. Such is the natural import of the language. Such is the evidence we have in favor of the Apostles’ baptism. Against their bap tism there is nothing to be urged but the simple silence of Scripture with reference to the baptism of eight or nine of them. So that, iu candor and fairness, all must allow that the weight of evidence in favor is well nigh demonstrative. It is certainly sufficient as a foundation for the belief that prevails so generally among all Christians, that the Apos tles must have been, and were, baptized. The bearing of this fact upon thecommun ion question, is obvious and important. There can be no reasonable doubt that those who celebrated the Lord’s supper for the first time were all baptized. If that first supper be the perfect pattern of all others —as no one can doubt it was, then none but baptized believ ers have any right to the Lord’s table. Cor. Zion's Advocate. Cast all Upon Christ. — A man carrying a burden was overtaken by a rich man as he drove along, and invited him to get up in the carriage, which he thankfully did. After a while the rich man looked around and saw the burden still strapped to the traveller’s back. He therefore asked him why he did not lay down his pack on the seat beside him. But he answered, “ He could not think of doing that; it was quite enough that he himself should be allowed to sit behind in the car riage, without putting his burden on the seat also.” Thus often do believers fear to lay ton much upon the God who has bidden us cast all our care upon Him,” and assured us that “ He careth for us.” Union Sectarianism. —The American and Foreign Christian Union, a society which professes to he unsectarian, publishes in its organ, the Christian World, a severe attack upon Mr. Westrup, because he has accepted an appointment from the Baptist Home Mis sion Society, and has returned to Mexico to build up Baptist churches there. These un sectarian “Unions” are generally found to be most bitterly sectarian, whenever consci entious laborers happen to embrace and teach the ordinances of the New Testament as they were delivered to the primitive churches. Baptists and Quakers.— The National Baptist says : Why is it that those who ac cuse Baptists of being bigoted and uncharita able ir. declining to commune with Pedobap tists, do not occasionally get after die Qua kers for the same offence 1 No amount of per suasion could induce the most pious Quaker to sit down to the bread and wine with the Presbyterians or Methodists. And yet the broad-brim is deemed the very banner of brotherly love. If the Friends may refuse to unite in a union communion service, and yet follow after charity, it would appear that the Baptists might also refuse and yet love Pedobaptists as much as Pedobaptists love each other. A Pertinent Question. — Zion's Advocate puts the following pertinent question to those who insist that the Lord’s supper is a sym bol of the communion of saints: Open-com munion journals complain that Baptists, by their restricted communion, grieve the Sa viour and their Christian brethren, and yet they forget that when the Saviour instituted the" “ supper,” though there were many other faithful disciples in Jerusalem, besides the twelve, He did not invite them to sit with them in this first communion season. If the supper was intended to afford an opportunity for the inter communion of saints, why were most of them excluded from its first celebra tion ?