Newspaper Page Text
CHRISTIAN UW_ . Nil SOUTH-WESTERN BAPTIST.
VJL. 49—NO. 44. {s3 00 1 \m.\
V RELIGIOUS AND FAMILY PAPER,
e’er 3LISHED WEEKLY IN ATLANTA, G A
AT $3.00 PEE ANNUM,
Invariably in Advance.
f. jr. TOON, Proprietor.
Just as.Thou^Wilt.
Just as Thou wilt—no more I pray,
That Thou wouldst take this cross away;
I only ask for grace to say,
Thy will, not mine, be done.
Just as Thou wilt—l cannot see
The path Thy love marks out for me;
Resigned, I leave the choice to Thee
Thy will, not mine, be done.
Just as Thou wilt —full well I know
Thy hand in mercy deals the blow;
Then, though my cherished hopes lie low,
Thy will, not mine, be done.
Just as Thou wilt—though called to part
With dearest friends, until my heart
Quivers beneath Thy piercing dart —
Thy will, not mine, be done.
Just as Thou wilt—O Lamb divine,
VVhat grief can be compared to Thine I
Then let Thy prayer henceforth be miue,
Thy will, not mine, be done.
Just as Thou wilt—till life be past;
Then, safe beyond earth’s stormy blast,
My soul shall sing with joy at last,
Thy will and mine be done.
Congregationalist.
The Atonement.
The fifty third chapter of Isaiah has been
regarded by Christians, in all ages, as the most
full predictive account of Messiah’s life of
grief and death of agony, contained in the
Old Testament.
Jewish commentators and critics have gen
erally referred the chapter, either to (a) the
Jewish nation as a whole, or to (b) the pious
portion of it. In doing this, a forced con
struction has to be placed upon many words,
while others have to be left without any defi
nite meaning.
As Christian critics agree in referring the
chapter to the Saviour, 1 have examined it in
that light, and have especially inquired u heth
er it throws any light upon the great propi
tiation. 1 have made a critical, and very
careful translation of the chapter. Lhe trans
lation, with my notes, I will give at a future
time, should it be necessary in this discussion
of the Atonement. At present, I content
myself by stating the conclusions of my in
vestigations of this sublime ode, in relation
to the substitutionary theory of the atone
ment of Christ. The prophet shows, 1, That
when God appeared in a human form, but
few recognized in Him the promised Messiah,
vere 1. 2. That in consequence of a miscon
ception of the character of Jesus, His good
qualities were not perceived by His contcm
temporaries, verse 2. 3. That the Saviour’s
life of mental sadness and physical suffering,
was regarded by the men of that age as a proof
of God’s anger against Ilis supposed blasphe
my and presumption, versed. (They thought
He suffered for His own sin, and in verse sth
the prophet corrects the mistake.) 4. That
His greatest grief arose from Ilis love to
sinners, causing Him to insinuate Ilis loving
nature into their state and condition, so as to
take upon Ilis feelings their sins and sick
nesses, and thus truly sympathize with them,
grieve in their grief, and sorrow in their sin,
verses 4, (3. 5. That in this state He proved
His Divine nature by patient submission to
His lot, as well as by a voluntary assump
tion of it: “Jehovah was pleased to humble
Himself to suffeting,” verses 7, 10. (Verse
10 : “ When His soul shall take away sin I '
tasim 'asham naphesho. cannot refer to the
offering of a sin-offering, or sacrifice for sin,
as 'asham, when it refers to an offering, de
notes a trespass offering, but properly and
generallv a trespass. Tasim naphesho, cannot
be translated, “ His soul offered,'’ etc.; “to
offer ” not being a meaning of sum. It means,
originally, to place or set. Hence the Latin
sumo, English assume, etc. It means, also,
to consider. It is also used to signify to place
aside, and, therefore, to take away.) 0. That
by giving to sinners such a touching testimo
ny of the love of God for them, Messiah
shall be successful in making many Ilis pos
terity, by making them partakers of His
nature, by partaking of His love, by recipro
eating His kindly feelings, verses 10, 11. 7.
That in consequence of the successful mission
of Messiah, He shall occupy the highest place
in the history of creation, verse 12.
In the teaching of this chapter, it will be
evident to all that there is not the remotest
hint to any substitutionary theory of the
Atonement. I fully believe that the prophet
teaches the fact of an atonement by the
Messiah, but if he teaches a theory of expia
tion at all, that is not the substitutionary.
His theory, like that of the Apostles, is of
another kind. I propose now, to endeavor
to ascertain the meaning of kaphar, to atone,
and its derivatives, in the Old Testament Scrip
tures.
It is impossible to exaggerate the impor
tance of ascertaining the exact signification
of kaphar, in the Hebrew Scriptures. It is
rendered by the Septuagint sometimes, dytaZut,
I sanctify, or set apart, or make sacred, Ezek.
xxix : 33—3 G; Kadaipco, I cleanse, Isa. vi:
7; but generally, £?fA«<x Kopai, I propitiate.
The last word mentioned had, originally,
among the Greeks, the idea of appeasing
anger, though it was used in its secondary
sense alone, as equivalent to “reconcile” as
I stated in my first article. The gods of the
Greeks were subject to passion, envy, hatred,
malice, meanness, and all the other evil pro
pensities of their worshippers. The Greek
language was formed a.nid these degrading
ideas of the Deity, and the words which ex
pressed any religious notion were, naturally,
tinged with error.
Wheu the writers of the New Testament
wrote the books which bear their names, they
all, with the exception of Matthew, wrote in
Greek. This was not a language with which
they were very familiar, not being their com
mon medium of communication. They did
not coin words when none were found exact
ly to their liking, but used the words in ref
erence to God and His worship, which had
been used in reference to idols and idolatry.
It is natural for us, therefore, to suppose, that
the meaning attached to such words by the
Apostles, would be somewhat different to
that which the heathen had been accustomed
to associate with them. These facts sim
ply show that, in coming to a correct un
derstanding of the Christian atonement,
too much stress must not be laid upon the
original, etymological and Pagan meanings of
Greek words. The words, to say all that can
be said of any theory, are ambiguous, and
will admit of being interpreted iu harmony
with many theories.
Finding, thus, that the etymological and
historical meaning of the Greek words—
IXadKopai, e^iXaaKopai, {Xaff[io<; f and u.aqzr t piov
—leaves it an open question, whether our Sa
viour did, by His death and pain, appease
the anger of,God directly, or make amends
to God for the evil done Him by man’s sin,
let us turn to the Hebrew language—a lan
guage, from its earliest history, used as the
means of communicating God’s thoughts to
man in connection with religion. The ety
mology, history, and uses of these words,
during many centuries, are more to be trusted,
in arriving at a theory of explanation. 1
propose treating, now, of KaPHaR, and its
derivatives, KoPHeR and KaPpoReTH.
KePH ’eR means to form a projection.
KePH has the same root meaning in a large
number of languages; as in the Sanscrit,
kapala; Gr. nufi); Lat., caput; Ger.
kappe; Span., cab o; Eng., cape. Hence
the Syriac keypho’ and Kr/ffas, a cliff, or stone,
that which projects.
Tnat which stood projected against winds
and waves, must have been hard and durable,
and therefore anything hard and durable was
named KoPIIeR. Hence the meaning of
KaPHar, to be strong, to be courageous; a
village, as projecting above the ground; to
scoup, or bore through, etc. The cypress
tree, as consisting of hard and durable wood,
was called KoPHer, or GoPHer, which name
was retained in other languages, as Gr.,
KOTzap-tcffos ; Latin, cupressus; Ger., kiefer,
pine, or any resinous wood.
The word was soon used to denote the resin
yielded by these trees, and afterwards was
applied to any resinous substance, including
bitumen or pitch, a9 in Gen. vi: 14: “Pitch
it without and within with pitch, or Ko-
PHeR.”
As objects, in the East, were often be
smeared with a resinous substance, sometimes
for the sake of the agreeable odor, but gen
erally, as in the case of wooden vessels, to
make them water tight, durable, and protect
them from the attacks of insects, the word,
as a verb, came to be used to denote the act
of besmearing, or covering, as in the passage
already quoted.
From the use of the verb as denoting to
cover, a noun was formed, after the lapse of
centuries, to signify a cover or lid—KaPpo-
ReTH.
The box or chest in which wa3 kept a copy
of the Mosaic Code, is called, in our version,
“ The Ark of the Covenant,” a translation
which Puritanic theories of the Christian
Atonement have rendered very misleading;
for in common speech boxes of any kind and
every kind are not called arks, and agree
ments are not popularly known as covenants.
The proper modern translation of the phrase
is, “The box of the agreement” — i. e., the
box which contained the Jews’ title deed —
the agreement, on condition of keeping which
they should be entitled to the appellation,
“ God’s people,” and to His temporal pro
tection. The box had a lid or cover—Rap
poReTII. The Hebrew word can, of itself,
mean nothing more than a lid or cover, and
to translate it IXaaTypiov, as the Sept, have
done, or “ Mercy Seat,” with the “xAuthor
ized Version,” is a violation of all rules of
hermeneutics—it is to give to a mere lid a
name which denotes the secondary purposes
of the lid, the box, and the room in which
they were deposited, as well as the altar, in
cense, sacrifice, and the ceremonies performed
on the day of atonement. The fact that Paul
uses the word IXairvqptov, when he refers to
this word in Heb. ix: 5, is no argument in
favor of the correctness of the. Septuagint
rendering, as the object was to use words
which were current in his day. For a simi
lar reason, he uses the word “flesh” to de
note human sinfulness; and speaks of a law
of members as if a man’s limbs were the
originators of his depravity.
The question now bearing upon our sub
ject is—Does the word KaPHaK aiwas con
vey the idea (a) of appeasing God’s anger,
by an offering of something good, or by the
endurance of evil inflicted by Him ; or, (b)
giving Him satisfaction, reparation, or com
pensation for the injury inflicted upon Him
by a man’s sin? If the word occurs once
without necessarily involving either of these
notions, then is it right for us to argue that
the word may have no such meaning when it
refers to God, and that, therefore, the idea of
appeasing or satisfying the Deity should not
be thrust upon U3 for the sake of propping
up a tottering theory. If, again, the word
frequently occurs without necessarily imply
ing appeasement or satisfaction, there is a
very strong probability that no such ideas are
connected with the word when it refers to
God ; but if, finally, the word never necessa
rily expresses expiation or reparation, when
it is used in relation to man or creature, then
there is a moral certainty that the word has
no such meaning when it is used in relation
to the Godhead.
The earliest use of the word on record, is
that already referred to, Gen. vi : 14, where
it means to cover —nothing more and nothing
less. The next use on record is Gen. xxxii:
20, (Heb. 21), which is centuries later than
the preceding. Here our version has, “ I
will appease him,” whereas the Hebrew lit
erally reads, “I will cover his face,” where
the word PaNell—face, is equivalent to
RoGez—anger ( Onkelos ). See, also, Psalm
xxi: 9. The same word signifies both face
and anger, because a feeling of anger is im
mediately expressed in the countenance,
(Aben Ezra and Kimchi.)
That the removal of Esau’s anger against
his brother Jacob is the object of the whole
transaction narrated in the context, will be
readily confessed; but how this idea is involved
in the word KaPTlar used, is to be discov
ered. The literal rendering of the phrase is,
“1 will cover his face, or 1 will cover his an
ger.” It is evident, by an examination of
these renderings, that the appeasing element
does not enter as a factor into the meaning of
KaPHaR, but arises solely from its position
in relation to anger.
Rashi, one of the most learned Rabbins
who ever wrote about the meaning of Hebrew
words, says that KaPHaR does not here sig
nify “to appease,” and never means to ap
pease, but to blot out and annul. The phrase,
according to him, should be rendered, “ 1
will blot out his anger,” as in Isa. xlvii: 2,
“And mischief shall fall upon thee; thou
shalt not be able to put it off," or remove it
—from KaPHaR. Rashi adds that the word
invariably bears the sense of wiping away, or
removing, and has the same signification in
Syriac.
When the Jews to denote “to ap
pease or expiate,” they had other words
exactly to the purpose, as the Niphal of
CIIaNaN (Onkelos,) and others words, such
as the following examples supply : Esth. ii:
1, T ‘ When the wrath of King Ahasuerus was
appeased —KeSIIoK.” Ibid vii: 10, “Then
was the King’s wrath pacified —SHaKaKaH.”
For other uses of SHaKaK, see Gen. viii :
1, “And Ihe waters assuaged." Num. xvii:
5, “And I will male to cease." Prov. xx:
18, “He that is slow to anger appeaseth—
YaSHQiT —strife.” Prov. xxi: 14, “A gift
in secret pacfielh —YoKPeH —anger.” Eccl.
x: 4, “For yielding paefieth —YaNnYaCH
—great offences.”
In Prov. xvi: 14, the word IvaPHaR is
used as in Gen. xxxii: 20, “ The wrath of a
king is as a messenger of death, but a wise man
will pacify it.” It is similarly translated in
our version of Ezek. xvi: 63, “ When 1 am
pacified toward thee for all that thou hast
done.” Whatever be our theory of atone
ment, it must be confessed that the former
passage (Prov. xxi: 14) will admit of being
rendered, like Gen. xxxii: 20, “A wise man
will cover, blot out anger;” and that the latter
(Ezek. xvi: 63) is not correctly translated
in the authorized version. The word in Eze
kiel is the infinitive Piel, with the genitive
suffix, and therefore cannot be translated as a
passive—“ When lam pacified,” but, “ When
I pacify" or better, as Luther has beautiful
ly rendered it, “When I shall forgive thee
vergeben werde —all that thou hast done.”
FRANKLIN PRINTING HOUSE, ATLANTA, GA., THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 1870.
The word KaPHaR is similarly used in
Sam. xxi: 3, where our authorized version
gives, “And wherewith shall I make the
atonement;" but the Hebrew is, “ übammah
’a k: pper—and with what shall I cover or blot
out your anger;" your anger being evidently
understood, so that the expression corresponds
iri form and in meaning with Gen. xxxii: 20.
The result of our investigation in reference
to KaPHaR, is that the word may be ren
dered “to appease ” thrice only in the He
brew Scriptures, (Gen. xxxii: 20 ; Prov.
xvi: 14; II Sam. xxi : 3,) but that, even here,
it may be understood more in harmony with
its original sense, “ to cover or blot out,” in
which case there is, in the word itself, not a
shadow even of the appeasing or satisfying
idea; and that, in one place, (Ezek. xvi: 63,)
where our version gives pacified,” the
Hebrew necessarily implies (Piel) that, in
this case, God acts, and not that He is acted
upon—that He pacifies or appeases, if the
word has that meaning, and not that He is
appeased or pacified ; the words being most
correctly and literally rendered —“In my
forgiving ” —or blotting out—“ to thee all that
thou hast done.”
In proceeding further with our inquiries,
let us point out those passages of Scripture
where the word Kaphar cannot have the
slightest approach, in meaning, to appease
ment or satisfaction. The text just referred
to in Ezek. xvi: 63, is an instance, as the
Divine being did not attempt to appease or
satisfy the Jews. Deut. xxxii: 43 may be
cited as an example of the same kind, “ And
will be merciful to His land and to His peo
ple.” Bearing in mind that the other verbs
of this verse are future, and that Kipper is
joined to them by means of the ve, we are
allowed to translate kipper as if it had been
future too. The verb is in Piel, and is, there
fore, active and transitive —any way it is
always active. The verb is not followed by
any preposition, but passes its action at once
to the two nouns which follow it: His land
—His people. The words, “ Ilis people,” are
explanatory of “ His land,” His people being
meant in both cases. God is here active, His
people passive, and the verb kipper expresses
God’s act to His people. If the word Kaphar
means to appease or satisfy, or make amends
for wrong, then does the text most emphatic
ally declare that God appeased, or will ap
pease, satisfy, or make amends to the Jews,
which is blasphemous. The word here, then,
must have another meaning. We have seen
that the word is used to signify to cover.
But sin is covered if it be forgiven or re
moved ; a debt is covered when it is cancelled
or blotted out; the filth is covered when it
is removed or cleansed; hence these three
prominent shades of meaning are found con
nected with Kaphar: (a) to purge or sancti
fy ; (b) to blot out; and (c) to cleanse. The
first or third shades will apply to the text,
“God will forgive or cleanse His land—His
people.”
Take, again, Ps. lxv : 3, “ Our transgres
sions thou shalt purge them away.” See He
brew. Here God acts, and acts upon transgres
sions, so that if there be satisfying or appeas
ing, all is done, not ora account of transgressions,
but to transgressions. The Hebrew here will
admit of no other explanation or rendering
than that which recognizes the Deity as act
ing upon sin, and that act is denoted by ka
phar. This passage may be rendered like
the one before mentioned, “ Our transgres
sions, thou wilt forgive them, or out,
or cleanse them.”
The following examples might be similarly
examined, and with the same result: Lev.
xvi: 20 : “And when he hath made an end
of reconciling (/r. kaphar) the holy place.”
Prov. xvi: 6: “By mercy and truth iniquity
is purged (fr. kaphar.) Isa. vi: 7: “And
thy sin is purged." Ezek. xliii: 26 : “Seven
days shall they purge, the altar.” Ezek.xlv:
20 : “So shall ye reconcile the house.”
Such passages might be multiplied great
ly, but these will be sufficient to show,
in connection with what is before stated,
that (a) the word “ kaphar ” never necessarily
means to appease or satisfy. It might possi
bly have that signification in three places,
but even in these cases there is no need to
deviate from the more ancient meaning of
“to cover” or “blot out.” ( b) That the
word kaphar is used where it connot be even
tinged or touched by the idea of appeasing, of
satisfaction —where it must mean to pardon
or cleanse—that it is often used thus. And
(c) that whether our Saviour did appease
God or not by His death, it is manifest that
that notion does not arise from the meaning
of kaphar in the Old Testament. The use
of the Hebrew kaphar leaves the subject
open for theorizers; though, as far as the
word does throw any light upon the subject,
it is not favorable to the theories which in
volve the satisfying or appeasing of the Divine
Being. Galileo.
Doctrine, or Entertainment and Stimulus?
I once said to the late Dr. Manly, “ I don’t
know so well about these protracted meet
ings.” “Yes,” said he, “but nearly all your
members come in in them.” It was admitted
that a good many don’t hold out, but the
residuum make our churches. 1 once preach
ed to a church in my youth seven out of
eight years, and we never had what was called
a “ revival.” Members came in gradually,
almost all the time, and the church grew in
numbers about as fast as her best neighboring
churches that had revivals. The intervening
seventh year, the church was supplied by
brother Boyd, of Mississippi, deceased, and
enjoyed a revival. Almost all of the converts
in both cases did well. The ten years I was
pastor at LaGrange, Ga., we had several pre
cious revivals, in two cases with large acces
sions ; one of these confined almost exclu
sively to the Southern Female College, and
largely due, under God, I think, to the influ
ence of the good Christian men who had
charge of that institution. The other grew
out of a sort of spontaneous prayer meeting,
begun in the Methodist church, and continued
for six weeks, with crowded houses, three
times a day, in the Presbyterian, Methodist
and Baptist houses of worship, in the order
named. We all attended in common and
helped each other. There was no formal
preaching during the week days. Sundays
we adjourned to our own churches, preached
as usual, and opened the doors of the church.
During the week, nothing was said on the
subject of membership. Our part of the con
verts was about forty persons. These have
done well, constituting to this day, 1 believe,
an important part of the substance of that
good church. We had another excellent
meeting before either of these, growing out
of a resolution of the church to hold a pro
tracted meeting in a time of dearth. A con
siderable number were baptized, who, I be
lieve, have all done well. The ministers of the
church (there were several besides the pastor)
did the preaching, except three sermons from
the late Dr. Tallmage, President of Midway
College, a Presbyterian brother, whose ex
cellent spirit and fine gifts were well known
to Georgians. After the long prayer meet
ing a good state of devotion in the church
lasted for two years or more. This church
had many members that appeared to enjoy
religion habitually. 1 shall ever look back
to my labors there, though not without trials,
as a green spot in the history of the past.
This is a specimen of my observation of
facts bearing on the subject of protracted
meetings. I like them, when judiciously man
aged, and made occasions of “ line upon line,
and precept upon precept.” They seem to
to me to be veiy necessary to supplement
the labors of the pastor, especially where
churches have preaching but once a month.
This latter thing,indeed, ought not to be, and
rarely would, if churches w'ould resolve on
doing their duty.* But I speak of things as
they are. I thought to make what I have ac
cu pied considers in writing a mere
prefatory note, seating myself for quite an
other object; bub prefaces and introductions
are very likely t%grow into articles and ser
mons. But to th - subject in hand.
There are two motions of what preaching
ought to be. This one I fear more common,
that its object should be to entertain and
stimulate—to furqjsh an intellectual treat and
stir the feelings gratefully. Os course neither
of these objects. subordinate matters, is
without its impd-iance. I mean to object
nothing to the laUer, if by it be meant ex
citing devout or contrite feeling, or even ap
pealing to the hopes and fears. But how is
this to be done b)t by teaching—gathering
up and presenting cogently what the Scrip
tures reveal as tCs the character and acts of
our Saviour and —rr God—our state by na
ture and by jv--;A'* our danger and the source
of safety—our liberations, duties and privi
leges, especially tt£ testimony of God con
concerning His Smy, our Saviour, Jesus Christ?
The great command is, “ Go teach all na
tions,” —“ teaching* them to observe all things
whatsoever I have Commanded you.” Apol
los “ taught diligen>»y the things of the Lord.”
Paul “ taught publicly, and from house to
house.” Paul charged Timothy, “before
God and the Lord Jesus Christ,” to “ preach
the word, .... reprove, rebuke, ex-
hort with all long suffering and doctrine." I
need not farther quote to the intelligent reader
of the Scriptures the abounding doctrine of
the Scriptures on this subject.
1 do not, certainly, wish to disparage the
gift of exhortation. I only mean that even this
depends upon forcible conceptions of divine
truth, first felt on th# heart of the speaker. It
does not come of the capacity to tell pitiful
or touching anecdotes, to excite natural sym
pathies and evoke natural tears. It is rather
the power given of God to arouse spiritual
emotions, and draw tears of penitence, in
view of sinfulness, ingratitude, and inade
quate love.
If preaching and* exhortation excite emo
tions that are permanent —that last through
the week, the year, the lite—emotions of
holy fear, reverence, love, inspiring activity,
circumspection, diligence, fervent zeal, joy,
contrition, reformation, they are right. In
tensity of religious affection is not incompati
ble with permanent, but rather compatible.
The stream that flop’s on ever, full and free,
is all the more likely to overspread the banks
and scatter fertility .jar and wide when the
floods come. The soul fed and kept healthy
and growing on the blessed truth of God,
rises higher in holy joy and effort when the
times of refreshing cyme.
We should say, then, that pulpit effective
ness—that Sunday school effectiveness—de
pends mainly on two things: The teacher,
the preacher, ought (o be mighty in the Scrip
tures, and mighty in heart experiences of the
doctrine of Scripture Away with this idea
that “ the people km enough—they need to
be stimulated.” Pt p f how are they in be
stimulated to any purpose except by
knowledge, made experience by the Holy
Ghost.
We have seen so called revivals followed
by a time of heart-sickening dearth. Perhaps
the appeal was almost solely to the hopes
and fears, and little to the conscience. Hav
ing succeeded in frightening the people, they
were told not to be afraid, for Jesus had died.
They believed the preacher. The reaction
from terrible trepidation brought on joy or
rapture. They were supposed to be “ hap
pily converted.” Possibly there was little
or no sense of the evil of sin, of the justice
of the divine wrath, of the grace of our Lord
Jesus Christ. Possibly the converts sought
to be saved from hell, not from sin. Possi
bly they only learned to dread eternal tor
ments, and to regard religion as only designed
to save from torment. Therefore, the sup
posed object achieved, they gave themselves
up to ease, having “ checked through,” as
some one almost irreverentially but forcibly
expressed it.
Asa pastor continuously more than a quar
ter of a century, I have had very little trou
ble with converts whose conversion was
marked by a strong recognition of the great
doctrine of grace approved in the heart. In
doctrinated churches have been stable.
Churches recognizing and acting upon great
principles, have prospered. Persons search
ing the Scriptures daily, out of heart-love of
the truth, have met their end calmly or tri
umphantly. Men of temporary expedients—
of mere impulse—have proved unstable, and
often disgraced their profession. They have
turned out, in the main, like merchants who
have no patience with the plodding ways of
legitimate, slow-paced business men—who de
sire that the “golden stream be quick and
powerful”—bankrupts the one in fortune, the
other in reputation. E. B. Teague.
“ Whose Am I?”
“ ’Tis a point I long to know;
Oft it causes anxious thought;
Do I love the Lord or no ?
Am I His, or am I not ?’’
Mourner, why these anxious fears ?
Wherefore shouldst thou doubtful be?
Christ, thine advocate, appears—
He has died instead of thee;
He thy punishment hast borne—
Look to Jesus!—cease to mourn!
“ If I love, why am I thus ?
Why this cold, this lifeless frame?
Hardly, sure, can they be worse,
Who have never heard His name!”
Frames and feelings fluctuate;
These thy Saviour ne’er can be;
Love itself may oft abate;
Learn thyself in Christ to see;
Then be feelings what they will,
Jesus is thy Saviour still!
Was this Baptism ?—Strolling into the old
church at Manchester, I heard a strange noise,
which 1 should elsewhere have taken for the
bleating of lambs. Going to the spot, a dis
tant aisle, I found two rows of women stand
ing in files, each with a babe in her arms.
The minister went down the line, sprinkling
each infant as he went. I suppose the effi
ciency of the sprinkling,—l mean the fact
that the water did touch, —was evidenced by
a distinct squall from each. Words were
muttered by the priest on his course, but one
prayer served for all. This I thought to be a
christening by wholesale: and I could not re
press the irreverent thought that, being in the
metropolis of manufactures, the aid of steam
or machinery might be called in. 1 was told
that on Sunday evenings the ceremony is re
peated. — Diary of Henry Crabb Robinson.
Methodism in Cities. —Prof. L. C. Gar
land, in the Southern Methodist General Con
ference at Memphis, said : “ I have observed
the fact that Methodism has not held its rela
tive strength in towns and cities where once
it was the prevailing denomination. Its loss
in relative numbers has not always resulted
from the influx of a foreign population, but
in a declension from the church of the chil
dren raised up in it.”
The Georgia 1 Association—Removal of Mercer
University.
The report of the Committee raised by this
Association for the purpose of protesting
against the recent and almost unanimous de
cision of the Ga. Bap. Convention, demands
an answer from some one. The Ga. Associ
ation was represented in the Convention, and
days were given to the discussion of the re
moval question. The President of the Con
vention was also the Pres'dent of the Ga.
Asso., and was no idle spectator of the pro
ceedings. I do not remember that any
member of the Ga. Asso. took an active part
in the discussion, but their views were ably
represented by brethren from another Asso
ciation, who, with great magnanimity, said
that they would go with the majority. The
subject of removal was so ably discussed
then, that nothing new can be offered upon it
now. Why, then, should not the Ga. Asso.
acquiesce in the decision of the majority ?
Why now protest ?
But to the report of the Committee. They
ask, “ Is it expedient to remove ?” and they
answer, “ not," because Penfield is a place
“ accessible.” By this, I suppose they mean
you can get there, and can get away from
there. That is very true; and, in fact, has
never been questioned. The first time the
writer ever had the honor of a visit to that
place, he walked the distance of seven miles.
Still he got there, and it was accessible. Not
long since a gentleman was going from Charles
ton to Penfield, and declared he had rather
go from Charleston to Greensboro, than from
Greensboro to Penfield. Still, it is “accessi
ble.”
They say that Penfield is “ surrounded by
railroads.” Yes, that is the difficulty. It is
sarrounded by railroads; but we want the
University in a place which is not surrounded
by railroads.
ft should not be removed, say these gen
tlemen, because Penfield is a beautiful place.
So are many other places higher up, and even
lower down in the country, “ beautiful.” A
location can be had in Macon exceedingly
beautiful, but that, of itself, should not carry
the Institution there.
They declare Penfield healthy. No one
has ever objected to the place on the score of
health; but the writer has aided in burying
many a noble fellow under its earth. And so
is Macon a healthy place. The Wesleyan
Female College, in operation for over thirty
years, with an average of 200 students, has
buried only five of the number. That will
compare well with Penfield, or any other
place on this continent, or any other.. And
if healthy for girls, why not for boys?
They contend that Penfield is the place be
cause it is “central.” Central to *what?
Not to the State of Georgia. Not to the
Baptists of Georgia. Not to the Ga. Asso
ciation. Not even to Green county. I sup
pose they mean that it is central between the
railroads, with a good mule route from each
to that central point.
A success, say they, “ before, the recent
agitation about removal.” What does the
Committee mean by success? If they mean
that the Faculty succeeded in making scholars
of the few educated there, that is probably
true. But if they mean that it met the wants
of the denomination, in educating a proper
proportion of the sons of Baptists, that is not
true. It never was a success. They educa
ted Vrom 70, say to’ 140 anj&ually. Js (hat a
proper proportion for over 100,000 Baptists?
When Thomas Jefferson built his saw mill on
Monticello,to be driven by wind, he succeeded
in making it work ; but found at last, that on
account of the difficulty of getting logs to
the top of the mount, it was worthless. But
on the principle of reasoning of the gentle
men of that Committee, his mill was a success.
So Mercer worked, but on account of location
it was a failure.
On the score of endowment, these gentle
men say the present is enough, if kept at
Penfield. True, it will keep in operation for
a time, a College dragging out its miserable
existence. But, gentlemen, you must remem
ber the word now is, progress ! progress !
To give point and power to their protest,
they introduce the “ poor Baptist boys.”
They say they can be educated at Penfield,
but cannot stand the expense of board and
clothing required in Macon. But, unfortu
nately for them, the facts do not track with
the theory. Where now is board higher
than in Penfield? Where are the expenses
of College life greater? I shall be greatly
disappointed if the Board of Trustees of
Mercer, on removal to Macon, do not prepare
for boarding boys far more cheaply than it
has ever been done in Penfield since the
breaking up of the Manual Labor School.
But more of that hereafter.
These gentlemen compare the morals of
boys in Penfield with what it will be in Ma
con. A bad boy, is a bad boy at Penfield.
There are no police regulations ; and contra
band cards, and contraband whiskey find
their way anywhere a bad boy finds hia. So
does every other species of vice and crime.
In Macon is a good moral and religious com
munity, a police and guard house, Mayor and
Council, who have a summary way of bring
ing offenders to justice. A boy once in their
hands will not wish to be there again. It is
a great mistake to suppose that temptation
approaches not those “ sylvan retreats.” And
it is equally great to suppose that young
gentlemen are not influenced properly by the
refined and polished society of gentlemen and
ladies—with whom they will associate in Ma
con.
These gentlemen, unknown to the writer,
speak of “ schisms and dissensions, and the
overthrow of the educational interests of the
Baptists of the State.” But let me ask, who
creates these schisms and dissensions ? There
was great unanimity—singular unanimity—
in the decision to remove. Why any need
of division now? Why not go with the ma
jority? Besides, if lam correctly informed,
the Ga. Asso. has thrown her educational in
terest, almost all, in another direction, for
years past. The division has already come.
They introduce the question of right, and
ask, Who founded the Institution ? W hat for ?
and when ? They attempt to make it appear
that the Gra. Asso. had almost everything to
do in building Mercer University. That she
took the initiative is true; fora large part of
the Baptists, at that time, 1832, were in the
Ga. Asso. Hence its name. But not all the
talent nor personal influence. When asked
who founded Mercer ? I answer, outside the
Ga. Asso., Penfield, of Savannah, Cooper,
Campell, Sherwood, Mallary, and Dawson,
of the Central Association. With, perhaps,
the exception of Mercer, Mallary, I suppose,
did more than any other man for the endow
ment of the University.
And they ask, where did those founders
locate it? Penfield they call its “consecra
ted home.” But they have forgotten that
Mercer was always opposed to Penfield as
the seat of the University; and ceased to
affiliate, for a time, with his brethren who
voted it there over his head, and curtailed
his donation in consequence. But they did
locate in Penfield. ihat is a fact which is
conceded. But were our fathers infallible?
Did they never mistake? When they carried
it over the head of the farsighted Mercer, and
a gifted Cooper, was there no mistake ? How is
Penfield its ‘‘consecrated home ?” The grass,
and bushes, and branches, I am informed, now
. \ •
grow over the grave of Mercer, though he
sleeps in death near the University which
bears his honored name, in its “ consecrated
home.” The word home is absurd, and
“ consecrated ” is desecrated in that conneo
nection. The report of this Committee pro
ceeds upon the assumption that, as the Ga.
Asso. took the lead in founaing this Institution,
she now has the sole right, or the greatest
right, to decide the question of removal over
the head of the whole State of Georgia. To
that we protest. We are willing to accord to
the old Ga. all she deserves of moral power,
influence and honor; but we claim the right
of voting in the premises. Besides, in the
bounds of the Georgia are many “ good and
true” men, anxious for removal. And those
who oppose it reckon without their hrst.
Those brethren should, instead of protesting,
join in the crowd, stick to the good old doc
trine for which their leaders have so strenu
ously contended in other days, and let “ ma
jorities rule." Go with the majority, and let
us build up an Institution in Macon worthy
the people and the times, put into it a half
million dollars, and found an adequate, per
manent, comprehensive, expanding, glorious
University, in fact as well as in name, to
meet the wants of the denomination for a
century to come. Let us remove her! If
you stay there protesting, gentlemen, you
will not have with you a “ corporal’s guard,”
and you will certainly “be left out in the
cold.” The great body of the denomination
are now taking the Macon train. Let us re
move her ! All aboard !! Tau.
Explanations—Historical Facts.
1 deem it due to our venerablKaud beloved
brother, J. H. Campbell, to endeavor to re
lieve him from certain unpleasant impressions
which, it appears, have been made on his
mind by a recent article of mine that ap
peared in the columns of the Index and Bap
tist. I will therefore say,
1. My article was not designed as a reply
to him in particular. It was written and sent
to be printed for the benefit of all opponents
of the Southern Baptist Domestic Mission
Board, wherever located, and by whatsoever
name or names they may be known among
men.
2. I designed to impugn no man’s motives,
and know of no rule of either logio or charity
that will justify the construing anything in
my recent article as a reflection on the mo
tives of any oue. So far from impugning the
motives of any one, I stated, or intimated,
that the “ disaffected,” to whom I had refer
red, were probably influenced by most benevo
lent feelings. One may be influenced by pure
motives in his opposition to a good cause,
where there exists no just cause for his oppo
sition. Brother C. admits that we are all
liable to err, 1 believe.
3. 1 admit that I erred by one, in my esti
mate of the number of missionaries employed
by our State Board annually. If 1 had said
3 or 4, instead of 2 or 3, it would have saved
my brother the labor of correcting my error.
I ask his pardon for imposing this labor upon
him. I would remind brother C., however,
—and other readers, —that I spoke not posi
tively as to the number, but merely affirmed
that, if more than 2 or 3 had been appointed
in any one year, “ it has wholly escaped my
memory.” That was the only thing I affirmed
as a fact, and what I actually affirmed was
literally true. Biit I will add here, that to
my certain knowledge, missionaries were
sometimes appointed after a part of the Con
ventional year had expired ; and I would not
dare to affirm, now, that the labor they per
formed was equivalent to that of 3 or 4 mis
sionaries laboring through the whole year.
4. The majority rule is of force in all or
ganized bodies, such as are churches, Associa
tions and Conventions, and in such only. An
overwhelming majority of the S. B. C. are in
favor of the D. M. B. 1 evince my belief in
the rule in qestion, by submitting to the de
cision of that body.—To the foregoing ex
planations I will add a few historical facts.
1 .—lt is a fact, that great destitution exists
in both the seaboard and mountainous regions
of our State. Brother C., while serving as
an evangelist at large, I remember, gave us
some very affecting sketches of the state of
things on our seaboard.
2. It is a fact, that our D. M. B. is doing
what no District Association known to me is
doing—that is, sustaining missionaries in por
tions of this destitute region. Abolish our
D. M. 8., and to whom are feeble churches
and Associations to apply for aid ?
3. It is a fact, that there is great destitu
tion beyond our State bounds—in more newly
settled portions of our territory—and no
State organization would feel at liberty to
apply the funds sent up to it for missionary
purposes to the supplying of this destitution.
Abolish our D. M. 8., and to whom are we
to look for aid to supply this destitution ?
4. It is a fact, that the Boards of all our
State Conventions and General Associations,
as far as known to me, admit the necessity
for a Southern Domestio Mission Board, and
give their moral sanction to our existing
Board. No State does more to sustain mis
sions within its own bounds than Virgiuia, as
brother C. will admit, and yet no State is
more cordial in her support of our D. M. B.
than she.
5. It is a fact, that though we have State
organizations in the South, and a general D.
M. 8., a goodly number of our brethren have
sought and obtained appointments as mis
sionaries in the South from a Board at the
North, that was the first to refuse to appoint
a slaveholder as a missionary ! They would
receive all the money he sent them, but would
not accept of his services!
6. It is a fact, that when we had a State
organization for missionary purposes, its
Board virtually admitted the necessity for a
general or national organization by seeking
aid of the Northern Board (to which refer
ence has been made above) to help them to
supply the destitution in their State.
7. It is a fact, that the D. M. B. does not
oppose the effort of any Association to sup
ply the destitution within or beyond its own
bounds. It only aspires to a fraternal coope
ration with them in the common cause of our
common Lord and Saviour.
8. It is a fact, that the number of mission
aries appointed by a Board is not a correct
measure of its influence. To estimate its in
fluence aright, we must add to its direct in
fluence the indirect influence it exerts, through
other bodies that have been aroused by its
action and led to engage in sustaining mis
sionaries themselves. I therefore still be
lieve that our “ D. M. B. “is doing ten-fold
more towards the support of missionaries in
our own bounds than our State Convention
ever did,” etc. As we have no accurate
means of measuring moral influence, it can
not be demonstrated either that 1 am right or
that I am wrong in my belief.
I am persuaded, when brother C. reflects
more maturely on this subject, his naturally
astute mind will lead him to discover that
there exists an absolute necessity for an or
ganization (outside of State lines) like that
of our D. M. 8., unless we can be content to
place ourselves again in a state of dependence
on a Northern Board, and contribute all our
funds for the support of our domestic mis
sionaries through such a Board. The feelings
of brother C., as well as mine, I am confi
dent, will also revolt against the idea of again
$3 00 HEIR.} WHOLE NO. 2514.
placing ourselves in a state of subjection to
those who thrust us out as unworthy to be
received on terms of social and moral
equality.
1 hope 1 have written nothing to wound the
feelings of our venerable brother. Sorry to
hear of his domestic afflictions. Hope his old
friends and brethren will embrace the earliest
opportunity to afford him, by their pecuniary
contributions, tangible evidence of their ten
der sympathy and unabated affection, and
seek in his behalf the sustaining grace of
God. I further hope that the time is not dis
tant when we shall again recognize his famil
iar form and hear his voice in our general an
nual meetings. An Old Baptist.
Humility.
The bird that soars on highest wing
Builds on the ground her lowly nest;
And she that doth most sweetly sing,
Sings in the shade when all things rest--
In lark and nightingale we see
What honor hath humility.
When Mary chose the better part,
She meekly sat at Jesus feet;
And Lydia’s gently opened heart
Was made for GodA own temple meet;
Fairest and best adorned is she
Whose clothing is humility.
The saint that wears heaven’s brightest crown
Iu deepest adowrttrwe bends;
The weight of glory bows him down
Then most when most his soul ascends :
Nearest the throne itself must be
The footstool of humility.
—Japw Montgomery.
A Legend.
The Monk was preaching; strong his earnest word;
From the abundance of his heart be spoke,
And the flame spread—iu every soul that heard
Sorrow, and love, and good resolve awoke:
The poor lay brother, ignorant and old,
Thanked God that ho had heard such words of gold.
“Still let the glory, Lord, be thine alone;”
So prayed the Monk, his heart absorbed in praise;
“Thine be the glory: if my hands have sown,
The harvest ripened in thy mercy’s rays:
It was thy blessiDg, Lord, that made my word
Bring light and love to every soul that heard.
" 0 Lord I I thank thee that my feeble strength
Has been so blessed ; that sinful hearts and cold
Were melted at my pieading—knew at length
How sweet thy service and how safe thy fold;
While souls that loved thee saw before them rise
Still holier heights of loving sacrifice.”
So prayed the Monk, when suddenly he heard
An angel speaking thus: “Know, 0 my son,
Thv words had all been vain, but hearts were stirred,
And saints were edified, and sinners won,
By his, the poor lay brother’s, humble aid,
Who sat upon the publio stairs and prav ed.” j
—Adelaide Prootor.
Infant Baptizings (?)
A reverend friend in the line of the succes
sion had, a while since, a great day for the
“church” in making quite a number of babes
into Christians. Parents had neglected their
important duties too long, and the children
were from months to two years of age. Vac
cination will not “ take” in some constitu
tions, and it was evident those baby natures
objected to taking Christianity in that form.
They fought, they screamed, they yelled, they
straightened themselves in the rector’s arms
into aggravating rigidity, they united in a
vocal concert till the temple rang with inno
cent, child like voices, and it was altogether a
scene somewhat painful, especially to that
heretic with a handkerchief crammed into his
mouth sitting in the back pew. The succes
sor of St. Peter was equal to the occasion,
for he made the opposition which he had met
with in the ceremony the basis of an exhorta
tion to his people to bring their children to
the font before they were old enough to op
pose the rite so fcafully—advice which I
hope they will follow, for his sake if not for
their children’s.
Moses Stuart, you remember, in his inves
tigation of baptism, concludes that the origi
nal mode was immersion, but contends that
sprinkling answers to the spirit of the rite, or,
as Stanley says : “A wise exercise of Christian
liberality makes the few drops of the font an
swer to the full stream of the descending
river.” We have been wont to reply, that this
indulgence of the spirit of liberality will in
time do away with baptism altogether. It
happened, not long ago, in this goodly Mas
sachusetts, that five babes were brought to a
certain church to receive “ the seal of the chil
dren of the covenant.” A member of the
church, watching the ceremony with some in
terest, was quite sure that not a drop of water
fell upon the sweet face of the first babe ; and
the minister’s hand, in dealing with the other
four, came out of the bowl or font as dry as
it went in. To satisfy herself, at the close of
the service she went to the basin, and it was
as dry as if water was an unknown quantity
in New England. That was a revelation,
but she knew her pastor could explain it, and
so she went to him for light and water. His
reply was something like this : “ The last
babe baptized made such a terrible fuss, when
the water was applied, that he determined
not to use water. The water is of no account;
it is only the spirit of the rite which is of any
moment.” I wonder how often this terrible
fuss has had this effect? Who knows how
many children are in the world, fondly hoping
they have the “ seal” of the covenant, when
they only received the “ spirit ?” Well, let
them scream.
“Lastly.” It did also happen in this same
Massachusetts, in another denomination, that
the retiring pastor and the incoming pastor
(the latter of course a boy) were officiating
in the same ceremony of regeneration by
water, according to the prayer-book. The
aged rector noticed considerable trepidation
on the part of the young man as he handed
back two or three ohildren, but supposed it
was his youth and his inexperience in bundling
the angels ; but looking into the font, it was
dry as dust. The “ spirit and the sign” satis
fied the young man, but not the old. The
latter found a pitcher of water in the vestry,
filled the font, and went into the audience for
the babies already “baptized.” Their parents
had sent them home in the care of the nurses,'
whence they were at once brought again at
the command of the retiring rector, and pro
perly administered to in a watery manner.—
Ex. and Chron.
Pulpit Courtesy and Discourtesy.
Not long ago, a Presbyterian minister in
this State found a Methodist minister at his
appointment, and after he had preached, called
on this son of Wesley to pray. The latter
prayed a very severe rebuke to the son of
Calvin and his doctrine—so severe that the
preacher at whom th e prayer was aimed, felt
it necessary to comment upon the fact imme
diately, and did so pretty freely. The Meth
odist demanded and insisted upon an oppor
tunity for an explanation, and this being at
last granted, he expressed, in no very meas
ured terms, his horror of Calvinism and its
preachers again. We need not say anything
about the excitement it produced, or its in
fluence. But we think that Presbyterians
bad better do their own preaching and praying
too, hereafter, and Baptists had as well profit
by this illustration of the beauties of pulpit
courtesy to men of a different faith.— Texas
Baptist Herald.
Company. —Emerson says: “ Men who
know the same things are not long the best
company for each other.”
Lost Popularity.— When John Wilkes’
popularity declined, he said he was “ a fire
burned out.”