Newspaper Page Text
ttoex.
KXJfW® HUT tUOL l lI XOSXIIO
AT IICOX, OBORGIA.
• T A C9IIITTKI OF BRETHREN.
pm rat
mts or subscription,
(<BMUl'iaWnKt: tyi< writium the year.
IfaArMi*
•naut 3lWfkit(4 iiall -ss-
S\MUEL BOYKIN. Editor.
VOLU3IE xxxix.
STANDING RULES
AGENTS.
tir F. B. 3atm, Gtaml Agent.
IS tip- Ministers are Agents; and any one
HMtTirj and the name* of famr new subscri-
Wn viß be eatitled to an extra copy. By Clnb
baac tax ptrsoai can procure the paper for SIO.OO.
-y jabxnbtn wishing to hare their papers
ii i—riirs~f. rfaooid rire express notice to that ef
fect—Mi by the retara of a paper, bat hjr Utter. —
Tber should be sore that all arrearges are paid;
.■< •• Car as sacb payments may bare been made
to aa y--as or • yemta, they should inform us to
■horn, aha, and Want*.
gs Panoo* forwarding their names with pay*
eat a* adraaeo, will be particular to inform us ii
er wish their eobseription di.-coti tinned when the
term of payment kv expired ; otherwise they are
•apposed to bo permanent subscribers.
*y Agent-i and others in ordering the paper,
yt remitting payments, should be careful to have
(be name and Pot Office address of each subscri
ber with the amount paid, DIsTIeCT AND LEGI
BLE. Our accounts are kept with each subscril>er
individually, and not with agents merely.
Persona ordering the direction of a paper
to be changed from one Tost Office to another,
should be careful to mention the names of both of-
with the County and State.
PJT Bank-notes, if properly secured from de
pSfl||gfMn may be sent to us by mail, at our risk ;
nra rifled t w *. if the receipt of the money is not ac
knowledged in the paper within one month, the
sender 4H promptly notify us that the money was
sent.
When the amount is large send by Express, or
by Chock.
TERMS :—Two Dollars, in Advancr.
NOTICE. — To send money with safety —Seal
the ietter carefully and mail it yourself, saying no
thing to any one about the money, not even the
Post MBter. Don’t register. Address “ CHRIS
TIAN INDEX,” Macon, Georgia.
Book Notices.
Campbkli.ism Exposed; in an Examination of
Lard’s Review of Jeter, by A. P. Williams, of Sa
line county, Mo.
Four points discussed in Mr. Lard’s book are
noticed. 1. Christian Experience. 2. The duty of
uubaptised persons to pray. 4. The agency of the
Holy Spirit in Conversion. 5. Baptism in order to
remission of sins.
We have not read this book through, but what
we have read convince us that Mr. Williams is a
dear, pointed, pithy writer, with a full eompre
hension of his subject; and our opinion is that he
has given Campbcllism a blow from which it will
not recover. There is an interesting introduction
by Dr. Jeter, who sass:
“Mr. W. marches straight forward to his object
His reasoning is clear, strong, and resistless. It
is amusing to see with what ease he lifts the veil
from the sophistries of Mr. Lard. He takes aconi
prehensive grasp of his subject, dissects it with a
masterly hand, and causes the light of truth to
shine through every part of it. He is at home in
the Scriptures; and has evidently drawn his theo
logical views from a careful, independent study of
them. *
Tfic style of the work is concise, clear, and ner
vous. Its spirit is excellent, and contrasts most
favorably with the virulent example of his oppo
nent. It is calm, firm, kind, forbearing.
Methodism Si’ccessfcl, and the internal causes
of its success ; by Rev. B. F. Test, D. D., LL. D.,
with a letter of Introduction, by Bishop Janes.—
Derby & Jackson, N. Y.
This is a rather singular book and will be much
read by Methodists. It is full of interest because
of the numerous persons ol whom it treats. Jno.
Wesley, of course, is much exalted and the system
of Methodism is styled “the restoration of our
primitive religion, a recovery of the real Gospel
of the Son of God so long lost beneath the rub
bish of human dogmas,” that is, “the recovered
ideal of Christianity,” and “the recovery of the
ideal of religious life and worship,” all of which,
if it includes the system of Methodist Episcopacy,
is calculated to excite a smile upon the Baptist
face. The author however is in earnest; and
doubtless has convinced himself of the truth ofall
in lys book. Sold by J. W. Burke, Macon, Ga.
An Exposition op the Book of Ecclesiastes, —
By the Rev. Charles Bridges, M. A., author of
“An Exposition of Psalm CXIX,” “Commentary
on Proverbs,” “Christian Ministry.” “Memoir of
Mary Jane Graham,” etc., 12mo. pp. 884. X. Y.
Robert Carter k Bros. 1860.
This is a very neat book of 384 pages well prin
ted and bound. Its author is known by his treat
ise on the Christian Ministry and by Commentaries
on Proverbs and the 119th Psalm.
He begins with a valuable preface wherein he
discusses the authorship, date, Divine authority
and main scope and object of the boot. His ob
ject see nas to have been to give apractical and ju
dicious Commentary, interspersing reflections and
dons imbued with feeling and piety. He studied
the Book we ! 11 upon which he comments and in his
views agrees with the generality of Commen
tators. His desire was to be practical rather than
critical, hence the volume will do good ; for sel
dom is the hidden wealth of a rich mine brought
out in greater and more useful abundance than is
done in this work.
or Corrective Church Discipline, by
A. S. Worrell, A. M. Graves, Marks & Cos., with
an Introduction by President Crawford.
The publication of this Review in the columns
of the Index precludes the necessity of an exten
ded notice.
Much interesting matter is added in the form of
an appendix, making a very neat volume of 300
pages.
Text Book or Church History, by Dr. John
Henry Kurtz, Prof, of Theology in the University
of Dorhat. VoL 1. To the Reformation. Transla
ted by J. H. A. Bomberger, on the basis of the
Edinburg translation. Lindsay & Blakiston, Pbila
This is a very valuable boob, and is the work of
a learned man, tho’ it is very evident that he is
not a Baptist. It embraces almost every subject
to be treated of in a church history and generally
with great candor and abundance of information.
Beginning at the beginning of the world’s history
it glances along the path of time noting all sub
jects of interests pertaining to ecclesiastical mat
ters and brings the student down to the Reforma
tion.
There is so much information ia the book that
we pronounce it valuable. It combines lucid con
ciseness with full apprehensiveness to a rare de
gree. And although it cannot, of course, supply
the place of larger works on the subject, already
issued, or in course of publication, it will tend to
satisfy a great want in this department of litera
ture. For sale by J. W. Burke, Macon.
Fortt Years Epperience in Sunday Schools,
by Stephen H.Jyng, D. D. Sheldon & Cos., New
York.
This book is composed of a series of letters that
#rpit af % Cflitknfwn: kimteir to JPissiflits, attir % fitfmsts us % baptist jifiuratkafwn.
* ■■ ■■
were published and read with avidity in the N. Y.
li.dependent; and is a capital book. It is good
lor fostering the spirit of Sabbath Schools, good
ior encouraging children, good for instructing Su
perintendents, and good for guiding and encoura
ging teachers.
It goes into the minutiae of S. Schools, gives ac
tual experience and advances practical instruc
tions. The spirit of the book is good—one pas
sage proves that “Every church is bound, as a So.
ciety or family of the Lord’s people, to take the
utmost care of the instruction and training of the
youth belonging to them ”
This is plain; and it is strongly urged. We
commend the book to all our Sabbath School
teachers and superintendents.
The Benepit op Christ’s Death, or the glorious
riches of God’s free Grace, which every true be
liever receives by Jesus Christ and Him crucified.
By Agnio Faleario. Gould & Lincoln, Boston.
This remarkable book, written three centuries
ago and supposed lost has been fortunately recov
ed and judiciously reprinted. Its author was an
evangelical Italian who suffered martyrdom for
his opinions and whose book was proscribed by
the Jesuits and destroyed, but an English transla
tion was discovered from which this is reprinted.
The book is eminently scriptural and lays down
the plan of justification by faith with a plainness
and perspicuity that is marvellous. It treats of
original sin and man’s wretchedness: how the
law’ was given by God, to the end that we, know
ing our sin, and having not any hope of ability to
make ourselves righteous by our own works,should
have recourse to God’s mercy and unto the right
eousness of faith: how the forgiveness of our sins,
our justification and our salvation, depend upon
Jesus Christ: of the effects of lively faith, and of
the union of man’s soul with Jesus Christ: in what
wise the Christian is clothed with Jesus Christ:—
certain remedies against distrust. The reader will
be delighted with the treatment of these sub
jects, if he believes in the doctrine of the imputa
tion of Christ's righteousness—which is nothing
more than a Christian’s being saved on account
of Christ’s Righteousness in which he puts his faith,
having no righteousness of his ow n.
We commend the book highly.
Stories op Scotland, and its adjacent Islands,
by Mrs. Thos. Geldart.
This is another one of Mrs. Geldart’s charming
stories for children. There is a charm about Scot
land of which we never tire. It is peculiarly the
laud of Romance nd of Romantic history. Ever
since we read Tales of a Grand Father and devour
ed Mrs. Porter’s Scottish Chiefs, to say nothing of
Rob Roy, we have been enamored of Scottish His
tory ; and if we were a child, we would h&il this
little book with delight. It is so picturesque, dis
criptive and historically healthy in its tone, and
describes so many famous persons and places that
we would gloat over it. We say to all our young
readers—Be sure to get it. Published by Sheldou
& Cos., N. Y.
CHURCH INDEPENDENCE.
BA’ N. M. CRAWFORD, D. D.
The author goes on, “Expulsion does
not leave a man in the same condition
that reception found him.” Granted :
what then ? reception and
expulsion are not commensurate ideas
nor correlative terms.” I most confess
[do not see any connection between
the conclusion and the reason from
which it professes to be drawn. I sup
pose the terms ‘reception’ and ‘expul
sion’ are used to mean what I meant
when I said ‘admit’ and ‘exclude.’—
Now, if receiving or admitting one in
to a church, and excluding or expel
ling one from a church, are not corre
lative phrases, I must confess myself
ignorant of the meaning of the words.
Because the man is not in the same
condition as before, therefore the terms
are not correlative! John leaves home,
and after an absence of six months, re
turns home. But he left home gay and
happy and well ; he returns dejected,
miserable and sick ; therefore leaving
home and returning home are not cor
relative terms nor commensurate ideas!
“To gain a fortune,” and “to lose a for
tune,” appear to me to be ‘correlative’
and ‘commensurate’ although the man
may be left in a very different condit
ion. At first he may have been young
and strong, and industrious, and ener
getic ; at the last he may be old and
infirm, and indolent, enervate. The
things spoken of in all these instances
are correlative and commensurate ;
while the condition of the individuals
are only incidental, and do not affect
the thing itself.
The author concludes the paragraph
thus, “Do you ask me, in reply, ‘ls
every church bound by the action of
others.’ Without stopping to expose
the tallacy contained in the word
‘bound,’ I reply, every church is bound
to obey the.commands of the Master;
and they prohibit it to interfere with
the internal discipline of its neigh
bors.” p. 108
Only remarking that the word
‘bound’ in the reply contains just as
much fallacy as the same word in the
question, we all agree that every church
is bound to obey the commands of the
Master. But we have seen that when
the author undertook to produce ‘pos
itive precept’ that ‘one church cannot
receive to membership the excluded of
another,’ he failed most egregiously.
And when he said ‘Nowhere in the
New Testament is to be found a pre
cept containing a rule for the organiza
tion and government of a gospel church.
For our ideas and practices upon these
subjects we are dependent exclusively
upon inspired example.’ We have
seen that his solitary example not only
did not sustain him, but did not even
exist. And now again he speaks of
commands, which he has not produced,
and does not produce.
Turn it, twist it as you may, the
question resolves into this : Is the ac
tion of a church, whether right or
wrong, binding on all others? Take
the case before supposed, where a
church unjustly excludes an innocent
man ; we are told that this unjust ac
tion is final; that there is no remedy
except from the church expelling him ;’
that all churches must treat him as a
heathen ; that the commands of Christ
MACON, GA., WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 12, 1860.
require this : but these commands are
never produced.
The precepts of the New Testament
and the recorded usage of the Apos
tolical churches do furnish us complete
instruction in regard to the organiza
tion of a church. But in the govern
ment of a church organized after the
New Testament pattern, regard must
often be had to general principles,
drawn from particular precepts and in
dividual cases. It is of necessity so ;
for no book could contain special rules
for every particular case.
I come back to recapitulate the es
sential principles of church organiza
tion and government.
Every church of Jesus Christ is com
posed of regenerated, faithful, and ho
ly persons, men and women, who have
been properly immersed into the name
of the Father, the Son, and the Holy
Spirit.
Every church is alike subject in all
things in Jesus Christ; and therefore
no church is sovereign.
Every church derives all its power
from Jesus Christ ; and is responsible
to him alone for its use or abuse.
Every act of a church which is ac
cording to Christ’s law, contained in
the New Testament, is authorized and
valid: and every act not according to
Christ’s law is unauthorized and in
valid.
Every church is independent of all
other churches ; and is bound, not by
their action or opinion but by the law
of Jesns Christ.
Each church must be the sole jndge
of the qualifications of its “members ;
and should receive or reject, retain or
exclude an individual, according as his
character, in her judgment, conforms
or fails to conform to the standard laid
down in the New Testament.
If an innocent member is unjustly
excluded by a particular church, that
exclusion does not make him an nnre
generate, unLoly, or unfaithful man ;
and therefore does not disqualify him
for membership in any church that
obeys the gospel.
If one church receives, or retains in
its membership an individual deemed
by another church unfit to be a mem
ber ; this does not constitute a breach
offellowship : for each is independent,
and its right to judge for itself is inde
feasible.
If one church excludes one of its mem
bers, believing him to be guilty; and
another church, believing him to be in
nocent, receives him; this does not
constitute a breach of fellowship. It
is only a particular application of the
preceding principle.
If the two churches themselves get
quarrel abynt the matter, thelfs.
why other churches should
join in and swell the tninult. It can
never be made article of faith, wheth
er John Smith is or is not a bad man.
Let those who know him form their
judgment in soberness and charity.
These are my opinions, not lately
adopted, nor now for the first time ad
vanced. I do not cherish them be
cause they are mine ; but I have adop
ted them because I believe them to be
true: and while I believe them to be
true I will cherish them. If I should
be convinced that they are wrong, I
will discard them as promptly as I
adopted them; and will renounce them
as publicly as I have maintained them.
Brethren who profess to have written
with reference to no particular case,
have charged me with writing with
reference to the Nashville difficulty.—
At the same time, strenuously oppo
sing my views they affirm that these
views do not bear upon that difficulty.
Be it so : then why should not these
opinions be calmly considered and so
berly adjudged. I ask, What ground
is there for division in holding these
principles or in reducing tliem to prac
tice ? Bnt the case has gone to the ju
ry. Let them decide.
Rejoinder to Dr. Crawford.
BY P. H. MELL, D. D.
NUMBER 5.
I find ready to my hand such an
able and courteous exposure of the fal
lacy in Dr. C.’s objection from the gift
ed pen of Rev. L. B. Woolfolk, that I
shall do my readers a greater favor by
adopting it than by attempting any
thing myself:
“The discussion began on the ab
stract question : Has one church the
right to receive a member excluded
from another?
We have already given the princi
ples of church comity, which preclude
churches from the reception of exclu
ded members, and we do not now pro
pose to present them again. We only
intend now to examine the course of
argumentation adduced by the most
profound thinker and astute reasoner
among those who maintain this as a
legitimate right of a church.
In the discussion of this question
Dr. Crawford is in the affirmative.
Upon him rests the burden of proof,
because,
1. He is in the affirmative ;
2. His views are novel;
3. He claims power for a Church,
which, as a church is possessed of no
power but those especially granted, he
is bound to establish.
In the absence of proof the proposi
tion is a mere assertion, unsupported
by evidence, and entitled to no respect.
The very fact that no arguments are
adduced in its support, is proof that it
cannot be maintained.
But Dr. Crawford is exceedingly un
willing to assume the burden of proof.
It has belonged to him clearly through
out the discussion, and to escape it he
has avoided a direct issue, and stated
his argument in an indirect form, to
give himself the negative, and throw
upon his opponents the onusprobandi.
So cautious is he, that even the prin
ciple from which all his conclusions are
interred—instead of enunciating it di
rectly, and establishing it, as he was
bound to do, he attributes its opposite
to his opponents, and denounces’ it as
an absurdity! This extreme case, and
the exhibition of such cautious skill,
evinces a consciousness of want of
strength, and as we cannot assert this
of the reasoner, it must inhere in his
cause.
But let us examine this principle
which he attributes to his opponents.
It is this: “ The decision of a church
excluding a member, whether that de
cision is right or wrong, binds all oth
er churches and church members to
treat the excluded as a heathen and a
publican.”
We wish in the first place, to say as
regards this proposition, that it has
never been made ths basis of any ar
gument in this discussion. Those who
have denied the right of a church to
receive an excluded member, have al
ways grounded their objections upon a
want of power—the absence of author
ity to do so. And this argument it is
incumbent on Dr. Crawford to answer,
and when he claims such power for a
church, to. prove its existence. Instead
of doing so he denies that the decision
of a church does, whether right or
wrong, bind other churches. Every
one must see that this does not meet
the question. It is as if, when it were
affirmed that a person has not the
strength to remove a stone, it should
be replied that he can, for he is not
bound by the act of the person who
placed it there!
This position of Dr. Crawford is no
thing more than an objection. And
even if it were unanswerable, he well
knows the difference between an unan
swerable objection jmd an unanswera
ble argument. Objections qiay be
urged against things that are certainly
true. There are unanswerably objec
tions against a plenum , and unanswer
able objections against a vacuufa, but
one or the other is unquestionably
true. We say this merely to show the
logical unsoundness of Dr. Crawford’s
mode of argument; not that his objec
tion is by any meaus unanswerable.—
We will now state it:
OBJECTION STATED.
The issue, be it remembered, is:
“Has a church the right to receive a
member excluded from another ?” This
Dr. CrawforcUaffirms. but instead of
adducing argument to prove
it, he to disprove the nega
tive. He oSjdtts that the negative in
volves an absnrdity. He maintains
that if a church has not the right to
receive a member excluded from an
other, it follows that the decision of
the excluding church, whether right or
wrong, binds all other churches, &c.
IT MUST BE PROVED VALID.
This objection though resorted to as
a means of escaping the burden of
proof, so far from relieving the objec
tion, fixes it firmly upon bin* Dr.
Crawford here makes two affirirfations,
1. If the first, i. e. the antecedent
member of this proposition is true, the
other, i. e. the consequent, necessarily
follows:
2. This consequent is false; and
hence he argues that the other is also
false.
Both these propositions Dr. Craw
ford by every rule of argument is
bound to prove. He must prove that,
if a church has not the right to receive
a member excluded from another, it
follows that all other churches are
bound by the act of the excluding
church. We dany that this follows.—
He must also prove that the decision
of a church excluding a member does
not, whether right or wrong, bind all
other churches and church members to
treat the excluded as a heathen and a
publican. This is not self-evident, and
requires proof. And every argument
urged in its favor, will show the latent
fallacy of this position, as it relates to
the issue. What are these arguments?
We will notice some of them.
1. It will be urged that the wrong
decision of a church does not bind oth
ers. Very we 11.4 Here is fallacy first.
This principle when applied to any
case , as an argument to establish
the right to receive an excluded mem
ber, involves the fallacy of assuming,
without proof, that the decision in his
case is wrong. The difficulty in the
question is to prove the right to rein
vestigate. This argument maintains
that they have the right because they
are not bound by the wrong decision,
evidently assuming before any investi
gation, that it was wrong. They thus
prove the right to re-investigate, from
the assumption that the decision was
wrong, an(Fthe church is not bound by
it; and then prove that the decision
was wrong from the re-investigation !
The Mussulman might prove in the
satfie way, that the Koran was a divine
revelation, because Mahomet was a
true prophet; and then prove that Ma
homet was a true prophet because the
Koran was a divine revelation ! This
arguing in a circle , is absolutely inad
missable ; and if this were the only
fault in Dr. Crawford’s objection, the
reasoning would still be utterly falla
cious.
2. The next argument would be,
that one church cannot be bound by
any act of another, because it is inde
pendent of it. Very well. That is true.
The act of one independent body can
not be said to bind another independ-1
ent body, in any sense that implies j
subjection. But this argument shows *
plainly the fallacy of this principle as
applied to the issue. Dr. Crawford
maintains that if one independent body
has not the right to contemn and ren
der nugatory the act of another inde
pendent body, it is bound by that act.
The absurdity of this is evident. The
United States government is an inde
pendent body. It is not bound by the
acts of foreign powers. It is not bound
by the action of Great Britain towards
Ireland, of Austria towards Hungary,
of Spain towards Cuba. But has the
United States government the right to
interfere and annul the acts of those
governments, and to do all in her pow
er to render them nugatory ? Accor
ding to Dr. Crawford’s reasoning, if
she has not the right so to interfere, the
acts of those governments bind her !
There is some sort of subjection or in
feriority in the case, as he supposes,
that precludes interference! Is this
true? What does prevent the govern
ment from interfering ? Hot subjec
tion to the action of those governments,
but the want of inherent rights exist
ing in herself. It is none of her busi
ness. It does not come within her ju
risdiction. It is beyond the sphere of
her powers. She is bound by,the fact
that her own rights as a nation do not
extend to that limit, and abstains from
going beyond the limits of her nation
al rights. But again: Dr. Crawford’s ar
gument would prove that because the
United States government is not bound
by the acts of those nations, it has the
right to interfere. This would com
pletely destroy all the principles of in
ternational law. A nation would only
have to assert its independence toprove
its unquestioned and unlimited right
to fillibuster. Here is the fatal falla
cy of Dr. Crawford’s objection. His
position is that ot one who, in reply to
an argument proving that this govern
ment had no right to inteifere, should
affirm that this is to avow that this gov
ernment is bound by the acta of oth
ers ! It would beat once replied that it
implies nothing of the kind. This gov
ernment is not bound by the acts of
others; but it has naright ta inter
lere, and therefore must leave the mat
ter as it finds it. To be bound is one
thing; not to have the power to inter
fere is another, and very different
thing. The one appertains to its rela
tions with the other governments; the
other, to its own intrinsic rights and
powers.
But the powers ojf governments are
inherent and self-darived, and are far
more extensive than those of a church.
Churches are constituent portions of
the same kingdom. powers are
all derived fromthe The
•rights of each as
are much more
separate and isolated governments.—
The relations of constituent portions of
the same Commonwealth towards each
other, approximate more nearly to the
comity existing betweerLthe churches.
The fallacy of this objection is yet
more glaring when applrei'kio the act
of such bodies. Those judicatories of
a State, having concurrent jurisdiction,
are mutually independent of each oth
er. The action of one cannot be laid
to bind another. Yet when one has
decided a case, no other has the right
to question, much less annul it. But
this objection would prove that they
had the mutual right to re-adjudicate
each other’s decisions. ‘lf not,’ Dr.
C. would say, ‘ the decision of one
court binds all other courts in a State.’
His argument is just as applicable
here, as to the decision of a church. If
it proves that one church may readju
dicate a case, decided by another, it
will also prove that the same may be
done by a court. Courts are indepen
dent of each other, as churches are.—
They have no connection with each
other, except that thpy all derive their
powers from the same common source.
The act of one cannot affect another—
cannot bind, govern nor control it.—
Then, if it is not bound by the decision
of another, why may it not revise and
annul it ? Simply because it has not
the authority to do so. Its powers have
not that scope. So the decision of a
church does not bind other churches
which are not under its authority ; but
they cannot annul it because they have
not the power.
This is sufficient to show the logical
errors involved in this objection. But
it is not only illogical; it is, moreover,
erroneous in thought. Dr. Crawford
seems to think that a church can do
anything whatever, unless it is bound
not to do it. He assumes that the only
limit to its authority, is the binding
restraint of a superior. It is only up
on such an assumption as this, he could
found his objection, that if a church
has not the right to receive an exclu
ded member, it is bound by the decis
ion of the church excluding him. In
his opinion, to affirm that a body has
not the right to do a thing, is to assert
that the action of some other body
binds it. This is evidently assuming
that the only limit to action, is the
binding prohibition of a superior. Ac
cording to this view, the only question
to be asked in any case is : Does any
thing bind me not to do this ? And if
not, a perfect right to do it is assum
ed. How will this work as a principle
of action applied to men ? Has a man
a right to do everything, except that
which someone binds him not to do ?
If this is true, a man may maintain
that he is independent—that the ac
tion of no one else can bind him, and
consequently he may of right do what
ever he please, and ever disregard and
trample on the rights of others. And
if it is denied that he has the right to
do so, he may indignantly complain
that he is bound by their acts. But
this is not the principle by which men
test their actions. A man always vin
dicates his act by maintaining that he
has the right to do; he feels that it is
incumbent on him to show that he did
not transcend the bounds of his rights.
Even children instinctively do this ; so
universally is it recognized as a princi
ple of human action that our own in
trinsic rights, and not external prohi
bition, fix the limits of our action.
Still less applicable is Dr. Crawford’s
principle to a church. A church has
only delegated authority. In this res
pect it is analagous to our Federal gov
ernment, which has no powers but
those conferred in the constitution.—
By Dr. Crawford’s argument, the Fed
eral government has the power to do
everything except what it is bound not
to do. In discussing its power to per
form any given act, he would main
tain its rights to do it, unless it could
be shown that it was bound not to do
it ! He would thus escape the burden
of proof ! ! But what is the proper
mode of procedure in such a case? It
is this universally : As an organiza
tion, all of whose powers are delegated,
has no power but that specially grant
ed, any one who asserts for it any pow
er, must establish his assertion by pos
itive proof. Th.us a .person who main
tains that the Federal government has
any specified power, must prove it from
the constitution, in which all its pow
ers are conferred. He must give the
proof direct. It will not do to assume
that it has power to do an act, unless it
can be shown that it is bound not to do
it! So also of powers of a church. Dr.
Crawford claims for it a certain pow
er. He is bound to offer direct proof
that it possesses that power. Instead
of doing so, he contents himself with
denying that the act of another church
binds it —thus assuming that it has the
power unless it is thus bound! But
it is bound by the act of God , who in
not bestowing this power has withheld
it. And to assume authority He has
not bestowed, is to rebel against His
will. It is bound to refrain from trans
cending the limits he has offered to the
exercise of its powers. It is bound by
its obligations to restrict itself to the
sphere He has assigned it. It is bound
to abstain from trampling on the rights
of a sister church, equal in rights, pow
ers and independence with itself. These
are what bind it. And the obligation
they impose cannot be violated with
out incurring a fearful responsibility.
The bounds fixed to church action are
placed by a mightier agent than the
action of another church. The power
of Christ has fixed them. Ho has set
bounds to its authority, given its pow
ers, and said: Thjre far shalt thoiicome*
[Dr. GfawforcTat^^^^reatenypJH^
fiijm its being
tbte only attempt at argument be has
offered. The principle on which his
objection rests is unphilosophical, il
logical, and preposterous. It is mon
strous. Applied to individuals, it un
dermines the foundation of morals ;
applied to nations, it destroys the prin
ciples of international law, and licen
ses all the horrors of universal and un
limited fillibustering. Applied to gov
ernments, it overturns all the restric
tions of constitutions, and vests them
with absolute and unlimited power.—
Applied to churches, it subverts the
comity established by Christ, annihil
ates order and throws wide the door to
universal anarchy.”
For the present I bid the reader a
dieu. P. H. MELL.
OUR hew~~york" LETTER.
Hew Tore, Hov. 27, 1860.
To the Editor of the Christian Index:
Dear Bro., —It is with no ordinary
emotion that I sit down to address you
this letter. Your kind and cordial re
cognition of the friendly spirit which
has prompted my past correspondence,
gives me the assurance, that so far as
you are concerned, a letter from your
Hew York Correspondent will not be
unwelcome; but I know not whether
your readers will be inclined to look
with so much favor on anything from
the Horth ; and yet, I know not why
I should doubt the warmth and cordi
ality of Georgia hearts. We are breth
ren ; a common fate unites us; com
mon memories bind us together; it was
in your State as well as ours, that
Whitfield proclaimed, with an almost
angelic fervor, the gospel of God; it
was side by side with your brave and
chivalrous sons, that our calm,unflinch
ing Hew York continental soldiers
fought a common foe, and met a com
mon grave, in the war of the revolu
tion ; and since that time how many
blessed memories have we in common.
When Judson first roused the Mission
ary spirit in American Baptists by his
appeal for aid, from Serampore, and
Luther Rice, like the great Apostle to
the Gentiles, proved his fidelity to the
cause of the Master, by his journey
ings, his perils, and his hardships, un
dertaken to awaken interest in the
Baptist General Convention, and in Co
lumbian College, founded almost in his
tears and blood, no warmer response
came back to gladden the hearts of
brethren at the Horth, than that from
the Baptists of Georgia.
And now, the fathers, Mercer, and
Sherwood, and Brantley, and Mallary,
and Manly, are they not ours, as well
as yours ?
Do any give them their just dues for
their fidelity to the cause of Christ, and
their labors in promoting it, without
our feeling as fully as you can, “ these
were our brethren.” Hay more; of those
now in active life, not in Georgia alone,
but in the whole South, is there one
of them to whom our hearts are not
drawn ? Does not Fuller’s eloquence,
Terms of Advertising* *
For all transient advertising One Dollar per BQttlli
of ten lines for the first, and 50 cents per squlf £
all subsequent publications.
RATES FOR CONTRACT ADVERTISING.
1 square of 10 lines per 3 months $ 4 0
“ “ lOlines “ 6 ............ 700
“ “10 lines “ 1 year 10 0
These lines are the text advertising lines and tli
charge is for the space occdpied by ten such line
as are used in the body of an advertisement. Lon
geradvertisementsin the same ratio.
JV. S., VOL. 28, NO. 50.
and Dagg’s logic, Samson’s ‘dialectic
skill, and Manly’s burning sentences,
thrill through our hearts, and win our
approbation and admiration, as hearti
ly as yours ? I doubt if Dr. Fuller
has halt as many readers of his sermons,
or admirers of their brilliant and im
pressive passages, south of Mason and
Dixon’s line, as he has north of it, and
as for Dr. Dagg, his work on Moral
Science is prized, wherever it is exam
ined. President Samson is now with
us, and preached with great accept
ance in two of our pulpits last Sabbath.
It is a matter of general remark that
not for years past, has there existed in
our entire community a feeling so kind
and tender toward the South as now.
The panic which at first threatened
to engulf our business men in a wide
spread and overwhelming ruin, is dead.
Its career thongh short, was a terrible
one ; but wise counsels prevailed, and
ere the evil had passed beyond Control
it was shorn of its power. The action
of onr bankers meets with universal ap
proval, and the stocks and bends which
had sunk with such fearful rapidity,
have risen almost as rapidly as they
fell.
Business, which seemed struck with
sudden paralysis, is again reviving, and
the faces of our business men, which a
week since were almost of an azure
hue, are now recovering their wonted
placidity and cbeeriness.
For the past three days, we have had
keen, cold weather, the first foretaste
of winter this season. This has given
anew impulse to the trade in holiday
goods, which is just now quite brisk.
There is a prevailing disposition
among those ot onr publishing houses
who bring out holiday books, to select
works ot standard value and merit, and
render them attractive by exquisite ty
pography, beautiful paper, illustrations
in the highest style of art, and rich and
substantial bindings. This costs a great
deal of money, to be sure; but the
books form holiday presents of perma
nent worth. x
I conld give abundant instances of
this. Thus Sheldon & Cos., have put
their superb edition of Milman’s Latin
Christianity, in costly bindings forhol
iday gifts; they have also brought out
a magnificent edition of Macaulay’s
Essays, uniform with it, on richly tint
ed paper, and the inimitable typogra
phy of the Riverside press, edited by
E. P. Whipple, with a memoir and por
trait of the great Essayist. Hot infe
rior either in permanent value or dura
bleness is their fine edition of Olshaus
en, which they now furnish in all styles
of binding. They have also issned an
JCverett’s Washington, hm
in sImE \ ■
ett, which
ful gift books ot the season. Mrs.
son’s Memoir has also been issned in a
similarly attractive style—and their
holiday books for children partake of
the same sumptuous character.
In the new zeal springing up in your
State for home manufactures, a zeal
which is laudable and should be en
couraged, I suppose that any sugges
tions tending to that end, will be favo
rably received. lam told by reliable
authorities, that your State consumes
nearly five millions of dollars worth of
ready made clothing, the product of
our northern manufactures. There is
surely no need of this. By the intro
duction of a good sewing machine on
each plantation, one of simple con
struction, and not liable to get out of
order, the entire clothing for the plant
ation might easily be made on the plan
tation. For the present, a portion of
the material would have to be import
ed, but in time this too could be made
in your own State, for no State in the
Union psssesses better facilities for
manufacturing, than Georgia.
I had occasion to visit, a few days
since, the establishment of Un Finkle
Lyon Sewing Machine Cos., in ; ins city,
and though quite familiar before with
the operation of these invaluable assist
ants to domestic economy, I was aston
ished at the performance of their ma
chines. Perfectly simple in structure,
with nothing about them which can
get out of order, making a fine stitch
from the 6tart, and sewing without
change of needle, or stopping the ma
chine, the thickest 01 the thinnest of
fabrics, from harness leather a quarter
of an inch in thickness, to the finest
swiss muslin, and moving easily and
noiselessly, they 6eemed to me the ne
plus ultra of sewing machines. This
company has been in operation only
three years, but their machines rank
in the estimation of experts as the best
in the country, and their 6ales are very
large both here and in England. Mr.
Lyon, one of the company, who show
ed me through their establishment,
and who is himself a Baptist, informed
me that they were accustomed to fur
nish the machines at a very considera
ble reduction from their ordinary pri
ces, to Baptist ministers. It would be
an admirable holiday present to make
to some of our good ministers wives,
who find the mending and making for
their households so sad a hindrance to
their opportunities for in f jllectual en
joyment. Yonrs,
OCCASIOHAL.
Every murmurer is his own martyr;
he is a murderer: he kills many at
once, his joy, his comfort, his peace,
his rest, his soul.
The being of grace makes our estate
safe and sure; the seeing of grace
makes our lives sweet and comfortable.
Grace is a sweet flower of paradise,
a spark of glory.