Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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.”