and Samaria, who had believed in Christ and had been baptized. We read of "above five hundred brethren" by whom he was seen at once after his resurrection. Many of these brethren were doubtless in Jerusalem at the passover when the eucharist was instituted. But they were in no proper sense a church, a distinct responsible body, called out from the rest of the nation, and acting together as the servants of Christ. "For the Greek word" éλnσía," which èκкλŋola, “ expresses the idea of working, calling out, also suggests that of convoking, calling together, and is therefore most appropriate to the Christian church as a select, organized body, called out by divine choice from the mass of men, and called together by divine authority as a spiritual corporation." But, on the other hand, the little band of disciples, to whom the supper was first administered, were essentially such a body. They had been summoned to his side by the Saviour's voice; they were his recognized and constant followers; they were under his instruction, and stood forth the champions of his cause; they had a common purse and a faithless treasurer; they were united in belief and in action; in a word, they were in all important respects a Christian church, a responsible community separate from the world and associated in the service of Christ. Thus the other notices of the Lord's supper in the New Testament confirm, rather than weaken, the evidence afforded by Paul's language to the Corinthians, that this ordinance was intended for the churches, as such, and was administered in apostolic times to none but members of Christian churches in good standing. "When we read of the baptism of single individuals, as of Paul and the Ethiopian eunuch, there is never any intimation that the administration of the Lord's supper followed. Even when whole households are baptized, as in the case of Lydia, the Philippian jailor, and Crispus at Corinth, the same silence is observed. But when great numbers were baptized, as on

Alexander on the Acts, Vol. I. p. 96. Compare Litton (E. A.), The Church of Christ, etc., Chap. IV. p. 203, sq.

the day of Pentecost, we find them soon after joining in the celebration of the Lord's supper." And in all these instances of "breaking bread," there are good reasons for suppos ing the presence and action of a Christian church. It may also be remarked that this ordinance appears to have been restricted uniformly by the early Christians to church members. "This food," says Justin Martyr, "is called among us evxapioría; of which no one is allowed to partake who does not believe that what we teach is true, and has not been bathed in the bath (λουσαμένῳ τὸ .... λουτρόν) for the remission of sins and unto regeneration, and does not live as Christ has enjoined." Three prerequisites are here laid down; namely, faith, baptism, and an orderly walk; and, with few exceptions, Christians of every name, from the apostolic age to the present, have agreed in this matter with the contemporaries of Justin. It seems to us, therefore, unnecessary to say more in support of our third position. In view of the qualification last named, an orderly church walk, the Baptists of this country do not for the most part feel themselves at liberty to invite to the Lord's table those members of other churches whom they look upon as unbaptized. As the eucharist is a church ordinance, they hold that none but members of the church observing it are strictly entitled to partake, and that none can properly be invited to join with them in the service, who could not be welcomed, without change of views, to full membership. They also hold that those who are giving, and pledged to give, the weight of their influence against what is believed by a church to be essential in doctrine and practice, cannot properly be received into its fellowship. If admitted, they would sow the seeds of dissension and thus prove themselves "heretics" in the primitive sense of the term. By receiving them the church would pull down with one hand what it is holding up with the other. Thus those members of Pedo-baptist churches to whom we now refer, do steadily

'Dr. Arnold, Terms of Admission, etc., p. 39.

2 Apol. I. c. 66.

affirm and teach by their ecclesiastical position that infant sprinkling is in effect Christian baptism, or else that baptism is not prerequisite to full membership and an orderly walk in a Christian church. In either case they throw the whole weight of their example against the doctrine of believer's baptism, a doctrine which in the judgment of Baptists is essential to Christian obedience as well as to the perfect organization and highest purity of the church. How, then, can their church walk be endorsed by the latter as orderly? Is it believed to be so? Were the members of any Baptist church to act as decisively in some other way, against this doctrine, would they not be esteemed by their brethren subverters of the truth and originators of division? And, the church being right in its doctrine, ought it not to withdraw its fellowship from them as walking disorderly and not after the gospel? "Now I beseech you, brethren," says Paul to the Romans, "mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned, and avoid them."1 But if a Baptist church ought to withdraw the hand of fellowship from those who set themselves firmly against the duty of obeying what it deems a plain command of Christ, has it a right to offer this hand to the same persons as soon as they are united with another church, or to any persons who assail persistently the duty in question? But one reply is possible. If communion at the Lord's table were a sign of Christian fellowship merely, the case would be entirely different; Baptists would then gladly invite all who give evidence of piety to partake with them. But such a sign it can never be while, besides faith, baptism and an orderly church walk are the scriptural terms of admission to the Lord's supper.

Before closing this discussion it is proper to remark that several Baptist ministers and churches in this country do not insist upon the third qualification named by us. Believing that faith and baptism are the only prerequisites to communion laid down in the New Testament, they feel them

' Rom. xvi. 17. Comp. Tit. iii. 10; Gal. v. 12; 1 Cor. i. 10.

selves at liberty to invite all baptized believers to partake with them of the sacred emblems. Our reasons for rejecting their view and practice have been already given; for the brethren themselves, however, we cherish the highest esteem.

From what has been said it appears that the principles which require Baptist churches to limit their invitation to the Lord's supper to Christians of their own faith and order, are identical with those which determine the action of other evangelical churches in this matter. Hence we cannot perceive the fitness of calling their practice "close communion." In principle it is as open as that of most orthodox churches; as open as the New Testament allows them to make it. We freely admit that it is "restricted"; and so it must continue to be while the example of apostolic Christians and the authority of inspired men retain their hold on the conscience; but we see no good reason for pronouncing it "close."

In reality, the great question between other denominations and the one for which we have endeavored to speak, relates to the subjects and the rite of baptism. A more careful examination of this question may, perhaps, in time, by the blessing of God, bring together those who now differ; and if it does, whether by a change of belief on the part of Baptists or by a change on the part of Pedo-baptists, the former will be relieved of a duty, the performance of which occasions them far more sorrow than it does others, the duty of restricting their invitation to the eucharist to members of Baptist churches. Such a "consummation is devoutly to be wished." May God hasten it by revealing his truth to all who love our Lord Jesus Christ! Then shall we rejoice, not only in Christian fellowship, but also in sacramental fellowship.

ARTICLE VI.

THE IMPRECATORY PSALMS, VIEWED IN THE LIGHT OF THE SOUTHERN REBELLION.

BY EDWARDS A. PARK, ABBOT PROFESSOR IN ANDOVER THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

THOSE Scriptures have been called imprecatory which contain a request, or intimate a wish or even willingness that moral agents be chastised or punished; and also those which express gratitude for the past afflictive event, or even submission to it.1 Many an amiable Christian reads some of these scriptures with a half-closed eye. The Imprecatory Psalms, in a special manner, are thought to be ill suited for modern times. They may have had their use as a wartrumpet in the shock of an ancient battle, when the soldiers of Israel were not ripe for gentler words; but it is imagined that we are to look upon them now as we gaze at the helmets and coats of mail which are hung up in the museum of antiquities. There are crises in life, however, which bring out the hidden uses of such parts of the Bible as had seemed to be antiquated. Since the commencement of the present rebellion, the Imprecatory Psalms have gained a new meaning in the view of men who had been wont to regard them as unchristian. Now the red planet Mars, which had been unnoticed in our horizon, has reappeared. The lost hymns have been found again. It is a new proof of the inspiration of the Bible, that so many of its forgotten teachings have been commended to our regard by the martial scenes of the day. The present occasion, therefore, appears to be a suitable one for considering the Imprecatory Psalms. And the design of the present Essay is to examine, first, some of the reasons why these Psalms are often

1 Even such passages as the following have been classed under the general name of Imprecatory: Psalm iii. 7; ix. 2-4; xviii. 37-43; xxi. 7–11; xxxvii. 12-15; lii. 5-7; lxiii. 9-11; lxiv. 7-9; cxxxv. 8-12.