Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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.