Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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.’’