Newspaper Page Text
THE CHRISTIAN INDEX,
PUBLISHED EVERY WEDNESDAY MORNING
AT MACON, GEORGIA,
Y A COMMITTEE OF BRETHREN,
FOR THE GEORGIA BAPTIST CONVENTION.
TERMS of subscription,
Two Dollars in advance: or paid within the year.
If suffered to overrun the year, Two Dollar
<• and mo-half will be charged in all cases. .
JOSEPH WALKER, Editor.
V OLUME 38— New S ERIES Y0L.27.
POETRY.
For the Index.
A Vi si oh of the old Year.
1 nny room at the close of the day,
TANARUS -in was folding her curtains of gray,
T -;,in-drojs were falling and seemed to say
* ‘'P for the year that is passing away.
I’. =siT ; away like a tale that is told
thy hoary head and garments old,
7 . it, I pray thee, whither now ?
<->! the stern and wrinkled brow ?
■ i.iid of earth, thou hadst better ask,
Wla* record I bear of th>/ life’s task,
• iars more and tlie book will be sealed
< - to It- opened till all is revealed.
ti. • duties that came with my birth ?
fulfilled them, daughter of earth ?
. imr-of any rest on thy head
■ .7 - ■ < i l ast scattered in montlis that have’
-- !,ie me, I cried, for too well I knew
-•• -Hi v efforts, my good deeds how few,
‘#reme —no comfort it brought,
rebuke it seemed to be fraught.
- ere running, farewell said the
* - ctwnin", and I disappear.
• aty mod I awaked with a start,
. . ... at vision abide in inv heart.
BERTHA.
, .Lw&lmu, Are. Sl*/ 1858.
selections!
APT -MA I. DISCUSS ION.
! “ c .-age is generally adverted
j Bkqptats, as irrefragable evi
dence that the word always meant im
-1 logical writers are learned
tiie highest rank, who em
•! ; ‘ words of the language, ac
to ordinary usage at the times
‘c*. l ime would fail to quote
historians, scientific and
•’.al Lien, orators and linguists,
. how they were ac
u-d to use baptizo.
1 >idy read one example of its
1 ndar, as a specimen of hum
• i h convey the same idea,
re- himself to a cork upon a
. n account of its buoyant
-. ‘ - ill not sink: “As when a
lnt* the sea, the cork swims
- .. I (abaptistoe) unbaptized.
i •:*. According to this exam
ng that remains on the sur
'he water, is not baptized, but
. rbe forced under, it is bap
. inkling, pouring, wetting,
.. ;.nii purifying, are all set
iapj isite to this example.
Ny o'y/id—that is, the old
u:- nos the Old Testament,
i u- being supposed the work
let era, has a remarkable
paotogc. to which I invite your atten
: “And Xaaman went down and
ij i ■ and himself seven times
“It is allowed,” saysJndd,
:.1 ban that ti e Hebrew word,
■ is a translation, ad
v uo other meaning hut
t tmnTates the word in this
: i-y t-tufvu, which mean* tp
‘ 1 u recoilepted, then, that
_ -. v. i .. the translators of the
: -n. as well as Luther the
*ve translated baptizo by
> c aid they not have done
New IWament? Xaaman
aiided to ica*h in Jordan,
c did by •Upping himself —a
mderatood how the wash
ing was to l*o effected.
* ‘ r the reader with the j
< in . They will
. us valuable asßUtane? in ascer
aning of baptizo.
: difficulty which a Baptist
c i.cessions of emi
: ‘Uptist scholars, in proof
means to immerse, i§ found
* ..at they are so numerous,
and • : c Inprise two, or three,
• . bat their name is legion.
it. nth quotes no less than
; . iobaptist writers of first
i-fity, in his “ Pa?dobaptism
’ ed- * Only a few of this dis
tingu:v:.<{ host can be introduced in
LI TllEll—“Baptism may be ren-
■'vbpn ve dip somc
• g ::i water, tliat it may be entirely
•rered with water,”
. \i.\T\—“The word baptize sig
- • • immerse, and the rite of im
mersion was observed by the ancient
AXt fill's—“The proper signify
. uaptize is to intmerse, plunge
:.dc-r. to overwhelm in water.”
-/ A—“ Christ commands us to be
1 : by which word it is pertain
miners ion is signified.”
.; X*A—“The act of baptizing
.nersionof a believer in water.
Iractpraaeg the force of the word.”
ET, bishop of Meaux—“To
- s.gnitiies to plnnge, as is grant
ed by all the world.”
fw • credible witnesses are sufficient
’’ - ii any fact to which they tesj
* ! \ and
tify, but here are six, and two of these
leading reformers. The voice of him
who caused the Pope to tremble on
his throne, affirms that baptism means
a dipping under water, and to the same
end do the others bear witness.
It may be well to name two or three
scholars of our own times. Let us
begin with
PROFESSOR STUART—“Bapto
and baptizo mean to dip, plunge or
immerse in any liquid.” Bib. Repos.
April 1833, p. 298.
DR. GEO. CAMPBELL—“Baptizo
signifies to dip, to plunge, to immerse,
and is always construed suitably to
this meaning.” Notes, Matt. iii. 11.
MACKNIGHT, in substance, bears
. the same testimony, p. 288.
We have now before us a jury of
learned men whose verdict cannot be
overruled, they have been selected
both from among the dead and the liv
ing, and their testimony is immortal.
As long as the baptismal controversy
shall be agitated, will this galaxy of
worthies, with Luther as their central
star, shed beams of radiant light on
the word baptizo.
The various translations of the sa
cred scriptures, which have been given
to the world at different periods of
time, supply us with an argument to
aid in determining tlie true rendering
of this term. And the common ver
sion itself which is used in all churches,
contains intrinsic evidence in favor of
Baptistic views. It is a singular fact,
that, in every case, where the term
baptizo has no connection with the
Christian rite of baptism, it is trans
lated by an English word; but where
it has such a connection, it is merely
transferred—that is, the Greek term is
retained. There was a reason for this
transfer, which will, in the sequel, be
developed.
There are two important facts on re
cord, which seem to me to decide the
question, as to the real import of bap
tizo. The first relates to the translation
of tlie Hebrew word taval into Greek;
the second to the rendering of the
same word into English. Nearly 300
years before Christ, the Old Testament
was translated into Greek by 72 Jews.
The word in 2 Kings, v. IT, which in
Hebrew means to dip, was translated
by baptizo. _\bout 1800 years after
this, 47 learned men, when making
our common version, translated the
same word into English, by dip. It is
not likely that the seventy-two could
have been mistaken, as to the true im
port of either the Hebrew or the Greek
word ; for in a multitude of counsel
lors there is wisdom. Nor, for the
same reason, is it probable that the
forty-seven translators of King James’
Bible, could have been deceived. If,
then, the Greek word baptizo is a por
rept’’translation of the Hebrew word
tayal , and if the English word dip is
the true rendering of taval; then dip
and baptizo, are synonymous—have the
6ame pieaning. For either is an exact
translation of this Hebrew word, and
therefore equal to it. But things equal ,
to the same thing, are equal to each
other—therefore baptizo and dip are ,
synonymous. From this conclusion, it
seems to me, there is no escape. j
Just here an interesting inquiry sug- j
gests itself, which is this: if the forty- <
seven translators of our Bible, could t
agree with seyepty-two predeces- s
sors in rendering the word in question <
as found in the passage concerning j
Naaman tlie Syrian, why did they not <
translate it from the Qreek pf the New
- where it is used in connec - \
tions very similar, and has the same
phraseology with that employed in the
ease referred to in the Septuagint? In
the latter work, the same verb, prepo
sition, article and river, are combined
to express thp ap.tiqji of Naaman, and
designate the place where that action
was performed; which we find used in
Matt. iii. 6, Mark i. 5, and (except the
change of en for eis) in Mark i. 9, of
the Greek Testament, to denote the
place, and express the action perform
ed on those whom John baptised. -&nd
yet, in the Old Testament the disputed
word is translated; in the New it is
not! In the case of Naaman, we have
ebaptisto en too Jordane j with refer
ence to those whom John baptized, we
read ebaptizonto en too Jordane ; and
yet in the former case, baptizo is trans
lated dipped; ‘m the latter it is not
translated a 4 fdh but Englished, by
changing the Breek 0 into an English
e, and adding a p, which, instead of
baptize;, makes fiapti?.^-
The question reeurs, why did they
not translate the word in this latter
instance? Not because they could not,
for they did translate it in the former
case. A fact in the history of our com
mon version will furnish the answer.
It is well known that King James im
posed several restrictions on the trans
lators, one of which was that the “old
ecclesiastical words” in the Bishop’s
Bible, “should be retained.” Among
these were church , bishops and baptize.
This solves the mystery —they dared
not translate the word. That they
would have translated the term, had
the royal restriction been removed,
may be inferred from tlie fact that
bapto the root of baptizo, though.not
the word in debate, is uniformly ren
dered dip , where it occurs in the New
Testament.
I will conclude the argument from
the translations by referring you to
the arduous and learned investigations
of Professor Gotch. This distinguish
ed scholar, formerly of Trinity College,
Dublin; recently of Stepney College,
London; examined the rendering of
baptizo in some forty translations of
the scriptures, ancient and modern,
in a large majority of the cases exam
ined, he found the Avoid translated by
native words signifying to immerse; in
others, involving the idea of immerse;
and in a few instances the Greek word
was “adopted in consequence of the
term having become current in the
language. In not a single translation
is the word defined by pour or sprinkle.
It is said—and I believe truly—that
the Pieddbaptist Missionaries to the
Seneca Indians, have translated bap
tizo by sprinkle, in a version of the
New Testament, made for that people.
With this modern exception, and, for
aught that I know, a few others, the
word in controversy, has never been
translated, in any age or country, so
as to suit the practice of Ptedobaptist
churches. And in the few modern in
stances referred to, the responsibility
of differing from older translations,
was assumed by interested parties, who
had a purpose to subserve, and whose
translations, on that account, ought
not to be considered as valid excep
tions to tlie usual and uniform custom.
Ancient and modern versions, there
fore, unite in giving immerse as the
proper meaning of baptizo.
TRUTH.
CONTRIBUTIONS.
For the Index.
Sovereignty of Baptist Churches.
REDLY TO “ 11. T. F. C.”
Can the Baptist Church at A, re
ceive an excluded member from the
Baptist church at B, without the con
sent of the church at B ?
The above question was made the
foundation for an article written by ns,
and published in tlie S. W. Bap. of 21st
last October, and copied into the Index.
The article has awakened some inquiry,
and called forth responses from differ
ent parts of the country.
In the Index of the 12th inst., a par
tial reply is attempted over the initials
“R.T. F. C.” lie answers the ques
tion “unequivocally” in the affirma
tive, and eays-“ We answer the church
at A, is equally a sovereignty with the
church at 13. When the church at A
reviews such a case, as stated, she re
views it for herself and not for tlie
chureh at B. This she lias a clear right
to do, or else she is not a sovereign
church.”
The proposition that equal sovereign
ty belongs to each church, was the
point sought to be established by ns in
our first article, and hence so much of
the above proposition as affirms the
sovereignty and independence of the
churches, meets with our unqualified
approbation. The absolute right of
each church to do just as she pleases,
was fully admitted by us in the open
ing paragraph of our article, in these
words : “No one wifi deny hut that
upoq principles of sovereignty and in
dependence each church can do any
thing she pleases ; but to do things ar
bitrarily and to to do things rightfully ,
are two distinct matters. Can the
church at A, rightfully receive the ex
cluded member? That's the question.
It was taken for granted, by ns, in
our first article, and is now taken for
granted, that the word of God is the
aw G,f all Baptist churches ; and that
those only are offences which are ex
pressly or by direct implication viola
tive of that word. Outside or beyond
the inspired record the churches can
not go. Such offences, only fall with
in the legitimate authority, of the
churches, Contributions to, missions,
oining temperance societies, sending
[children to Sunday school, holding
slaves, &c., are not proper subjects of
church authority, inasmuch as they are
not recognized as offences by the great
law of Christ.
While we admit, (it is our faith and
fire can’t burn it out of us in this day
of Martyrs) the sovereignty and inde
pendence of each church, we
deny the deduction of our reviewer,
that “ the church at A, has the clear
right to review or she is not a sover
eign church.” Sovereignty cannot ex
ist over the same persons, and in the
same territory , in two distinct bodies
MACON, WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 1859.
; at the same time. The authority of a
, sovereign church only extends to those
! subjects and those persons over which
she has control and jurisdiction. A
sovereign, although he is absolute in
his own dominions, can become a gross
usurper when he travels out of his ter
ritory, and assumes to intermeddle in
the affairs of another sovereign. A
sovereign lias no right— rightful right
to go out ot his own territory into that
of his neighbor, and voluntarily take
upon himself* the settlement of that
neighbors affairs. Whenever it is
done, it is not only an assumption of
superior wisdom and rectitude; it is
not only a reflection on the character
of that neighbor, but a direct and pal
pable invasion of that neighbors rights.
And the offence is none tire less be
cause the aggression and interference
was invited by a convicted subject of
the invaded province, WTmfd it not
be a strange proceeding on the part of
the United States to invade the do
minions of great Britain and settle.the
internal affairs of that kingdom?—
Would it he right l lias she the right
ful right to do it ? Would it not be a
palpable and direct violation of Eng
land’s lights, and sovereignty, and in
dependence? So it will be seen that
a sovereign can in the exercise of an
absolute right become a trespasser;
but never in the exercise of a rightful
or moral right.
. Sovereigns, because they arc sover
eigns, and amenable to no higher power
can do as they please; but in doing as
they please they cau do great wrong
afld injustice. Because they have no
moral right to become wrong-doers and
commit acts ot injustice they lose none
of their sovereignty. 111 the despotic
and absolute kingdom of Russia, where
all power resides in the hands of the
Emperor, the right to decapitate does
not invest him with the moral right to
kill his subjects at will. lie is none
the less a sovereign because the great
law of humanity will not allow of his
exercising his power and right in any
such a barbarous manner. This rule
is acted on in every day life, by all the
freemen of the land. Absolute right
must, in numberless instances, be in
.obeysauce and insubordination to mor
al right—its co-relative moral duties,
and the decencies and proprieties of
civilized life. It is no abatement or
infringement of our absolute rights,
that we do not, because we cannot con
scientiously, exercise them ; or else
when the drunkard, in his efforts at
reformation, declined to get drunk, he
would lose tire legal right to get
drunk, and cease, to that extent, to be
a freeman. It is no abatement sf our
rights that we cannot exercise them
without producing discord and destroy
ing the peace and harmony pf our
neighborhood. Nor is it any abate
ment of the absolute rights of a church,
that she eannof, in conscience, exer
cise her right jo produce discord and
sow the seeds of dissension.
The fact that two Baptist churches
are sovereignties , and there is no high
er tribunal having jurisdiction over
them, renders it the more imperatively
necessary, that they should not inter
fere with each others matters, nor in
vade each others jurisdiction. If there
were appelate tribunals with power to
.reverse, then the complaining party
coulj appeal, and her wrongs be re
dressed, her rights be restored. That
there are no such appelate tribunals,
is an admission, that sueh cumbrous
establishments are not needed, and
that each church has full disciplinary
power and can take cai’e of its own af
fairs without interference from others.
But if these dangerous eclesiastical or
ganizations are needed in substance,
why not in form f If one ehurchs’ ac
tion within her legitimate authority
and jurisdiction— her exclusive author
ity and jurisdiction pan be set aside
and reversed by any other church, then
the sooner we have such tribunals in
augurated the better. If one church
wilFhave no more respect for the ju
dicial acts of another church, the soon
er we have some higher and superior
organization to compel such respect,
the better. If our governnfents are
too weak to enforce discipline on ac
count of the want of concert of action
among each other, let it be made
stronger by ereoting a hierarchy over
all. Better to have despotism than no
government at all. Any ovegrnment
is better than one that in its efforts to
enforce obedience and respect, only
produces disftord and mortifies its sub
jects by an exhibition of its inherent
weakness and effeteness. Any govern
ment is better than no government
at all.
But thanks to the Bible—ouubook
of constitutions, our eclesiastical sys
tem needs no such great balance wheel.
The simplicity and independence of
our several churches make ours a self
adjusting system. Errors cannot be
perpetuated. Individual churches may
err, but the great majority will con
tinue to vindicate those principles that
are the very foundation stones of our
spiritual edifice.
While it may be true, as a matter of
fact, that the church at Alias the ab
solute right, by virtue of her sover
eignty, (having the right to do anything
she pleases,) to receive the excluded
member, but the refusal to exercise
that absolute right, for the want of
moral right, does not, in the least, im
pair her sovereignty and independence.
Let it always be borne in mind, that
while the church at A has all the
rights, compatible with the highest
state of independence, she owes duties
to other churches which may render
the exercise of those rights not only
improper, but sinful; and which may
actually take away from her the moral
right to b a particular thing. And
this brings us’to the proposition, that
the church at A having no right — mor
al or rightful right—to weaken the dis
ciplinary power of the church at B,
nor weaken the force of her judgement,
nor impair her sovereignty, has no
right to receive the excluded member
without the consent of the church atß.
Nor is the church at A any the less
a sovereign or an independent body,
because she refuses to commit this great
wrong, by refusing to hear and deter
mine an alleged offence committed ont
of her jurisdiction, and which has been
tried and solemnly adjudicated by an
other church, having competent and
even exclusive jurisdiction.
Nor is she any the less, independent
because a high sense of duty, and a be
coming respect for the rights of others,
will not allow her to interfere witli
those rights, by doing an act that will
produce discord, destroy fellowship,
and break up the peace of Zion. Nor
is she any the less a sovereign, because
by respecting the rights of others, she
raises defences around her own domin
ions that will better protect her from
invasion, insult, and degrading despo
tism.
It is a fundamental mistake in “B.
T. F. C.” (a mistake fatal to his whole
argument,) to suppose that the “ legal
power” of an act of expulsion, “reach
es no farther” than the bounds of the
excluding church. From this propo
sition lie deduces the argument that
the decision of the church receiving
the excluded member “ would not be
a decision as against the decision of the
church at B, to make it null and void.”
The judgment of expulsion pro
nounced by the church at B, does a
deal more than exclude the of
fender from her fellowship and mem
bership — it excludes him from the fel
lowship and membership of other
churches, and from the communion of
all saints. He becomes to all the other
churches as a “ heathen man andapub
licanf And he must remain in this
condition until some additional act is
done, that in some way invalidates the
force and effect of the judgment of the
excluding church. While in his ex
cluded state he cannot come to the
communion table of any church of the
“ same faith and order” in the land.
The very terms of invitation exclude
him, as they do from all its delibera
tion and conferences. How dare any
Baptist church invite to her table any
other than members of “ good standing
in other churehes~ofthe same faith and
order.” And *nder this invitation
how can the excluded member get a
seat? If she cannot invite any others
to her table (and who will say that she
can ?) is it not a fall, complete, and un
qualified admission that the judgment
of expulsion has some “ legal effect”
beyond the limits of the excluding
church? Is it not an admission also
, that said judgment is binding on other
churches, so long as it stands unre
pealed, unreversed, or is in some way,
or by some kind of “ hokus pokus” set
aside ? She can never sit with him in
conference, give him the hand of fel
lowship, receive him into her member
ship, or invite him to her table, so long
as the action of the excluding church
stands in its full force, and until its
lawfulness is enquired into and deter
mined. Until it is determined that a
legal anthority has been wrongfully
exercised ; and then declaring the act
of expulsion wrong —which is a virtual
reversal and setting aside of the judg
ment—and an actual and positive an
nulling its force and effect. Thus the
rights and sovereignty of the church at
B} are invaded, inasmuch as her judg
ment in its full force and effect is set
aside. The act of receiving him into
fellowship, restores him to privileges
from which he was debarred by the
judgment of expulsion ; fft restores him
to the fellowship of the saints, it re
stores him to the communion table and
gives him <j> right to a seat at it, to
which he could not before come, and
| to which the church at A could not in-
vite him. TP 7to can restore but the ex
eluding power ?
We come now to this proposition,
that as the judgment of expulsion, in
all its full force and binding effect, is
an act of legitimate and even exclusive
authority, any action of any other
church in setting aside or in any wise
weakening or invalidating it, is an act
of usurpation, a violation of the rights
of the excluding church, and therefore
an infringement of lier sovereignty.—
To set aside, review or reverse a judg
ment, can oulg be done by courts of
higher and appelate jurisdiction. If
such a tribunal is necessary, let us have
it bodily—in form and substance—and
the sooner the better.
The good brother thinks we did not
see but one side of the question ; oth
ers may think he did not see teiher
side.
• Since writing the foregoing article,
we have seen an able article from Rev.
Mr. Teague, in the last S. W. Baptist.
It is gratifying to know that our views
meet with the approbation of one so
well calculated to form a correct judg
ment on them. VINDEX.
For the Index.
BROTHERLY LOVE.
Love is a disposition, which lies at
the foundation of true holiness and
virtue. It is the basis, the cement,
and beauty of the Christian Union. It
brings our souls into fellowship with
God; moulds our affections into con
formity with what He wills; makes us
rejoice in His perfections.ahd glories,
and devoutly to contemplate them as
the highest, and noblest subjects of
thought; it keeps the idea of this su
premely beloved object before our
minds; turns to it with adoring ardor
from the distractions and strifes of
earth, and unites it with every scene
of beauty and majesty in nature.
The stress which is laid upon it in
in the word of God; the manner in
which it is stated, and the frequency
with which it is enjoined, prove the
importance of it in our Christian tem
per, and its vast influence on the world.
It is enforced by our Lord, as the dis
tinguishing law of his kingdom. “This
is my commandment, that ye love one
another as I have loved you.” The
subjects of his kingdom are to be
known and distinguished by their mu
tual affection. All who have felt the
gracious influences of God’s pardoning
grace, “are taught of God,” says Paul,
“to love one another.” This is deno
minated the new commandment in the
Gospel economy; not that there was
no love before the advent of Christ;
but now it is more powerfully enforced
by holy example. Christ was an in
carnation of love upon the earth. Ilis
birth was the nativity of love; his
teachings are words of love, his cru
cifixion was the agony of love; his re
surrection the glorious triumph of it.
Hence the necessity of its being a car
dinal principle in the conduct of Chris
tians, and a law regulating each others
conduct.
Love is a fruit of the Holy Spirit,
and can be exercised only in such
hearts as have been regenerated. By
this divine act, jealousy, ambition, pre
judice, and every corrupt evil influ
ence, is dispelled from our hearts, and
we are made to exercise complaisance,
forbearance, and sympathy for our
brethren in all their distresses and dif
ficulties.
Our heavenly Father enjoined this
grace upon his children, with all the
tenderness and solemnity of a father:
and it was echoed by his apostles to
all the churches, to abound and conti
nue in this holy principle.
Complaisance is considered the very
essence of love. We should feel a pe
culiar delight in each others welfare,
as heirs of the grace of God ; partici
pants of his precious faith; and sharers
of a common salvation. The love of
Christians is of a sacred and peculiar
nature. It is not that of consanguini
ty or friendship, but it is an affection
cherished for Christ’s sake. This ena
bles Christians to love all, who reflect
the image of Christ, and look upon
them as objects of Ilis grace and un
dying love. Forbearance is a part of
love. “Forbearing one another in
love.” All Christians have their natu
ral peculiarities. These should not
cause us to condemn them; but feel
the greater necessity to pray for, and
with one another, that these may be
overcome. In all our conduct, a spirit
of Christian charity should character
ize us; for the apostle more than once
intimates, that we may bestow all our
goods to feed the poor, and give'our
bodies to be burned, and have not cha
rity, it profiteth nothing. (1 Cor. xiii.
5.)
Love enables us “to bear one ano
thers burdens, and so fulfil the law of
Christ.” And when Faul declared
love to be the fulfilling of the law, he,
TERMS OF ADVERTISING.
As an advertising medium, the unrivalled circula
tion of the Index, makes it one of the most valua
ble in the State.
For all transient advertising One Dollar per square
of ten lines for the first, and 50 cents per square
of all subsequent publications.
RATES FOR CONTRACT ADVERTISEMENTS.
1 square of 10 lines per 3 months # 4 00
“ “10 “ § “ 700
“ “10 “ “.A year 10 00
These lines are the leaf advertising lines and the
charge is for the space occupied by ten such lines as
are used in the body of an advertisement. Longer
advertisements in same ijhtio.
Number 5.
iff so many words, declared that the
law could not be fulfilled without it;
and every action that has not this for
its principle, fails to accomplish the
precepts obligatory upon us. It re
quires us to listen to the tale of woe
which our brotner presents; mingle
our tears with his; and offer the con
solations ot the Gospel. Sympathy is
the finest, the most natural expression
of love.
Let brethren cultivate this holy prin
ciple, and there will be an end to all
the strife and unholy contention and
party spirit that now exist; and more
of that heavenly spirit be felt, that en
abled Paul “to know nothing” among
the dissenting Corinthians “but Christ,
and him crucified.” It is a fearful
thought, that unless we “love our bre
thren the love of God is not in us.”
(1 John iv. 20.)
Let us adopt the advice of Paul to
the Ephesians; “Bet all. bitterness and
wrath, and anger, and clamor, and evil
speaking, be put away with all malice:
And he ye kind one to another, tender
hearted, forgiving one another, even
as God for Christ, sake has forgiven
us.” , J. S. S.
For the Index.
A FAMILIAR WORD TO FRIENDS.
Albany| Ga., Jan. 25, 1859.
Dear Brother Walker:—Allow me
to say to my dear brethren who read
the'lndex, with whom I am acquainted,
and to whom I have been requested
to write with regard to my health, &c.,
that since I have located my health is
better. When I took charge of my
two churches, (Pine Bluff and Bethes
da,) the first of November, I had seri
ous fears that I would have to give
them up. By prudence in my delive
ry, and avoiding night air, as I have
done, I hope I may be able to serve
them without much inconvenience.—
My dear brethren to whom I address
this testimony of my love and remem
brance, with all others, I desire your
prayers. Submission to God’s will, is
hard for my rebellious heart, especially
in affliction. $
How glad I would be to have avis it
brethren, from any of you,,official or
unofficial, and if you come to Albany
let me see you, if convenient, for I am
near by.
In one of my churches I have bap
• tizetj two blacks; in the other, one
white member, and a colored one wait
ing for next Sabbath. One of my
churches complied with the request of
the Albany church; and observed the
first day of the year; the other ob
served last Saturday, and they were
two of the most pleasant meetings we
have bad.
Dear brethren and sisters,
I am yours truly,
W. N. CIIAUDOIN.
THE TOOTHACHE.
“My dear friend,” said H., “I can
cure your toothache in ten minutes.”
“How ? how ?” inquired I. “Do it,
in pity!” . {
“Instantly,” said he. “Have you
any alum ?”
“Yes.”
“Bring it, and some common salt.”
They were produced. - My friend
pulverized them, mixed them in equal
quantities, then wet a small piece of
cotton, causing the mixed powder to
adhere, and placed it in my hollow
tooth.
“There,” said he, “if that does not
cure you I will forfeit my head. You
may tell this to every one, and pub
lish it everywhere. The remedy is in
fallible.”
It was as he predicted. On the in
troduction of the mixed alum and salt,
I experienced a sensation of coldness,
which gradually subsided, and with
it —alum and salt—l cured the tor
ment of the toothache.—Mandeville
Reader.
Poverty a Blessing.— Poverty is
the nurse of manly energy and heaven
climbing thoughts attended by love,
and faith, and hope, around whose
steps the mountain breezes blow, and
from whose countenance all the virtues
gather strength. Look around you
upon the distinguished men that in
every department of life guide and
control the times, and inquire what
was their origin and what was their
early fortune. “Were they, as a gene
ral rule, rocked and dandled in the lap
of wealth i No; such men emerged
from the homes of decent competence
or of struggling poverty. Necessity
sharpens their faculties; and privation
and sacrifice brace their moral nature.
They learn the great art of renuncia
tion, and enjoy the happiness of hav
ing few wants; they know nothing of
indifference or satiety. There is not
an idle fibre in their frames; they
put the vigor of a resolute purpose in
to every act. The edge of their mind
is.jilways kept sharp; in the school of
life, men like these meet the softly
nurtured darlings of prosperity as iron
meets the vessel of porcelain.