Newspaper Page Text
JOSEPH WALKER, Editor organ of the baptist convention of the state of Georgia. GEORGIA TELEGRAPH STEAM PRESS
Vol. XXXVI. —Xew Series, Vol. 25.
Cj t C|rislian fttfot*.
PUBLISHED EVERY WEDNESDAY,
AT MACON, GA.,
BY A COMMITTEE OF BRETHREN, FOR THE
GEORGIA BAPTIST CONVENTION.
terms-
Fifty numbers in the year are mailed to each subscri
ber for $2.50, or $2.00 in advance.
Discontinuance may be ordered by the subscri
bers at the close of any year, provided, all arrearages
have been paid, or by the Editor, at his discretion,
whenever more than one year’s subscription is due.
Any person who remits $lO in advance for five
new subscribers, may reeeive the paper for one year.
Any minister of the Gospel who remits $8 in ad
vance for four new subscribers, may receive the paper
one year.
Advertisements at the regular charge will be One
Dollar per square of ten lines or less, for the first in
sertion, and Fifty Cents for each subsequent insertion.
All advertisements not specified as to time, will be pub
ished until forbid and charged accordingly. A liberal
discount allowed to those who advertise by the year.
Communications should be addressed to the Chris
tian Index, Macon, Ga.
Professional and Business Men.
Professional and Business Cards will be inserted
under this head, at the following rates, viz:
For three lines, per annum $ 6 00
“ Seven lines, do 10 00
“Ten lines, do 1200
“Twelve lines, do
No advertisements of this class will be admitted, un
less paid for in advance, nor for a less term than twelve
months. Advertisements of over twelve lines will be
charged pro rata. Advertisements not paid for in ad
vance will be charged at the regular rates.
pg- The Office of the Christian Index i3 on Mul
berry Street, over Baptist Book Store, and next door
to the Lanier House. Persons having business with
the office will find the Editor ready to receive them
during the usual business hours of the city.
CfmuitksiijiiM*
-Jr? “ -'= ■ . 1 ~
For the Index. . •
he Sunbury Baptist Association.
Dear Brethren : In a former commu
nication I stated a proposition which de
signed an important change in our body ;
and requested your careful consideration
of it. It is not my object to move a
change simply for the sake of something
new. I have no such desire. I trust I
have the interest of the Association at
heart.
But the thought that distresses me,
should the suggestion prevail, is this :
What shall we do with the colored church
es ? though they would retain the name,
and, in fact, would be the Sunbury Bap
tist Association, yet they would not be
able, of themselves, to attend to the bu
siness of the body. Hence Ido not press
the proposition announced in my former
article.
It seems to me that a plan of this kind
might be more feasible. The Association
if lam not mistaken, stands thus: T en
white churches and twelve colored. (See
minutes for 1856.) How let all the col
ored churches in the Association be ad
• vised to attach themselves to some white
members, and thus all the difficulty in my
mind would be obviated. But as they
now stand, each colored church being an
independent body, it could not be repre
sented by one who is not in its commum
ion. Hence if represented at all they
must be by colored members.
The question then is, can such a union
be consummated ? Cannot these colored
churches be induced to place themselves
under the watchful care of some white
church, still retaining all their power as
independent bodies, with the exception of
representation in the Association ? It
seems to me that an arrangement of this
kind might be made with our colored
brethren, and thus allow the Association
to be represented and composed purely by
white delegates. We shall then have one
white delegate for every colored church,
which will make the Association quite a
respectable body, not only in respect to
appearance, but also in number.
I object to the present arrangement of
the Association, as stated in my former
article. I entertained the same views be
fore I was a member of the body. My
mind has long since been made up on this
subject. But I had fondly hoped some
one else would have been the first mover
of a change.
The Sunbury Baptist Association has
been termed a Negro Body. Not quite
asbhd. But it is fact, that the colored
delegation often exceed the white 5 and
when the white is larger, it is so, by a
mere majority. I have but a few copies
of the minutes, which see. In the year
1849, the Association met in Springfield,
Effingham county- —delegation, white 15,
colored 11. Here the white delegation
had the majority of 4. In 1852, this body
met in Savannah—delegation, white 16,
colored 20. Here the colored delegation
exceed by 4. In 1854, the body met with
the Macedonia church, in Bryan county
—delegation, white 10, colored 13. In
1852, the body met in Savannah—delega
tion, white 16, colored 20. Here the col
ored delegation exceed by 4. In 1854,
the body met with the Macedonia church
in Bryan county, delegation, white 10,
colored 13. In 1855, the body met in Sa
vannah, delegation, white twenty one,
colored sixteen. In 1856, the body met
with the Bethel church, in Chatham
county —delegation, white 15, colored 14.
These all the minutes I have in my posses
sion, but they are sufficient to show the
truth of the above remarks, viz.: The col
ored delegation often exceed the white.
How often do we hold correspondence
with other Associations ? how often do we
welcome their Messengers into our body ?
Their visits are like angel’s visits—“few
and far between.” If they come at all,
“they come” —to use the language of a
brother from a neighboring State—“ out
of mere curiosity, to see what is done with
the colored delegation.” I have heard
other brethren say, that they would not
accept an appointment as a Messenger to
the Sunbury, and that they would not be
willing to receive a messenger into their
Association from the Sunbury. Why is
this ? Simply because there is no differ
ence between the white and colored
churches —all meet together on the same
platform in the Association. I have no
doubt in my mind but that this fact caus
ed the Middle Association to reject a un
ion with the Sunbury in the year 1853.
SEPTIMUS.
*’•’ For the Index.
“ A New Christology.”
To that portion of your readers, Mr.
Editor, who never seriously meditated con
cerning the present actual spiritual con
dition of Christendom, and how far the
church now, as the instrumental cause for
the salvation of mankind, is capable of
fulfilling the heavenly purposes of its in
stitution, it may appear strange to many,
perhaps, impious, the statement of a New
Christology. Howbeit, it is to be observed
that, upon the part of Christians and di
vines (in particular) there is a pretty gen
eral acknowledgement of the inefficiency
of the church, under existing doctrinal
systems, to fulfill those exalted purposes ;
so that the statement of a New (another)
Christology is in submission to the relig
ious requirements of the age only. (Yide
the writings of Brooks, Emerson, Arnold,
Buslinell, Parker, Warburton, MacWhor
ter, et. mult, al.)
We propose briefly, somewdiat of an ex
amination of the “New Christology” as
unfolded in “Yakveil” by the last men
tioned author. The work itself will bear
witness, we neither mistake nor misrepre
sent. “HAYAH, the old root of the He
brew verb “to be,” is the ground-text of
our Author; and it is upon his lection, of
“the third person singular future” of the
‘verb HAY AH,’ ‘equivalent of ‘IIAYAII
(page 22).
‘YAHYEH’ (which we assume is cor
rect), and its application to scriptural con
texts, he has thought to develop, and
then establish his “New Christology.”
Now, sirs, this Christology, so predica
ted, presupposes, on the part of Christians
in general, and of divines in particular,
ignorance that God, El Shaddai of the
Patriarchs,is identical with Jehovah, Yak
veh (Exodus 3d. 14.15); and supposes,
that this identity is, for the first time,
made known to the world.
I am not sure, sir, that in this connec
tion, it would become us to forbear ex
pression of our astonishment at that au
dacity, if it may be so called, that would
arrogate such discovery. In the name of
Biblical scholarship, though in charity we
hold him guiltless, we condemn his pre
tensions.
But assuming, as true, all his Christolo
gy supposes and presupposes, taking it for
granted our Author is the “earliest dis
coverer” of “historic identity” between
the Divine persons of El Shaddai and Yah
veh, such facts sir, his own
statement (vide §4. p. 161), serves only to
remove the “Father” as one of the “ Di
vine Plural Personality” (a modification
of, or another statement of the old term
Tri—Personality), from Exodus to ante
MACON, WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 1857.
the first of Genesis ! And what modflea
tions of existing systems of doctrine can
be effected by such removal ? What salu
tary and exciting influence can such fact
have upon the spiritual coma of the church?
What beneficial results can accrue to
Christendom, from the establishment of
“historic unity,” if no ulterior facts, be
yond that of identity , are developed and
urged for adoption upon the church? Sim
ply none at all. But, says “ Eugenius,”
the fact of “historic identity” involves the
the (another) fact of personal identity like
wise, and this must necessarily modify
the doctrine of the Trinity; and, conse
quently, also, indirectly, all the doctrines
thence predicated ! True, it is so. And
this is, precisely what renders the work to
us remarkable. The arguments of our
Author, passim throughout, intend, so to
speak, mainly no other fact than personal
unity in God; (vide particularly §2, p.
161, where the resume of all preceding ar
guments is stated as “the basis of a true
Catholicity. Yet such is not the avowed
purpose of the work. Indeed this is ab
solutely ignored in the term “plural per
sonality and Divine unity of Elohim—
God,” (p. 161, et passim.) Further: our
Author says, and we beg particular atten
tion to the extract, not only as in our own
concpit, presenting the true complex error
in Christian creeds, but also, as the con
text testifies, because it is in the same
thought presented by our Author him
self ; because it will be serviceable to the
reader when he comes to consider the
remedy proposed—“ Christ is preached,
rather as a part of a great system by
which man is rendered just -with God, and
the character of God justified to man,
than as God himself in history —as a means
rather than as in himself an end” —(p. 173)
This great truth wewould seriously impress
upon the mind; it is of far greater impor
taneerfe© Humanity than tho continuance*
of our present oceanic shore lines, the
conformation of Continents, and the per
manence of existing governments in the
world. We repeat the context warrants
us to say that this fact is regarded by the
Author as the cause of “ the present ap
parently torpid phase of Christianity.” It
is so. To remedy which he suggests a re
turn to Christ (vide p. 173. Space for
bids transcript). If by this is meant a
“return” to our Lord, Jehovah, as involv
ing “historical identity” with El Shaddai
<&ly, to the preclusion of other facts, con
sequent of this identity, that it occurs to
us, would necessarily develope doctrine
foreign to the present systems of Christian
ity, then the remedy is without virtue,
and the suggestion without wisdom. That
such preclusion is intended by our Author
seems manifestly to reside from the adop
tion of the doctrinal term “plural of per
sonality” as involving more than one per
son in the Godhead ; the arguments them
selves, upon which his Christology is con
structed, intend no such preclusion; in
deed, the majority of these are apparently
instinct with further and better meanings
than it seems was the intention of the Au
thor to transfer from them.
Sir, this “Christology” alone serves to
intensify our desire (had) with “seven
thousand” for a true Theology; this we
must have—till then it is in vain we de
precate the moral condition of the world
—till then Christendom itself will contin
ue without the elements of a positive spir
ituality.
PHILOLOGOS.
For the Index.
Honest John’s Experience.
Honest John is the Buggy horse of a
Baptist preacher; and, having seen a good
deal of the world and its hardships, thinks
his experience may afford some interest
to the readers of the Index, lie certain
ly feels a great interest in the matter, of
which he is about to complain, and hopes,
at least, to excite such a sympathy in the
minds of those who shall read his tale of
sufferings as that they will make some ex
ertion towards relieving them.
He would begin, then, by. stating that
his Master is uniformly kind to him when
at home—has him well fed, well watered,
and well groomed —and never, unless ab
solutely compelled, drives him immoder
ately. For all of this he is thankful, and
he endeavors to repay his master’s kind
ness by showing himself at all times gen
tle and trusty.
But it is not of this that he would speak
particularly just now. If this made up
the sum total of his life he would con
gratulate himself upon his good fortune,
and go on his way rejoicing—thinking, if
he had few pleasures, he had, at least,
few sorrows. It is of the neglect shown
higa when away from home that he would
complain. His master has the Pastoral
charge of churches in the country and is
frequently absent from home attending
pro&sactedmeetings—sometimes for weeks
at a place, laboring for the good of the
Churches and community. During the
most of his time while the people, both
black and white, are luxuriating in the
pleasures of the protracted meetings, Hon
est John feels that he is in a state of pro
tracted sufferance. For instance, his mas
ter puts up with some good Baptist bro
ther in the neighborhood of the church.
He is welcomed and feasted upon all the
good things the country can afford. His
mind and feelings are soon engrossed with
the meeting—he has to preach aud visit
and consult and talk about the spiritual
interests of the people—and has’nt time
to think that while his “ lot is cast in
pleasant places,” Honest John has to put
up with an occasional view of the corn
crib, with what water he can get while
driven out, and with what green leaves
and grass he can nip as he is tied out du
ring the hours of preaching. In this,
Honest John feels that he could not just
ly complain of his master —he could not
reasonably expect .him to remember his
horse while all these other labors are put
upon him—and he knows, and, indeed,
has heard his master say that when he
has time to think of his horse, he feels
ashamed to mention the fact that he is
not properly taken care of, for he is liv
ing upon the Brother’s hospitality, and it
is not like he was traveling and had to
pay his way. Honest John does, howev
er, some times think hard of the good
Baptist brother, for he feels that it is his
duty to see. the preacher’s horse as well as
the preacher taken care of. But the way
for it is just this. The master leaves the
horse to the servant and the servant nev
er thinks of him unless his memory he
magically stimulated by a quarter from
the preacher’s small, hard-earned wages.
This is no fancy story. It has been
Honest John’s experience hundreds of
times and it ought not so to be. Is he
not also a laborer in the good cause ? Is
not the good work furthered to a great
extent by his exertions ? Some times,
when the Brethren are making up the
Minister’s salary and urging the members
to pay liberally, Honest John has heard
them say, “ The laborer is worthy of his
The ox must not be muzzled that
treadeth out the corn,” &c., &c.—and he
thinks this ought to he extended to him,
as he is one of the means by which the
good work is carried on. When he hears
his master and friends talking so much of
“ what a good dinner brother so and so
gave us to-day,” how can he help think
ing of what a small share of the good
things fell to his lot, and of having some
unpleasant feelings about it!
If he were the only sufferer by this
neglect, Honest John feels he would not
be justified in making such a fuss about
it—that he would do the best he could
and hope for better times —but he often
meets up with other preachers’ horses,
and they give him to understand that
they fare no better —that they are also
often made sensibly to feel this want of at
tention. They believe with him that
these good brethren are negligent, and do
not know to what an extent the preacher’s
horse is neglected. He hopes, therefore,
they will take no offence at what he has
said, and believe him that he has said it
“ more in sorrow than in anger.” J.
[At the earnest solicitation of the writer, after we
had requested him to withdraw it, we insert the fol
lowing communication. The author has given no spe
cimen of “ extra-judicial oaths,” and therefore, his arti
cle admits not of controversy. We, however, desire
no controversy on this subject, and shall expect this
communication to end, as it begins, the matter—Ed.]
Brother Walker :—ln my search after
divine truth, I have found in the “ Bap
tist Edition of the Comprehensive Com
mentary,” a work, I believe, generally ap
proved, and highly recommended by most
of Our intelligent Baptist ministers, the
following very lucid exposition of our
Lord’s interdiction of extrayduicial oaths
—“ I say unto you, swear not at all”
Math. v:34, by that eminently learned and
pious divine, Mathew *llenry, viz:
“ How the mind of Christ is, first, that
we “ swear not at all,” except when du
ly called to it, and justice or charity to
our brother, or respect to the common
wealth, makes it necessary for the end of
s trife , (Heb. vi:l6) of which the civil
magistrate must ordinarily be the judge.
We may be sworn, but must not swear.—
We must not thrust ourselves on it for
worldly advantage. .
Second, we must not swear lightly, in
common discourse. It is .a very great sin
to make a ludicrous appeal to the glorious
majesty'of heaven. It is -a gross profa
nation of God’s holy name, and one of the
holy things which the children of"lsrael
sqyictify to the Lord. It has no excuse,
and is the sign of a graceless heart. Thine
enemies take thy name in vain.
Third, we must, specially, avoid pro
misory oaths, for they are to be performed.
An affirmative oath ceases, when we have
faithfully discovered the whole truth ; but
a promisory oath binds so long, and may
he broken in so many ways, by surprise,
and strength of temptation, that it is not
to be used but in great necessity. The
frequency of oaths among Christians is a
reflection upon their fidelity. Their word
should be as sacred as an oath.”
This view of the subject is concurred
in by all the learned and pious writers,
whose works I have consulted. Scott and
Pailey think that the “ multiplication of
even judicial oaths, and the irreverence
with which they are administered, occa
sion guilt and evil beyond calculation.” —
And Dr. Paley advises their abolition al
together, and to inflict the punishment
due to perjury, for prevarication ; and ad
monishes “ young persons especially, nev
er to give a promise which may interfere
in the event with their duty.”
I have found too, a very satisfactory
answer to the question I propounded to
yon, relative to the right or wrong of ma
jorities receiving applicants into a Bap
tist church over the heads of an objecting
minority, from, as I suppose, the pen of
one of your ablest and most experienced
correspondents, “J. S. B.” It is found in
the “ Ist volume, 4th number of the Pe
riodical Library, published in Penfield,
at the Index office, in 1847, by a Minister
of the Gospel,” believed to be that Rev
erend brother, who, if I mistake not, fill
ed the Editorial chair of the Index at the
time, to the satisfaction and instruction of
most of its readers. His remarks are, —
“Now the practice of our churches, in
reference to this matter, is founded upon
no specific scriptural rule, hut upon views
of expediency derived from the general
principles of the gospel. It is deemed
inexpedient to receive or restore one to
membership in the church, while a mem
ber, urges a serious objection, because this
would introduce a cause of dissention in a
church that is presumed to be in a state
of peace and quietude. The sacred scrip
tures requi.e that we remove every loot
of bitterness that is calculated to produce
trouble, Heb. xii:ls, and is argued that if
it be our duty to remove such a “ root of
bitterness,” it must be equally our duty
to labor to prevent its introduction.” A
most logical and scriptural view of the
subject, the opinions and practice of some
of our Pastors and churches to the con
trary notwithstanding. Futile and un
reasonable objections are, of course, ex
ceptions to this rule, and if pertinacious
ly adhered to, should subject the objector
to dealing for contumacy.
I agree with you, brother Walker, that
going to theatres, circus shows, h#rse ra
ces, dancing parties, or other similar pla
ces of carnal amusements, or the habitual
or occasional violation of any of the com
mands of God, or precepts of the Gospel,
is sufficient cause,without satisfactory evi
dence of contrition and promise of amend
ment, for the rejection ot an applicant or
the exclusion of a member from the fel
lowship of a Christian church. Yet, alas!
it is not a very uncommon thing for mem
bers of our churches to go to and permit
to visit those schools of vice
i with perfect impunity from church disci
pline. It seems from your reply to my
question about the morality or immoral
ity of taking or administering extra-judi
eial oaths, that you have not made up an
opinion upon the subject.* I have long
been of the opinion that it was even more
nefarious than those acts enumerated
above,about which we are agreed, because
more directly violative of the law of God,
forbiding the taking of “ His name in
vain;” the solemn injunction of Christ,
the great head of his church, to “ swear
not at all,” except on legal occasions, to
promote the end of’ good government ;
♦How could we have formed an opinion when our
, brother has never explained these oaths ?—given a
specimen.
NUMBER 44.
and, virtually, of the laws of oiir country,-
to which we are enjoined to be obedient ,*•
and I am more and more confirmed in my
opinion, by the exposition of such men as
Henry, Scott, Paley, &c ; Consequently
I deem the joining of any werldly and
unauthorised association, known to re
quire oaths of secrecy and fidelity to their
organization, composed as they invariably
are, of “ heterogenious materials, men of
all kinds of faith, and of no faith; men
of all kinds of principle, and of no prin
ciple ; men of all kinds of character and
conscience, and men of no character nor
conscience,” sufficient cause for rejection
or expulsion. And lam happy to find
myself sustained in this opinion, by the
Georgia Association and other similar in
telligent bodies of Christians, In the his-*
tory of that enlightened Association writ
ten by Jesse Mercer, it may be seen that
she condemned the act of joining a cer
tain secret society, known to require oaths
of fidelity from its members, and claim
ing to be the “ hand-maid of religion,”
and advised her churches to deal with
ond exclude their members from their fel
lowship, who joined and refused to come
out from ths.t society. This, sir, is a land
mark I should be pleased to see set up in
oil Baptist churches. Some of our sage
brethren, who have peeped into remote
antiquity, tell us that those-Christian sects
which fled into the wilderness frm Roman
Catholic and other persecutions, whom
they claim as Baptists, “ never swore,”
unless compelled by the powers that be.
This is a beautiful land mark, worthy the
imitation of all Christians. Much of the
irreligion so justly lamented by some of
your correspondents, may in my judg
ment, be attributed to the joining of oath
bound worldly societies, by ministers and
laymen of many of our churches, reckless
of the feelings of conscientious brethren,
and contrary too, to the scripture injunc
tion, to “be not unequally yoked togeth
er with unbelievers, but come out from
among them.” JUDSON.
Pass Him Round.
Rev. B. Williams,~of London, England,
is a strange man. When our beloved bro
ther B. Thomas, enquired in N Y, to whom
care in London, his letters should be sent
the Rev. B. Williams was given. On ar
riving at London, he called to get any
letters that might have been left there for
him. That professed disciple of Jesus
rudely repulsed him, and drove him from
his door as though he had been a filthy
beggar. In the harshest and mostungen
tlemanly manner, he said, “I have no let
ters for you, sin Have you any business
with me, sir,” &c. Bro. Thomas replied,
“ I have only come to get letters from my
children, which I took the liberty to have
addressed to your care, as I had no other
name in London.” “If you have no busi
ness, sir, I hope you will go, sir. Ido not
keep a boarding house, sir,” said he. Bro.
T. asked his pardon for disturbing him, to
which he replied, “Go right along, go
right along fi shutting the door in his face!
Is that English hospitality ? Are there
many such Baptist ministers in England ?
Will our English correspondent in Liver
pool explain? We talk of visiting the
“mother country” ere long, but if we cant
order letters from’ home to the care of
brethren there, without being liable to
abuse, we shall abide in the land of our
birth. Don’t forget the name, ye who
propose to visit England. Rev. B. Wil
liams. We advise Bro. Stovel, or Daw
son, or Spurgeon, to secure for him the
title of D. D. Perhaps the Scotch Uni
versities will confer the honor. For fear
the honor may be delayed by the delin
quent brethren there, we take the liberty
of conferring a title which we believe he
is worthy to wear, and by which he shall
he known in America. Rev. B. Wil
liams, N. G. No Gentleman. — lllinois
Baptist.
The following extract is taken from Dr.
Way land’s sermon on the crisis :
“ But suppose the worst to come ? Let
us look at it calmly, that we may estimate
it aright. Suppose you lose half your
property, and that your neighbors all are
as unfortunate as yourself; what then ?
Suppose that point lace and sables and
diamonds and pearls and jewelry were
thrown aside forever. Suppose that dres •
ses at a hundred dollars were exchanged
for dresses that cost only ten dollars; that
wool were substituted for silk, and calico
for wool; that we wore our old clothes
until we were able to pay for new ; that
instead of spending two or three months
of the year in fashionable folly, we and
our families remained at home ; suppose
that our sons, instead of becoming idle
and dissipated, were inured to honest la
bor, and that our daughters, instead of be
ing fashionable playthings, were taught
to be intelligent, useful, and self-reliant
women ; would this, after all, be a calami
ty too insufferable to be endured ? Should
all this happen, wherein would it touch
the essential springs of happiness in the
bosom of any reasonable being ? It is not
half so bad as the doing of a wrong, or
even a mean action. We could surely en
dure all this. J