Georgia Historic Newspapers

    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 ?