Newspaper Page Text
CHRISTIAN INDua aiu? SOUTH-WESTERN BAPTIST.
V )L. 49—NO. 49.
A RELIGIOUS AND FAMILY PAPER,
UJBIIIBHED WEEKLY IN ATLANTA, QA
AT $3.00 PER ANNUM,
Invariablv in Advance.
T. T. TOO N", Proprietor.
A Sabbath Day with Christ.
How still the restless world has grown 1
How fair its outward face!
This footstool of the eternal throne
Shines with a royal grace.
The hearens smile in celestial calm ;
The air is sweet with wondrous balm,
Earth is a holy place;
My soul in solemn rapture waits
The unfolding of the eternal gates.
Oh 1 not on far unmeasured heights
The walls of jasper glow !
So near the pearly door inyites,
That aßgels come and go;
I feel their presence, all serene
With heavenly port and radiant mien,
They walk with us below ;
And One above the seraph’s sphere
Reigns with more glorious presence here.
O 3un of the eternal day!
O Star of mortal night 1
How deigns’t Thou on our earthly way
So to reveal Thy light!
O King once crucified, for whom
This little world had lack of room,
How stoop’st Thou to our sight 1
Earth is transfigured while I gaze,
And lies transformed to love and praise.
If such the glory earth may wear
When Christ unveils His face;
If angels, by the golden stair
Their radiant passage trace;
If joy to rapture soars, and sings
Her Sabbath song with heavenly things,
Prom such a holy place,—
What must the eternal Sabbath be
Before the throne, O Christ, with Thee!
— E. Elizabeth Lay.
Chance and Destiny.
The speculative mind is led by many chan
nels of thought to these subjects. The whole
creation, with all its laws, general and special,
physical and moral, is governed by either
chance or destiny, or partly by the one, and
partly by the other. It seems inconsistent
to hold that joint control is given to two
things so opposite in themselves, and hence
such a view is rejected.
Chance is the apparent controller of much
that our observation embraces. Destiny is
the ruling force which appears to our reason
ing faculties.
Innumerable facts seem to teach that ours
is a world of chance. As
seeds may be planted, the one being cultiva
ted and the other not. Each will make anew
plant. Each will make an apparently perfect
plant, but the one will produce, it may be,
an abundant increase ot seeds, while the other
may scarcely bring seed at all. Had the
condition of these plants been reversed, then
the results would also have been reversed. A
fixed law governed, as to the fruit they re
spectively produced, and yet their respective
productiveness was, in another sense, acci
dental; for had the productive plant been
left without culture, it would have been like
the other; and had the uncultivated one been
cultivated, it would have fruited like the cut
tivated one. According to the general mode
of thinking, this case is one of chance.
Again; The limbs may be cut from a tree,
and new shoots may start out from the body
in places where such shoots never would have
appeared but for the removal of the branches.
The springing of this new growth, then, is
called accidental. There is tree which.,
under ordinary circumstances, never sends
out new branches from near the ground.
This tree is the common long-strawed pine.
All familiar with it know that to cut it down,
after it has attained the height of a few feet,
is to destroy it. Yet this tree has been
known to throw out new buds near the
ground, on being bent to a nearly horizontal
position, and held there. It seemed, in the
ease alluded to, that the bending of the tree
changed its very nature, as it certainly never
could have budded near the root had its erect
position continued. Thi9 is another case ot
accident. In the affairs of men chance seems
to preside everywhere. Children of the same
family are unlike each other. They scatter
over the earth. Some are fortunate, others
unfortunate. A slight accident puts one of
them on the road to poverty and ruin. An
accident not less trivial puts another on a
course that leads to success, honor, and pros
perity. All this may occur in a single
family.
An accident results in the establishment of
a great nation, as in the case of Rome, when
a battle was decided by the memorable bro
thers. An occurrence not more important
puts in train a course of events which over
throws an empire. Was it not a shower of
rain that ruined the cause of Napoleon at
W aterloo 1
The world is full of what are called acci
dents ; and these accidents are held by many
to be the result of chance. The doctrine of
chance seems to take it for granted that any
event whatever might have been otherwise.
This doctrine has difficulties to meet. One
of these is, that chance must rule in all things
if it rules at all. As before stated, we are
hardly permitted to hold that destiny and its
opposite have joint rule over the affairs of
the creation. One or the other must reign,
and reign alone. Another difficulty to be
met by chance is, that many things have
come to pass not fortuitously. All fulfilled
prophecies have been of this character. And
we may add, creation itself could not have
come of chance. Now, if many things have
resulted not from chance, but from purpose
or destiny, is it not natural to conclude that
all things have taken place in the same way ?
If we know that deatiny has ruled in many
cases, and we only imagine that chance rules
in others, must not fancy give way before
knowledge? There is another barrier in the
way of the doctriue we are considering:
Causes, in the affairs of men and of nature,
are seldom known to exist singly. They
stand in a chain, and, as the effects must be
like their causes, we apprehend causes and
effects to be linked together in a chain contin
uous through all time. If this be the case
regarding all things, then there is no possible
room left for fortuitous events. If we know
that cause and effect are linked together in
numerous instances, why should we doubt
that they are thus linked in all cases?
Besides this, is it reasonable to hold that
fixed laws have been established, unless pur
pose lav behind their establishment? Is it
giving houor to the great First Cause to main
tain that He made laws, and yet had no pur
pose ? If He had purpose in regard to one
thing, or any number of things, can He be
supposed, without disparagement to His
character, to have left other things to chance ?
Purpose, as old as eternity past, may control
in the occurrence of the most trivial, and ap
parently casual circumstances.* The fall of a
leaf, or the motion of an atom in the air, may
be as much under everlasting purpose as the
universe itself. If an atom is worthy of crea
tion, is it not equally worthy of government?
If it is the subject of government, being of
sufficient value to be governed, is its govern
ment conducted independently of purpose?
If it be held that the lnfiuite is too great, and
too much occupied with weighty matters to
attend to things so inconsiderable, we would
ask, what reason is there to call any of His
works little ? Who gave man wisdom to de
cide what is great and what is little in the
creation ? Who shall determine the motion
of the earth to be of law and purpose, while
{s3 00 1 YEAR. } FRANKLIN PRINTING HOUSE, ATLANTA, GA., THURSDAY, DECEMBER 15,1870. is3 00 1 YEAR.}
the floating particle of matter is not under
such law and purpose?
Still further: In the affairs of creation and
of man, little causes, as they are called, are
perpetually employed in the production of
grand results. One of the African deserts is
partly covered with low mountains of sand.
The sand is dry, as no rain falls there, and
consequently moves before the wind like
water. A traveller (Riley) says the moving
sand of that desert came from the seashore.
The tides bring the sand, aad the fierce winds
of the coast dry it, carry it into the country,
and add it to those shifting hills, so terrible
to the traveller. Here an apparently meagre
cause has produced a gigantic result. The
origin of the Jewish family was, seemingly,
fortuitous, and was not, so far as we have the
means of knowing, different from the rise of
other families. It was a small event, but
behold the consequences! One man, and he
“as good as dead,*’ became the father of a
great nation ! The protection of Abraham
and his descendants through all the centuries,
until Israel settled in Palestine, involved a
multitude of providences on the part of God.
There seemed to have been no chance in the
case. How could chance operate where all
was destiny ? Did not Jehovah tell Abra
ham that He would make of him a nation ?
After making such a promise, is it not certain
that the providence of God followed the He
brews perpetually to make them what had
been foretold ? If they had been left to
chance, then they might have been destroyed
in a thousand ways, and therefore the pro
mise of God rendered void. But does not
every one who honors the God of the Bible
see, that in this case, there could be no fail
ure? Then, if God dealt with the Jews as
their history declares, are we not at liberty—
nay, are we not forced to hold, that in like
manner he deals with all men ? i. e., Ilis pur
pose is being fulfilled in all the affairs of all
men, in all nations, and in all ages!
Without spending more time directly on
the first topic, we come to consider the scond
—Destiny.
It is the belief of many that all things,
great and small, take place in pursuance of
God’s everlasting purpose, or that they weie
destined to take place. Not religionists
merely, but philosophers have held this view.
They have been led to it by the considera
tions already mentioned, and by many others
of like nature.
To this theory there are three objections •
I. As we have already seen, many occur
rences seem to originate in chance. 2. If
destiny rules the world, and man in ail Ins
affairs, then there can be no such thing as re
sponsibility in any creature thus governed.
3. If there be any such thing as sin, the Au
thor of destiny is alone responsible for it.
The first of these difficulties we have noticed
already, by attempting to show that what has
the appearance of accident is not necessarily
so, —indeed, cannot be reasonably so, in the
face of the known facts that many things oc
cur manifestly by design, while it is not in
evidence positively lhat any event transpires
by mere chance. The other two difficulties
may be conjoined, and rendered thus ; If men
are so bound under fate as not to be account
able, then their sin, if they can have sin, is to
be placed to the account of God. Here is a
difficulty second only to such as the doctrine
of chance presents. Thinkers in all ages have (
tr&d to remove this difficulty, but i.ney have
failed. Like a rock upon which no human
skill can make any impression, it stands.
Why, then, should we waste time over it?
God teaches, in effect, both in nature and
revelation, that lie does work all things ac
cording to the counsel of His will, and His
word declares man to be accountable. Here
are two apparently conflicting truths, both of
which are to be received —not philosophised
upon, but believed, and acted on. These are
the deep things of God. When man is equal
to his Maker, then may he be able to see how
all things can take place according to an un
changeable purpose, and yet man remain as
fully responsible as if God had no fixed pur
pose at all. We have one passage of Holy
Writ in which God’s purpose —destiny —is
fully taught, and in which man’s accounta
bility is not less plainly. It is Acts ii: 23.
“Him”—Christ—“being delivered by the
determinate counsel and foreknowledge of
God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands
have crucified and slain.” Our Lord was to
die as He did die. lie was to die in the way,
and by the veiy means employed. God h and
determined from everlasting, all the steps in
this bloody programme. But while this is
true, the murderer of Jesus committed a crime
second to none that man ever perpetrated.
This single case illustrates, in one sentence,
the sovereignty of God and the accountability
of man. We must accept the doctrine here
taught, simply because God teaches it, or we
must reject it. If there is untruth here, then
the Bible may all be untrue, and therefore
needs to be rejected. If Jesus died by chance,
then He might not have died, and we may
boldly assume that all things might have been
different from what they are, and even the ex
istence of God we may hold to be accidental!
The well-instructed Christian finds no fault
with the mysteries of the Bible. He believes,
loves and tries to obey his Master.
W. M. D.
Foreign Missions.
Admitting as true all we say as to the
poverty of Southern Baptists, are we doing
all for Foreign Missions we ought to do?
Whenwehave metfully our obligations to Do
mestic and Indian Missions, have we no more
money for the kingdom of our Saviour, —no
more power to put forth for the salvation of
the world ? Do our obligations extend no
further than the geographical limits of the
South ? Is the field circumscribed within
these boundaries ? Is not our Saviour saying
to us at this moment, “ Lift up your eyes, and
look on the fields ; for they are white already
to harvest.” Never, since the death of Christ,
has the field been so inviting, and the oppor
tunities for doing good in the Foreign work
been so abundant. Oppressed humanity is
crying to us from every “Catholic” country on
the continent of Europe. No event since the
crucifixion of our Saviour has been so por
tentous of good to the cause of religious truth
as the results of the political revolutions now
taking place across the Atlantic. Louis Na
po eon’s fall tested the strength of s he Papacy,
which was found to be weakness. The politi
cal dethronement of the Pope leaves Italy
open to the Bible and to the gospel ministry,
while its inhabitants, long under the Papal
yoke, and sighing for the freedom which
Christ gives, now stretch out their arms to
the lovers of Jesus for help and instruction.
Spain is not less inviting. For some months
have the most active efforts been made by
zealous Christians in England and elsewhere
to spread the knowledge of Christ where once
the Inquisition punished with cruel death, all
who would preach the salvation of the Bible.
The new King, son of the liberal and tolerant
Victor Emanuel, who now holds the Pope as
a prisoner, will no doubt permit the gospel
preached by all who love our Lord in sin
cerity. Now is the time for those who from
the heart pray, “ Thy kingdom come,” to put
forth every effort to improve the opportuni
ties put forth to teach the “ Catholic” nations
the way of life. God has unbarred the doors
of these lands; the scales have fallen from
the eyes of these blind people ; the fetters of
superstition are becoming threadbare. Provi
dence bids us go up and possess the land, and
assures us that we are well able to do so.
Mr. Oncken says, all Europe is white to the
harvest, we have only to thrust in the sickle
and reap. Never, since the inauguration of
modern missions, has such an inviting field
been opened ; never were such responsibili
ties placed upon the intelligent Christian
world; never has there been a field so well
prepared—such an opportunity to do so much
good, with so small an outlay of men and
money. But will we “ work while the day
is,” or will we let the night come, and the
door be shut against our efforts ? Men of
God ! “ lift up your eyes, and look out upon
the fields;” give your prayers, your pious
efforts and your mon«y to this good cause.
Our Sou>h*-r:i Board ought to be able to send
out. fifty missionaries to the continent of Eu
rope. E. W. W.
Miracles.
The New Era of this city had, some time
since, an article on “ The Triumphs of Science
since 1865,” reminding us how, four years
ago, it took three or four weeks,to get news
from Europe, while now we “ read the cable
dispatches detailing the military transac
tions on the Rhine the day previous,”—how,
“during our civil war, bat Jes were fought,
cities lost or won, territory captured or re
captured,” and how “ such events would be
come dimmed, and almost Obscured, by suc
ceeding movements, long before the intelli
gence could be transmitted to our representa
tives at European courts.” Then, after speak
ing of the wonderful results of the magnetic
telegraph, which had been boldly pronounced
impossible, the writer thus concludes :
“Other things seemingly impossible are yet
to be realizeJ. A miracle itself is but a
physical phenomenon at variance with our
limited knowledge of the laws of Nature; and
it is safe to assume that when we shall have
groped through mental darkness for ages to
come, as we have for ages past, many of the
now seemingly miraculous freaks of the now
unknown forces of Nature will be revealed
and utilized, as have s f eam and electricity/’
Now, this definition of a miracle is, to my
mind, heterodox, and contrary to the teach
ings of the Bible. To assume that all mira
cles are but natural phenomena, susceptible
of explanation on natural principles, would,
it appears to me, greatly shake our faith in
the Divine authenticity of the Bible, denying,
as it does, the supernatural evidences of Di
vine power, given to demonstrate its truth.
The pernicious tendency of such teachings
is exemplified in modern spiritualism, which,
while claiming spiritual and supernatural
influences, and acknowledging that sucb a
being as Christ once lived on the earth, yet
strips Him of His divinity, by declaring Him
to nave been only “ a good man and a great
medium,” accounting for his miracles as nat
ural phenomena, capable of explanation in
accordance with imperfectly understood laws
of electricity, clairvoyance and animal mag
netism, or mesmerism. Doubtless, many of
the marvellous revelations, the mysterious,
and at presc.i;, inexplicable feats of the spir
itualists, are the results of a perverted and
exalted candition of the nervous system, not
now well understood, but susceptible of ex
olanatiwiit' t.Np- future nuogre** ~f “(fence, -c-n
account of their analogy to catalepsy, som
nambulism, trance, and other strange, but
well-known and long-recognized morbid affec
tions of the nervous system.
But in this restless, infidel age, when the
whole world seems prone to forsake the an
cient landmarks, and to seize on everything
new—when men have “ itching ears,” etc.,
the press cannot be too careful in inculcating
such doctrines as those commented on in this
communication. The responsibility of the
secular press is of the gravest character, and
it should be its highest aim to elevate man
kind morally and mentally, both by the pu
rity and correctness of its language, and the
soundness of its moral and religious doc
trines.
Alas! how far does the press fall below
the measure of its duty and its responsibili
tv, when it either ignores religion altogether,
or teaches doctrines subversive of the reli
gion of the Bible—the only revelation made
to man which can urge an just claim to
Divine inspiration and authority —the only
true guide to morals—’the only book authen
ticated by signs, miracles and supernatural
evidences which could come alone from God.
* ® *
The Psalms Revised.
I have received from the Corresponding
Secretary of the American Bible Union, a
copy of Dr. Conant’s revised book of Psalms.
The reviser had to work upon it early and
late, in order to get it through the press in
time to present it, completed, to the Union at
its late anniversary (an interesting account
of which I was pleased to see in a late num
ber of the Index and Baptist.)
This new version of the Psalms is printed
ou clear, white paper, and is very neatly
bound. It is highly creditable, alike to the
scholarship of the reviser, and the skill of
those to whom its mechanical execution was
entrusted. I fear the high commendations
bestowed upon Dr. Conant’s learning and
abilities, both in Europe and America, have
done him more evil than good, spiritually ;
but it seems due to the public to let it know
the estimate in which he is held by men com
petent to judge of his scholarship, and his
ability to improve existing versions of the
sacred Scriptures, and who have no personal
or party interests to subserve by the publi
cation of their commendations. I therefore
add, as a specimen of the testimony borne in
his favor, that of Dr. Campbell, editor of
The Journal of Sacred Literature and Bibli
cal Record , a well known English Congrega
tional Review, of established reputation.
This testimony is extracted from the editor’s
review of the book of Job, as issued by the
Bible Union.
“As regards the qualifications of Dr. Co
nant, there can be no question that he is thor
oughly competent for the important and
responsible task which he has undertaken.
He is well acquainted with the original lan
guage of the book. Report speaks of him
as the first Hebrew scholar in America. He
is, moreover, a good German scholar, famil
iar with the works of most of the continental
commentators and philologists. He is fully
qalified as a first rate German and Hebrew
scholar, for the task to which he has given
himself. He also possesses what is almost
equally necessary, a good knowledge of ver
nacular English, and, moreover, a sound
judgment, not easily led astray by ingenious
fancies and unfounded theories. Thus fur
nished, he has produced a work of which
America may well be proud, a work which
we fully believe is destined to bean enduring
monumeut of the ripe scholarship, solid
judgment, and unquestionable ability of the
learned translator.”
The learned Professor of Hebrew, in New
College, Edinburgh, makes citations from
thirty-one works on Job, and selects five,
which he characterizes as “ first-rate.” Dr.
Conant’s work, prepared for the Bible Union,
is the only one in the English language thus
commended!
1 have glanced over the copy of the revised
Psalms sent me, ants think it worthy of all
the commendations bestowed on the took of
Job. The introductory articles and the ex
planatory notes iq, gsent edition, great
ly enhance the fulub* v- ' fftf book; but, in
stead of further on its merits or
demerits, I have concluded to send the copy
I have to the editor of this paper, and hope
he will be able to give it a more thorough
revision than I have had time to give it. It's
his vocation —not mine—to review books.
I shall look with anxiety for the review, and,
doubtless, so will many of his readers.
Jos. S. Baker.
A Strange. Prayer.
I learn from a reliable source, that a Bap
tist minister, while in the Methodist church
at Opelika, Ala., during the recent session of
the Baptist State Convention, thanked God
for Methodism and Presbyterianism. Now
God should not be thanked for that which he
has not given. If 0* has given Methodism,
and cannot contradict Himself, He has not
given Presbyterianis n, for they are manifest
ly contradictory, war with each other.
If God is the authu AafkV.iV'her of the above
mentioned “ isms,’ ! ,Y... is not the author of
the doctrines t-lrt ’languish Baptists from
other denominations If our doctrines are
not of God, then we perpetrate a great wrong
in teaching men tobybeveand practice them.
But there seems to,]}b a-slight difference of
opinion between the minister in question and
the Apostle Paul. By implication, at least,
he teaches that there-fFi three faiths and three
baptisms, and men are at liberty to choose
between them, according to their fancy or
prejudices. Paul &%Brts that there is but
one faith and one baptism? even as there is
but one Lord, and that if he or an angel preach
any other gospel, let him be accursed. (I
don’t know what he would have us do with a
D.D., for preaching another gospel.) Now,
since Paul spoke an." wrote as he was moved
by the Holy Ghost, I am inclined to think he
knew more about these things than that min
ister, and therefore presume to declare his
prayer— heterodox. S. C. H.
Lafayette, Ala., JVb*."*/, 1870.
Odd Fellowship in America.
James L. RidgelyC Corresponding Secreta
ry of the Grand of the United States,
sums up, in the subjoined statement, the pro
gress of the Order lor the past year: Mem
bers, 298,638 ; Lodges at work, 3,867 ; Rev
enue, $2,724,419; the amount paid by the
Order, in the way of relief, for the year,
$860,843. This statement does not include
the Patriarchal branch of the Order, which
foots up several hundred thousand dollars
additional.
The Corresponding Secretary thus con
eludes: “ Who shall begin to calculate the
length or the depth, the height or the width,
to which this vast relief has reached in the
area of human suffering? Who shall esti
mate, even remotely, the benign influences
which it has diffused from the centre to the
circumference of its sphere of action? Such
an effort were vain, idle even, for imagina
tion to indulge; WHer still, for language to
attempt to portray* yet, however unseen and
intangible to humao vision or touch, there is
One whose eye never sleeps, who grasps the
tull measurement i • a twinkling—who looks
complacent*;: Throne upon the
noble offering, as its grateful fragrance rises
to the skies. His favor and approval is our
tower of strength, His blessing the precious
promise and high reward of our labor. Let
us outpour to Hi/Brouv heartfelt thanks for
the golden harvest; let us learn from Him
how to improve it, and so to apply its wis
dom that it may not perish, but ‘flourish like
a tree planted by the rivers of water, that
bringeth forth his fep.it in his season ; whose
leaf also shall not wither, and whatsoever he
doeth shall prosper.’” * F.
Evening Hymn.
Soft the vesper chimes are stealing!
Father! lo! Thy children kneeling,
Unto Thee in prayer appealing!
Listen to the soul’s petition,
Bending lowly in contrition—
Jesu! grant Divine fruition !
Trembling bring we our confession;
Daily, sin doth make aggression!
Take, O Saviour, full possession !
Feeble, fainting, eiTing ever,
Fortify each weak eudeavor ;
Let temptation conquer, never !
Strength our feebleness would borrow—
Light Irom a celestial morrow—
For this earth-born night of sorrow.
Fill our hearts with pure devotion—
Still the grieving soul’s emotion—
Ouide us safe o’er Life’s rough ocean!
Jesu! Saviour! have.compassion!
Plead we Thy dear blood and passion!
Our poor lives by Thine refashion!
Let the morning’s rosy breaking
Symbolize our fu ure waking—
With Thy ransomed bliss partaking!
—Grace Appleton.
Another Witness.
Another Pedobaptist witness to the Baptist
belief concerning the mode and subjects of
baptism in the apostolic church, is the new
“ Dictionary of Doctrinal and Historical The
ology,” advertised in our columns. This work
is a sumptuous octavo volume, of over 800
pages, just published in England and this
country, —edited by Rev. John Henry Blunt,
and written by various scholars of the Church
of England. Mr. Blunt-sea well known Eng
lish clergyman of the Established Church, and
the author of various historical and other
books on theological and church topics. He
is of course an ardent advocate for “ infant
baptism,’ and holds that “ we are certain of
the future happiness of the baptized, but have
no assurance of the salvation of the unbap
tized infant.” In this Dictionary, in the arti
cle on “ Baptism,” we read :
“The word baptism signifies generally
washing, and is used in this sense in Holy
Scripture. Thus it means dipping or bath
ing, (Naaman, 2 Kings v : 14, and Judith xii:
7,) the washing of cups and dishes (Mark vii:
34; Heb. ix : 10,) and also signifies over
whelming suffering (Isa. xxi: 4, Luke xii:
50, Matt, xx : 22.) From all which illustra
tions we may gather the meaning of a thor
ough cleansing, as by immersion or washing,
and not by mere affusion or the sprinkling of
a few drops of water. The bathing of Naa
man and Judith was by immersion; cups and
dishes were not cleafi&rd-by a few drops of
water, but by a thorough washing; and the
comparison of our Lord’s sufferings to bap
tism is intended to show how thorough and
overwhelming, as it were, was their nature.
Hence, as might be supposed, the primitive
mode of baptizing was by immersion, as we
learn from the clear testimony of Holy Scrip
ture and of the Fathers. Thus John baptized
in jEnon, near Salim, (Johli ill: 23,) because
‘ there was much water there,’ and Christ,
after baptism, ' ascended upout of the water.'
We cannot doubt, in these cases, there was
immersion, for it is shown from the Baptist’s
reasons for baptizing at iEaon, and Christ’s
‘ascending’ from the waters of Jordan. St.
Paul’s language, however, U even more ex
plicit. He speaks of our being buried with
Christ in baptism, (Rom. vi: 4 ; Col. ii: 12,)
and, with the same illustration in view, that
Christians die with Christ, and are raised
with Him, (Rom. vi: 11; 301. ii:2o; iii:
3,) are immersed in the baptismal water, and
rise from it as our Lord from His burial in
the tomb. That immersion wa9 the ordinary
mode of baptizing in the primitive church is
unquestionable. Tertullian says, we are
thrice baptized (ter mergitamur), and St. Am
brose speaks ot immersion in the name of
each divine person. St. Cyril, of Jerusalem,
and St. Basil also, mention the same usage.
Immersion in the name of each divine person
was, indeed, the ordinary mode of baptizing
during as long as twelve centuries. The in
novation of affusion, or pouring water on the
baptized, afterwards began in the Latin church,
and has become the general Western usage.
In the Eastern church baptism has always been
by immersion, and as a modern well-informed
writer (Mouravieff, late Procurator of the
Holy Governing Synod of Russia) says the
Eastern Church has never ceased to protest
against the innovation in the mode of bap
tizing of the Latin Church.” (Pages 74,75.)
Under the head of “ infant Baptism,” the
Dictionary further says: “ Although the Holy
Scripture teaches that faith and repentance
are needed for a due reception of baptism,
(Mark xvi: 16; Acts ii: 38; viii: 37,) it has
been the usage of the Church from an early
period to baptize infants who cannot have
such conditions. It is important, therefore,
to investigate the reasons on which a usage
is founded which apparently has no direct
Scriptural sanction. Not that the want of
Scriptural proof is universally admitted, as
direct evideuce for the usage at least has been
generally alleged. Thus it is argued, that as
the household of Lydia and the jailor were
bapt.z.d (Acts xvi : 15, 33,) there were
probably infants among them; but, admitting
this probability , there is no proof that the
apostle baptized them. We cannot fairly
prove the apostolic origin of infant baptism
by assuming the existence of the usage itself.
As regards the jailor’s household, we are told
that Paul and Silas spake the word of the
Lord ‘to him and to all that were in his
house,’ and that ‘he and all his were bap
tized.’ Now, it would appear from this state
ment, that the baptized were those to whom
the word of the Lord was preached, who as
suredly were not infants. The evidence on
this subject from Scripture amounts to this,
that we only read of baptism after a profes
sion of faith and repentance. This by no
means, it is true, excludes the possibility of
the existence at the same time of infant bap
tism without such conditions; but the fact
must not be assumed without evidence, and
the utter want of proof from the Holy Scrip
ture obviously leads to a different conclusion.”
(Page 344.)
Then follows a discussion of the circum
stantial evidence by which it is sometimes
alleged that the apostolic origin of infant bap
tism is established, and the writer reaches this
conclusion : “ Infant baptism was undoubtedly
to some extent the usage of the Church in the
latter half of the second century, but it was
not universal amongst Christians even in the
fifth century Infant baptism
must, therefore, be considered as founded on
ecclesiastical sanction, though there are inti
mations in Holy Scripture of its accordance
with cur Lord’s institution. Tertullian [a. and.
180] first mention “sponsors,” a fact quite un
accountable had infant baptism been of apos
tolic institution, since sponsors, as an ordinary
rule, would be necessarily required in bap
tizing infants, etc.”
The Italics used above are the author’s
own, and not ours. The statement is doubt
less the strongest that can now be made, with
any show of fairness, concerning the early
origin of infant baptism, even by one whose
mind is prejudiced in favor of the practice.
Baptists cannot be wrong in rejecting all
ecclesiastical or other human traditions, and
in insisting that all the doctrines and ordi
nances of the gospel shall be taught and ad
ministered according to the clear, express and
authoritative precepts of Christ and his apos
tles. What can we do more, or otherwise,
than to observe all things whatsoever He has
commanded, and as he has commanded ?
Nat. Baptist.
Close Communion and Christian Union.
A Baptist who desires to see harmony
among Christians of every name, will be led
to inquire how this is affected by that pecu
liar Baptist usage sometimes called Close
Communion, Will he not find the facts to
be somewhat, as follows?
The Communion is a symbol of Christian
fellowship—only a symbol —not the reality.
Two men ma) sit side by side at the table,
who are so estranged from each other that
they do not. speak on the street. Presbyte
rians and Methodists commune together. But
there are occasional jealousies and little un
christian rivalries even between these peoples,
Spurgeon and many English Baptists com
mune with other churches, but they do not
get along with them in perfect harmony, and
recently Spurgeon was ejected from the Chris
tian Alliance in rather a summary manner,
owing to a slight unpleasantness between
him and his communion-table partners. So
that if close communion should be laid aside,
and the symbol of fellowship be everywhere
exchanged, the good time might still be only
“ coming.”
On the other hand, the reality might exist
without this particular symbol—heart com
munion without the bread and wine. We all
remove our hats when we enter the sacred
precincts of God’s house. The Quaker, owing
to certain conscientious scruples, keeps on
his broad-brim during the whole of divine
service. May he not reverence God as much
as we, although he does not manifest it in the
same way ? The Methodist offers the bread
and wine to the Presbyterian; the Baptist,
believing that the Presbyterian has never
been baptized, does not invite him to com
munion. But may not the Baptist love the
Presbyterian as earnestly as does the Metho
dist, even though his conscientious scrupules
do not permit him to manifest that love in
one particular way? And if the Baptists
were to-day to abandon close communion, it
would help the cause of Christian union just
as much as reverence to God and respect to
rulers would be increased, if the Quakers
should decide hereafter to take off their hats
in church, and to say the Honorable Mr. So
and So, when speaking of a member of the
Common Council !
It has been from the first the belief of the
Baptists that baptism is a mere form ; not
an essential to salvation ; not that which pro
cures salvation, but a mere form. And so
do they consider communion “ a mere form.”
If they believed with the Romanists, that the
bread and wine were the real body and blood
of Christ, of which, if a man did not eat, he
could not have eternal life; if they believed
that in it was some magical power—such,
that if two men of different denominations
ate of it together, it would be thenceforth and
forever absolutely impossible for them not to
love each other perfectly, they might have
doubts as to the propriety of their usage.
But when they hear other denominations say
that baptism is a non-essential, they can get
along without immersion, is it strange that
they should infer that, as the communion is
also a non-essential, they will not care for
that either? If Deacon Ruling-elder has, as
he says, been able to serve God forty years
without going into the water, can he not
serve Him another forty years without oom«
ing to the communion table? If Sister Class
meeting can, as she says, loye her dear Bap
tist brethren just as well as though she had
been immersed a hundred times, can they not
love her ju3t as much as though she had come
to the communion table a hundred times ?
Immersion is, in their view, just as much the
symbol of the Christian’s union to Christ as
the bread and wine is of his union tq his bro
ther. If there may be union with Christ
without the symbol, may there not be union
among Christians without the symbol ? Is
it not the spirit of the most superstitious Rit
ualism which makes such an ado over the
absence of a few bits of bread and a swallow
of wine—that looks upon an outward cere
mony as a positive essential to love here and
heaven hereafter? If it is not necessary to
Christian union that all Christians should be
baptized together, it surely is not that all
commune together.
Now, as a matter of fact, are these Close-
communion Baptists more estranged from
other denominations than are Methodists or
Presbyterians? Can any man say they are
less forward in Christian associations and
other union movements? Ask the Presby
terian, and will he not tell you that nowhere
does he find warmer Christian friends than
among Baptists ? Ask tke Methodist preacher
if, on his numerous fields of labor, he has
found more tender sympathy among Presby
terians and Congregationalists than among
Baptists? It may, perhaps, without contra
diction, be stated that between Baptists and
Presbyterins on the one hand, and Baptists
and Methodists on the other, there is more
real union than between Presbyterians and
Methodists. When Baptists are called “ un
charitable,” “ bigoted,” “ narrow-minded,”
and all that, no sensible Baptist looses his
temper, for he knows that these terms are
used only in a Pickwickian sense, and that
other denominations really think more of
Baptists than they do of each other. Now, if
between Baptists and those with whom they
never commune there is just as much love
and sympathy as between those denomina
tions which practice intercommunion, is it not
perfectly plain that the Baptist usage of close
communion does not stand in the way of
Christian union, and its abrogation would do
nothing to help along the desired harmony
among God’s people.
If Baptists loved other Christians as much
as they love their own converts, they might
certainly be said to stand on Christian union
ground. But there is nothing in their close
communion which forbids their doing this.
In a Baptist congregation are certain con
verts, who have applied to the church for
membership—have, by vote of the church,
been received; but it has not been convenient,
as yet, to have them baptized. Meanwhile
occurs a communion day. Shall these be
allowed to commune? The church has, by
formal vote, recognized their Christian char
acter as fully as it has done that of any of its
members. But some Presbyterians and Con
gregationalists are “ close communion” thus
far—that no person can commune until he
is (as they deem) baptized. Therefore, these
converts cannot receive the bread and wine.
Now Baptists look on Presbyterians and
Congregationalists ason these young converts.
They do not doubt that such men as S. H.
Tyng, John Hall, and T. L. Cuyler are Chris
tians ; they merely ask, have they been bap
tized ? Yes, it is answered, sprinkled in in
fancy. But is infant sprinkling true Chris
tian baptism ? Until the affirmative of this
is shown to their satisfaction, they must class
these men with the group of young converts
spoken of above, and refuse, to invite them to
the communion table. True, baptism is a
mere form but so is communion a mere form,
and the want of one mere form may justify
the refusal of another mere form. But a
usage which allows a denomination to love
other Christians as much as its own registered
candidates for membership, cannot stand very
much in the way of Christian union.
“ But don’t you expect to commune with
us in heaven ?” says some sad, tender-hearted
soul. “ Yes,” says the Baptist, “in heart
communion ; with love and affection; not
with little pieces of bread and cups of wine.”
Heart-communion we are ready to extend
now, and if we have communion “ on earth
as it is in heaven,” the sign of Christian
union is commenced. “ But here is a point
worth very serious consideration. “ Open
communion,” so far from bringing Baptists
nearer to other Christians, would widen the
breach between them. Spurgeon, and other
open communionists, stand further away from
the non-Baptists than do their close-commun
ion brethren!
All denominations—Presbyterians, Episco
palians, Methodists, Baptists, and all—take
the ground that a man cannot come to the
communion until he has been baptized. Bap
tists, believing that there is no baptism except
immersion, on profession of faith , hold that
those who were baptized in infancy, (some,
though they were immersed, as is always
done in the Greek Church, and often in the
Church of England,) or merely sprinkled on
profession of faith, have never \been baptized,
and so cannot come to the commuion. They
could admit non-Baptists to communion in
but two ways:
First.— By allowing that they were bap
tized persons. But, in so doing, they would
abandon their own principles and cease to be
Baptists. Some have alleged that here is the
great central deposit of the milk in the cocoa
nut, and that all this ado about close commun
ion is merely a “ little game” to get Baptists
to acknowledge, by communing with Presby
terians, that these are baptized—that these
pitiful tears are only a device to secure a
virtiial acknowledgment of the validity of in
fant baptism from good Baptists, whose
hearts are so tender that they would allow
that two and two make only three and-a half,
if it would hurt any brother’s feelings to hear
it said they made four ! But surely we can
not believe as many things as there are, that
look like it, that sectarian chicanery would
ever dare to use the saored name of Christian
union in any such deceitful way !
But if Baptists will not acknowledge that
Presbyterians and Congregationalists are bap
tized—if, in other words, they continue to be
can admit these to communion
only as unbaptized persons.
But the moment they begin to do this, not
only do they find themselves obliged to ad
mit to communion their own converts with
out waiting for their baptism (for are not
their own unbaptized converts Christians as
truly as their Presbyterian brethren?) but
they also find themselves at issue with the
whole Christian world besides—for all Chris
tendom holds that the unbaptized should not
be admitted to the communion table. Close
communion Baptists declare other Christians
in error on one point, viz.: baptism. Spur
geon, Malcom, and other open-communion
Baptists, declare them in error on still another
point , viz: in saying that unbaptized persons
cannot commune.
“Doctor, will this medicine cure me?”
“ No,” answers the physician, “ but it will
throw you into fits, and I have no doubt lean
manage them.” But serious doubts may be
indulged as to whether sectarian alienation
can most easily be remedied by introducing
an entirely new point of difference between
Baptists and the rest of the Christian world.
The pugnacious Spurgeon, the enthusiastic
WHOLE NO. 2519.
Malcom, may be ready to attack the univer
sal belief and usage of Christendom, but
quiet, peace-loving Baptists will generally
think it best to be contented with the points
of difference which now exist between them
and other Christians. Would any judicious
friend of Christian union desire to procure
the interchange of any empty form by the
introduction of another real difference of
opinion among God’s people 1 It is certainly
not best that any denomination should intro
duce into the Christian world anew princi
ple—one which would surely provoke contro
versy among others, and one, if Baptists all
adopted it, anew principle of church polity
whose bearings on future controversies no one
could foretell.
Therefore, whatever may be said of the
Baptist usage of close communion, it does not
hinder perfect harmony among Christians.
Pertaining to a mere form, it is hardly worth
the shedding of such rivers of tears and ink
as have been poured out upon it. Baptists
do not invite Presbyterians and others to the
communion, because they do not consider them
to be baptized. But can they not love Chris
tians, even though they consider them unbap
tized 1 Baptists and Presbyterians can lOvo
each other without exchanging the bread and
wine. But if any Christian feels that it would
be a pleasure to unite with his Baptist breth
ren, not only in love but also in the outward
symbol of that love, he has only to submit
to another “ mere form,” sayingjto himself in
the words of one of old : “See, here is water
—what doth hinder me to be baptized ?”— Rev.
Norman Fox , in Christian Union.
Inward Victory.
Smite on I It doth not hurt me now;
The spear hath lost its edge of pain ;
And piercing thorns, that bound my brow,
No longer leave their bleeding stain.
What once was woe is changed to bliss ;
What once was loss is now my gain ;
My sorrow is my happiness ;
My life doth live by being slain.
The birth-pangs of those dreadful years
Are like the midnight changed to morn ;
And daylight shines upon my tears,
Because the soul’s great life is born.
The piercing thorns have changed to flowers;
The spears have grown to sceptres bright;
And sorrow’s dark and sunless hours
Become eternal days of light.
—Prof. Upham.
Hope.
Once on a time, from scenes of light
An angel winged its airy flight;
Down to the earth aswoop he came,
And wrote these words in light and flame,
On every sombre thing he met:
“ Cheer up, be not discouraged yet.”
Then back to heaven with speed he flew,
Attuned his golden harp anew,
While throngs of angels gathered round
To swell the joyous choral sound ;
And men aroused, ere dawn of light,
Found Hope had been to earth that night.
Ideas Introduced by Christianity.
“Humanity” is a word which you look
for in vain in Plato and Aristotle ; the idea
of mankind as one family, as the children of
one God, is an idea of Christian growth; and
the science of mankind, and of the languages
of mankind, is a science which, without
Christianity, would never have sprung into
life. When people had been taught to look
upon all men as brethren, then, and then
only, did the variety of human species pre
sent itself as a problem that called for solu
tion in the eyes of thoughtful observers, and
I therefore date the real beginning of the
science of language from the first day of
Pentecost. After that day of cloven tongues
anew light is spreading over the world, and
objects rise into view which had been hidden
from the eyes of the nations of antiquity.
Old words assume anew meaning, old prob
lems anew interest, old sciences anew pur
pose. The common origin of mankind, the
differences of race and language, the suscep
tibility of all nations of the highest mental
culture, these become, in the new world in
which we live, problems of scientific, becauso
of more than scientific interest. It is no
valid objection that so many centuries should
have elapsed before the spirit which Chris
tianity infused into every branch of scientific
inquiry produced visiblo results. We sec
in the oaken fleet which rides the ocean, the
small acorn which was buried in the ground
hundreds of years ago, and we recognize in
the philosophy of Albertus Magnus, though
nearly 1,200 years after the death of Christ,
in the aspirations of Kepler, and in the re
searches of the greatest philosophers of our
own age, the sound of that keynote of thought
which had been struck for the first time by
the apostle of the Gentiles: “ For the invis
ible things of Him from the creation of the
world are clearly seen, being understood by
the things that are made, even His etornal
power and Godhead.” —Max Muller.
Speak a Kind Word to Yoar Minister.
It was my lot, for nearly a score of years,
to be settled over a people who were quite
undemonstrative. They were kind to me.
They treated me respectfully. So far as I
knew, they found no fault with my preaching,
nor with myself. But, with two or three
exceptions, I was uncertain whether they
were pleased with me or not.
One summer my health was unusually
poor, and at the same time 1 was not a little
depressed in spirit. Everything looked dark
to me. And somehow I got the impression
that my people were dissatisfied with me. I
dreaded to meet them on the Sabbath. I
took no pleasure in preaching to them. I
could hardly summon the courage to look
them in tho face. I was an unhappy man.
The people were in moderate circumstances.
Deaths and removals were occurring. It was
with difficulty that they raised my salary ;
and it was feared that they might not be able
to do it much longer.
In the midst of this state of things, I called
one day upon an aged female member of my
church, who incidentally repeated to me an
expression which she had heard from one of
the people. “He would sell his old clothes,”
he said, “ before he would let Mr. S. go.”
That remark was like a medicine to me. It
did me more good than all the means that 1
had employed. At once it shed now light
upon matters. It encouraged me to labor on
for the good of the people. My health soon
began to mend, and, by the blessing of God,
my efforts were not in vaiu.
Other ministers, 1 doubt not, are often dis
couraged and depressed for the want of some
kind word from their people. If you can
conscientiously speak such a word, don’t hes
itate to do it. If you have been benefitted
by some sermon which your minister has
preached, don’t hesitate to tell him of it. Or
if you have heard others speak favorably of
his labors, whisper it in his ear. You need
not flatter him, and you should not; but if
he is a faithful man, and devotes himself to
your good, you may, and you ought to, speak
to him words of encouragement. It will do
him good. It will lighten hts heart of its
burdens. It will stimulate him to labor more
diligently and hopefully. He will feel tho
favorable influence in his study, in the pulpit,
and in all his intercourse with his people.
Curious Modes. —Rev. C. C. M’Cabe, in
speaking of the efforts of Episcopalians along
the line of the Pacific Railroad, says that their
methods of raising money very much resem
ble those of the Romanists. At Cheyenne a
dance is Weld every week, the proceeds going
“to increase the Church Extension Funds.’’