Newspaper Page Text
CHRISTIAN INDisOm* SOUTH-WESTERN BAPTIST.
VOL. 50-NO. 16. is3 00 A YEAR.t
A RELIGIOUS AND FAMILY PAPER,
PUBLISHED WEEKLY IN ATLANTA, QA
AT $3.00 PER ANNUM,
Invariably in Advance.
,T. J. TOON, Proprietor.
Crown Him.
Bring a garland lor His brow;
Pour your incense at His feet,
Ye who stand around His seat,
Who in Hi# bright Presence bow,
Crown Him! crown Him! wondrous story
— Jesus is the King of Glory.
Weave for Him a diadem,
Ye who know His migbtv- love;
From the world below, above,
Gather every priceless gem.
Crown Him! crown Him! wondrous story
—Son of man, yet King of Glory!
Be His brows with splendor crowned;
Thorns once pierced His gentle head;
He was numbered with the dead ;
Iu His blood our sins were drowned.
Crown Him! crown Him! wondrous story
—Jesus died, the King of Glory 1
All the Church in heaven and earth,
Cast your crowns before His throne;
He redeemed you, He alone;
Magnify His matchless worth.
Crown Him! crown Him! wondrous story
~Jesti3 rose, the King of Glory!
Every sceptred hand below,
Principalities above.
Celebrate His boundles love—
His eternal grandeur show.
Crown Him! crown Him! wondrons story
Jesus reigns, the King of Glory !
—E- E. Adams, D. L>.
Holland’s Dream of Episcopal Unity.
When the “spent wave,’’ in Baltimore, ‘broke
upon the shore that compasses Methodism, to die
without making sensibly less the great deep which
cast it off;’—in other words, when the ‘huge
body’ of Methodism, ‘in the rapidity of its mo
tion, threw from its surface the separable particle’
aforesaid, ‘without diminishing its own volume
—in still other (and plainer) words, when Rev.
Robert Afton Holland gave occasion for these fig
ures of speech, on the part of editors and bish
ops, bv withdrawing from “ John Wesley’s So
ciety” and attaching himself to the Protestant
Episcopal (or, as some of its ‘burning’ rather
than ‘shining lights’ prefer to style it, the
“American Catholic”) Church,— curiosity was
naturally awakened, as to the motives which
prompted the unexpected somersault.
There was little space in this instance, we hold,
for the stock plea of sectarian or sceptical bitter
ness_the imputation of personal by-ends. Mr.
Holland, indeed, has been marked by certain faults
of style and carriage, which almost excuse the
brusque suggestion of a New York journal, that,
‘if ho is studying for holy orders, it might be
well for him to include Campbell’s Rhetoric in hi?.
curriculum.' But the tenor ol his life has been
Christian: he has never forfeited the confidence
of the public in his integrity and piety. When
such a man passes from one church to another, it
is a canon both of charity and justice that ho
shall bo assailed with no suspicion of unworthy
motives—shall be held to have borne the escutch
eon of principle without tarnish along his path
of transition. It is an offence against this canon
to say, (as some of Mr. Holland’s former brethren
have said,) that “ho was puffed out of the church
by the Advocates ,” or that “he had grown quite
too refined for so humble a people as the Meth
edists, and was no longer content to ‘take an ap
pointment’ from a Methodist bishop unless lie
could first select one for himself.” It is due to
his unblemished reputation in the past, that we
should credit him with honesty of purpose—with
conscientious deference to his own views of right
and duty—with such a doctrinal basis for change
ns seemed, in his judgment, at once to authorize
and to demand it.
No such basis, however, has found its way into
print, as yet; for Mr. Holland has modestly for
borne to avail himself of the neophyte’s prescrip
tive privilege; the privilege, namely, of “ bom
barding” the public “with words—words —
words,” all about his own transplanting into a
richer soil than nourished his early growth. The
nearest approach to a document of this kind, is a
letter written, on the eve of his change, to an
Episcopal clergyman. In that letter he says : “I
seo in your church, antiquity, to excite reverence;
authority, to quell the turbulence of doubt; dig
nity, to awe the mind that must have either the
quietude of deference or the noise of wranglings ;
and a liturgy that helps devotion, that trains the
wings of the soul to lly, that plants against the
wall of Heaven a ladder on whoso rounds of
prayer and praise aspiration can climb step by
step to a vision of the city all glorious with the
light of God.”
For a fresh hand in that line of work, it must
be confessed that Mr. Holland “Romanizes” well.
When a man looks, not to the sole and sufficient
rule of Scripture, but to the “dignity" and
“authority” of the “church,” to escape “the
noise of wranglings," “quell the turbulence of
doubt” and secure “the quietude of deference,”
he has already crossed the gulf that parts sound
Protestantism from doctrinal Popery. He has
surrendered his mind to the principle which un
derlies the whole system embodied in the decrees
of the Council of Trent, together with such mod
ern “developments” as the immaculate concep
tion of the Virgin Mary and the infallibility of
the Pope. He differs from the most blind and
abject believer in these dogmas, only as regards
the applications of the principle. But this is a
point aside from our present purpose.
We are on the trail of quite a different matter
a matter which, even more signally, illus
trates Mr. Holland’s capacity to create surprises.
We refer to his idea that the quietude of defer
ence is to be secured, the turbulence of doubt
quelled, and the noise of wranglings escaped by
entrance into the Episcopal Church. This is
simply astounding. As if that Church were the
true halcyon, with power to build and brood on
the very surface of the sea of human speculations,
and charm the troubled waters to rest with the
shadow of her wings 1 As if no stormy strifes
were raging in her own bosom—no internal
schisms, marring fellowship and threatening rup
ture ! As if she dared to claim the unity of a
single belief on weightiest points in faith and
practice, or even of mutual tolerance and charity
among beliefs that are diverse 1 How Mr. Hol
land could cheat himself into the indulgence of
such hopes, passes our comprehension. The hu
morist who said that to think of China and other
far-off countries “ strained his imagination and
made it ache,” could know but little of the strain
ing and aching which even the imagination of
“the boy preacher” must have undergone in
framing this conception of Episcopal unity. Why,
the revelations of Episcopal estrangement, discord
and conflict, which the newspapers have brought
us since the new year came in—these, even if
they stood alone, should suffice to do for him,
what Luther threatened to do for Tetzell; that is,
to “ beat a hole in his drum,” and cut short his
martial music under the banner of “ the Church.”
Let us glance at a few of these revelations.
The Episcopate.
Take first that feature of the Church which
gives it a distinctive title—which constitutes, in
fact, the key-stone in the arch of its ecclesiastical
system. The very office of bishop is not without
gainsayers, or doubters, within her fold. The
Protestant Churchman says: “ How many come
into the Episcopal Church for the sake of the
Episcopate ? Not half so many as come in spite
of it. This is a fact easily verified.” It declares,
too, that clergymen who threw off the yoke of
Diocesan control and yet offered the services of the
Church to the people, would furnish them “all
that nine-tenths who come into the Church care
to have, or feel any conscious want of.” There are
those, then, in her communion who entertain tho
opinion avowed by Dean Alford, a short while
before his death, in the Contemporary Review :
“The bishops of the New Testament epistles have
hardly anything in common with the church offi
cers which have since borne that name, but were
merely presbyters, as is acknowledged by the
early Christian fathers. If any portion of
the Church in coming out of the corruptions
of Rome, or out of subsequent corruptions
of faith and practice in any reformed com
munion, had reason to believe that Episcopacy in
that particular case had stood in the way of the
work of God’s Spirit on mankind, it had a per
fect right to abandon Episcopal for Presbyterian
government; it was not thereby removed a whit
farther from the Scripture model of a church.”
Nay, there are those, perhaps, who would echo
the strong language of Dean Stanley, at a recent
Convocation : “To say that the Episcopate, as it
now exists, was founded and instituted as one of
the universal and essential parts of the Christian
religion by our Divine Redeemer, appears to me
little short of profanity'' Is Mr. H. with Al
ford and Stanley ? or against them 1 or a neutral
cipher ?
The Acthoritv of Bishops.
Pass, now, to the authority with which this
(questionable) office invests those who hold it.
An Episcopal minister in Dublin said, in a late
sermon: “ The bishops are the successors of the
apostles, and, as such, hold their authority to
rule, and legislate for, the Church, direct from
Christ Himself. They hold the keys of heaven ;
they alone can bind and loose, or, as the Hebrew
has it, permit and prohibit.’ They alone have the
divine right to teach the ordinances of the Church,
and these ordinances have the same authority as
Scripture itself!" With such a substratum of
doctrine on which to build “ the encroachments
of Episcopal prerogative,” no wonder (as the
Protestant Churchman expresses it) that the his
tory of the Church shows a “steady progress of
the tendency towards the centralization of ec
clesiastical power” in the hands of the bishop.
That paper alleges that, “since the consecration
of Bishop White,” this process has been at work
in the Church, until “tho bishop of former times,
with his moderate claims and prerogatives, has
been transformed, not merely into a successor, in
a peculiar sense, of the Apostles, but into an
Apostle himself, with an authority outside and
independent of the law of the Church.” It fears
lost “the administration of tho Church shall,”
through this process, “become more severe, rigid
and intolerant than that of the Romish hierar
chy.” And a writer in the Episcopalian says:
“We want a Free Episcopal Church, where a
bishop cannot become a cruel and relentless in.
quisitor, and herd his clergy, like poor, frightened
sheep, with tho barking of the ravening dog of
his own unsanctified will.” Who shall bridge the
chasm between tho first of tha~-o quotations and
the last? And yet that chasm parts Churchman
from Churchman on this question. On which
side of it will Mr. Holland stand, with the de
claration scarcely cold from his lips that the
power of Methodist bishops to say to the itiner
ant, “Go here,” or, “Go there,” while he dares
not demur, i3 “antagonistic to that complete in
dependence of ministerial conduct which should
control it?” “ Independence" may fare even
worse, where ‘the ravening dog of an unsancti
fied will’ (as one party styles it) claims (with the
approval of the other party) “the same authority
as Scripture itself!”
Ritualism.
Turn next to what is currently known as Ritu
alism—the revival of certain medieval forms of
superstition by a growing party of “ ministers
and mistakers,” (if we may (borrow the style of
an old English statute on the subject.) Grace
church, Louisville, Ky., was opened, a month
or two since, in the interest of this party,
with the intoning of prayers, the chanting of
psalms, processional singing, etc. Assistant Bish
op Cummins, who resides in the city, refused to
countenance these “innovations” by his presence;
and Senior Bishop Smith, eminently a conserva
tive man and a peace-maker, who had come from
his home in Lexington to adjust the matter, fail
ing to prevent the “ innovations,” returned with
out attending. Now, as “ the form of consecra
tion of a church or chapel” recognizes the bishop
as chief “actor,” this course on the part of the
two bishops of the diocess amounts, we presume,
to a refusal to “separate" Grace church “from
all unhallowed, worldly and common uses,” while
under Ritualistic control. More recently, Bishop
Stevens, of Penn., required Rev. Dr. Batterson,
of St. Clements, Philadelphia, straightway to
abandon the “Romanizing" practices which he
had introduced into the worship of that church;
such as processional and recessional hymns, the
wearing of colored stoles, the mixture of water
with the communion wine, and “ bowings, pros
trations and genuflections to the altar.” The
Vestry of the parish, too, passed a resolution re
questing the Dr. to conform the ritual to this re.
quirement of the Bishop. In his response to
that resolution he said: “The services in St.
Clements have been witnessed by several of our
most faithful and honest bishops, who with one
accord have given to me their hearty commenda
tion. I therefore announce to you that I shall
maiotain those services.” This harmony (?) re
minds us that some members of the English
Church Union, not long since, pronounced Arch
bishop Thompson, (the chief dignitary of the Es
tablishment and an opponent of Ritualism,) “ un
worthy to clean the shoes of Mr. Mackonochie,”
(the Ritualistic London leader.) It reminds us
that Bishop Davis, of South Carolina, a divine
evangelical in faith and saintly in life, who came
to Savannah, in pursuance of an invitation to
assist at the consecration of Bishop Beckwith,
refused to participate in the ceremonies, or even
to witness them, because of the Ritualistic pro
gramme for the occasion. It reminds us that the
Episcopalian , several years ago, dissuading it?
readers from “communion,” where the “novel
ties” of Ritualism were associated with the
“ sacrament,” said: “ Stay away from what is
not the table of the Lord !" It reminds us that
Rev. Dr. Tyng, of New York, at about the same
date, in his zeal against Ritualistic services, ex
claimed: ‘Enter a church where this “blasphe
mous buffoonery ” goes on ? I would at toon set
my foot in hell!' AU this may seem to Mr.
Holland as “ the quietude of deference:" he may
not hear “ the noise of wranglings ” in all this.
But to our mind it bodes division. Nor to ours
alone. At a recent meeting of the Protestant
Episcopal Church Missionary Society, Dr. Tyng
said: “We are called ‘schismatics.’ Yes, we are
trying to create a schism which would break up
FRANKLIN PRINTING HOUSE, ATLANTA, GA., THURSDAY, APRIL 20, 1871.
the inane pomp and ceremonies now character
izing the Church. We are the Church. You
ritualistic Puseyites are not the Church. If hut
ten remain right they are the Church, though in
the minority, and the rest are outcasts.” The
Episcopalian, also, in its comments on the St
Clements case, says: “ The issue never can be
given up, the differences cannot be harmonized.
One party or the other must be ejected.” AA hich
of the parties shall “ quell the turbulence of
doubt” for Mr. Holland then t
The Chicago Suspension.
Look, again, at the esse of Rev. C. E. Cheney,
of Christ church; Chicago. This clergyman has
been accustomed to omit from the baptismal ser
vice, the phraseology which asserts (or implies)
that the “sacrament” “regenerates” infants.
For this offence he was tried before an ecclesias
tical court, and suspended from the ministry by
Bishop Whitehouse. He has disregarded that
sentence and, with the warm approval of his con
gregation, has prosecuted his pastoral work unin
terruptedly. Now, he is threatened with a second
trial, and with deposition for contumacy. The
Protestant Churchman characterizes his suspen
sion as “ peculiarly cruel and oppressive,” since
‘the Church neither affirms nor denies the “so
called doctrine of baptismal regeneration,”’ since
the question involved in it is “a point of imme
morial controversy in the Church,” and since Mr.
Cheney simply follows one of “ two great his
torical Schools in the Church since the Reforma
tion.” A “ country parson,” sitting in his study
and jotting down names as they occurred to him,
informs the Protestant Churchman that the list
drawn out in this way embraces thirty-two clergy
men who are in the habit of making the omission
which plucked down Diocesan censure on the
head of Mr. Cheney. “ They are distributed
through seven dioceses. Several of them are em
inent, and some are Doctors of Divinity." He
has “ reason to believe,” moreover, “ that in sev
eral of the dioceses the Bishops know of the
fact.” The Protestant Churchman says: •“ The
fact in the case is this, that men of the highest
standing in New York and Brooklyn and Phila
delphia are doing tho very thing Mr. Cheney has
been doing. Will they allow him to suffer, while
they pass unscathed? Will the lovers of free
dom in the Church submit to this sort of ecclesi
astical proscription? The mere statement of
these questions shows that we stand upon the
edge of the earthquake.” “If they are all dealt
with alike —if Mr. Cheney’s sentence is the
proper penalty to be inflicted on all alike—then
we shall soon see in every largo city in the land
whole congregations separating themselves from
their Diocesan Conventions that they may con
tinue to enjoy the ministrations of their suspen
ded and deposed clergymen.” The Episcopalian
says: “No brighter crown of righteousness will
be placed on the head of any of Christ’s minis
ters who have been raised up since the Reforma
tion. llow many aching hearts, how many bleed
ing consciences, how many anxious and sorrow
ing tninds in and among the ministers of our
Church, are to-day envying tha position of Rev.
C. E. Cheney! We give all honor to the ener
getic and decided members of Christ church who
have stood firmly by their minister, and who are
so well able to sustain him in temporal things.
If the same support were promised in much more
moderate dejrc by AtlaSr ..g.egations, there
woqld be not a few to follow Mr. Cheney in his
course, and who would voluntarily assume the
same position. Cannot some provision be made
at once?” Tastes differ, as well as judgments;
and Mr. Holland is free to seek “ quietude ” on
“tho edge of this earthquake,” if it suits his
fancy. It may awake—if it does not engulf him.
Infant Baptism.
Pause awhile now over an incidental point in
the discussion of the Cheney question. Prof.
Jowett, of the University of Oxford, in an essay
on the Interpretation of Scripture, several years
since, illustrating “ the extraordinary and unrea
sonable importance attached to single words,
sometimes of doubtful meaning,” said: “In the
instance of infant baptism, the mere mention of
a family of a jailor at Philippi who was baptized,
(‘he and all his,’ Acts xvi: 83,) has led to the
inference that in his family there were probably
young children ; and hence that infant baptism,
is, first, permissible; secondly, obligatory.” (Prof.
Jowett, by the way, holds that infant baptism
rests on “sufficient grounds,” but that “the
weakness is, the attempt to derive it from Scrip
ture.”) In a reply to that essay, Dr. Moberly,
Bishop of Salisbury, said : “If there be any per
sons who base the obligation of infant baptism
thus upon the inference so drawn from Acts
xvi: 83, I have nothing to say in their defence;
hut I do not know of any such ; I believe, on the
contrary, that there is not a single passage in the
New Testament which directly refers, in its own
proper or immediate meaning, to infant baptism,
much less that there is any which proves its ob
ligatory character." In reference to this opinion
of the Bishop, a writer in the Protestant Church
man says: “Every one of your readers must see
how it bears on the Chicago decision. For if
there is not a single passage in the New Testa
ment which directly refers to infant baptism, or
proves its obligatory character, how much less is
there a passage which refers to the effects of in
fant baptism, or proves what its effects are ! And
if this is so, how narrow and intolerant the judg
ment which forbids a man like Mr. Cheney to
preach as he is preaching, and to do the work
which he is doing, unless he will affirm of every
baptized child, that he has been regenerated in
baptism by the Holy Spirit 1” Another corres
pondent of that paper writes: “ The mode of ad
ministering baptism in our Church has always
been so repugnant to my mind, that I could never
consent to have my children (of which 1 have a
large family) receive an ordinance which, to my
mind, taught what was positively untrue. I can
not believe that an infant of but a few months
old, who has no conception of good or evil, who
knows not even that there is a God, can have
‘ the heart and affections changed from enmity to
the love of God;’ can be ‘renovated in heart;’
can be ‘changed from a natural to a spiritual
state;’ (I give you Webster’s definitions of the
term regenerate,) and by what ? The sprinkling
of a little water, and the expression of a few for
mal words, which include several assertions which,
to my mind, are wholly untrue. This has been a
subject of thought with me for years, and I have
conversed upon it with many earnest laymen
and ministers of our Church, and have been sur
prised at the number making the same objections.
Depend upon it, a good many thoughtful men
are beginning to say of a Church which sanc
tions such a judgment, (and, I may add, enforces
such a doctrine,) ‘This is not the Church for us.’ ”
On which side of this question, we wonder, will
Mr. Holland exercise the grace of “deference?”
How will he choose between the “ two historical
Schools,” which have wakened “the noise of
wranglings ” in the Church ever since the Re
formation ?
Evangelist Fathers.
Episcopal unity has been exemplified, also, by
the arrival, in this country, of “ the Evangelist
Fathers;” aquasi-monasticalreli-rjoyftorder, with
vows of chastity, obedience and poverty, whose
sole vocation is that of preaching, from city to
city and from parish to parisli, wherever a
door shall be opened. The organ in
St. Louis, deprecates their establishment here.
It points to “the rise of McU'xiistn in the
Church of England, and its subw uent separa
tion from the Church, as a fair specimen of the
effects which we may expect fromj.uch efforts at
revival by men burning with zap, and uncon
trolled by any diocesan authori.y.” Here is
frank expression given to the feat of disruption.
The Church Weekly, New Yor|: defends the
Fathers, and converts this fear substantially into
a threat It says: “ Has the Church made up
her mind to put every one of be’ priests on her
Procrustean bed of post-Reformati usages and
traditions ? It is, we ’doubt not fully in the
power of this Church to create a «hism far, far
worse, than that of the Methodistt AYe do r.ot
imagine that the Catholic School can be driven
from its allegiance to the Communion
by such means as sufficed to O re away the
VYesleyans. But it undoubtedly mn be driven,
and the pursuit of any narrow, Protestant, or
Erastian line of policy will go far it prepare it to
distrust the catholicity of the hot!, o which it is
now most devoted at the trials which
never afflict those who are in tf#B% bit of making
ostentatious boasts of their onal loyalty.”
When such threats and fears out by the
question, as to the encouragemqn of a body of
semi-Romish monks in the Churen, the bands of
fellowship between the parties t’-at divide her
must be well-nigh fretted asunder. Mr. 11., with
his excellent Georgian wife, cannot J»e one of these
“unmarried Fathers;” but shall ’hey have his
favor, or his frown ?
Auricular Coxfkss.v-j.
Again. Dr. Batterson, in Philadelphia, teaches
the Romish doctrine of auriculart»afession, with
the single exception that while t v e priest says,
You must, he and his associates Jay, You may.
Bishop Stevens, in his response'denounces the
confessional as without Episcopal authority, and
as calculated to “ breed loathsonle ideas in the
minds of the so-called Penitents, and foster lust
and crime in the so called Father-Confessors.”
But the Episcopalian, after reading Dr. Batter
son’s defence, says: “The advocate of private
auricular confession to a priest, 01 priestly abso
lution, of baptismal regeneration, of the real
presence, of priesthood, of prayers for the dead,
has something to sustain him, ipsipimis verbis of
the Prayer-Book. He needs not to alter a word,
to insert a word, to twist, strain, or pervert or
omit a word, to warrant him in breaching, incul
cating, and amplifying all these medieval and un
scriptural doctrines.” This is strong language to
flow from an Episcopal pen, with regard to Mr.
Holland’s “ladder planted against the wall of
heaven, on whose rounds of prayer and praise
aspiration can climb step by sten to a vision o!
the city all glorious with the liga# of God !” It
makes the ladder look, rather, like one of descent
into some subterranean “chamber of imagery”
—of spiritual night, and death. ■
Liturgical Rigor
Once more. According to tho Protestant
Churchman , this liturgical ladder was used for
merly with larger liberty than at 7 esent. “ Inter
polations and omissions wi thJ'scrlM. - ..ave been
made. Bishop Griswold was accustomed, in the
Confirmation Office, in connection with the words,
‘ Almighty and Everlasting God, who hast vouch"
safed to regenerate these thy servants by water
and the Holy Ghost,’ to interpolate the words,
‘as we hnmbly trust.’” “ But now everything
is prescribed,—nothing is to be added or omitted.
So far as the service goes, a machine would do as
well as a man, if it could only real.” That paper,
therefore, favors what is called the Muhlenburg
Memorial, to be presented to the next General
Convention, asking, within certain very safe
limits, that no minister be “required to use any
words, expressions or passages of the Book of
Common Prayer, which he conscientiously be
lieves to be contrary to Holy Scripture, or to
contain doctrine which ho is persuaded cannot be
proved thereby.” Such a proposition, of course)
would find favor with the correspondent of the
Boston Christian Witness , who says: “Togo at
once to tho root of the matter, I maintain that the
Church has no right to impose any form of litur
gical worship. It has the right to put forth its
own sanctioned liturgy, and to recommend its use,
but not to impose it.” The Banner of the Church,
however, objects, on the ground that this meas
ure “ would permit every clergyman to eliminate
from the service such parts a3 might not chance
to suit his particular theological opinions or his
peculiar esthetic tastes ; and in these remarkable
days, when progress is by steam nd illumination
is electrical, his ‘conscience’ might compel him
to discard the General Confession one Sundaji
and the Declaration of Absolution the next, and
so on till the whole service would be omitted.” In
1869, too, nine bishops, with the venerable Mc-
Ilviane at their head, proposed by “alternate
phrases, or some equivalent modification in the
office for the ministration of baptism to infants,”
to relieve the “ consciences” at Which the Banner
seems to sneer. They were told by Bishop Potter,
of New York, that “ the Supreme Council of this
Church, if ever constrained from a sense of duty
to undertake 'the revision of her Service-Book,
would make it more primitive and Catholic —not
less so.” He meant, more sacramentarian, more
sacerdotal, more Romish 1 Eve i their “High-
Mightinesses,” the bishops, then, are divided in
the premises. And the majority sides with Pot
ter. Twenty years ago, as a correspondent ol the
Protestant Churchman alleges, the prayer book
had but one interpretation—an interpretation in
accordance with “ Evangelical ’’ theology. “If
other views were held, they were the excep
tion, and were held so moderately and modestly
as to occasion no alarm. Now, all this is changed.
What was then a cloud no bigger than a man’s
hand, now blackens the whole heavens. Sacerdo
talism and sacramentarianism have taken posses
sion of the Church.” Is Mr. Holland prepared to
stand with the many or the few in this matter ?
Will he tread in the steps of some who have gone
before him in the exchange of Methodism for Epis
copacy, who betray a leaning to the stronger side
which savors of moral weakness, and (to use im
agery of theirs) “blow venom through their nos
trils" against “Evangelical” theology, because,
if we do not weigh, but merely count men, the
weaker side holds it ?
But we must arrest this review of the
estrangement, discord and conflict, abounding in
the quarter to which Mr. Holland has transferred
himself; not for want of materials, but because
our space fails us. The English Churchman spoke
within bounds when it said : “It may be taken as
a broad truth, that of the subscribers to a Church
newspaper, not more than five are in perfect ac
cordance, and therefore that amongst two thou
sand subscribers there will be four hundred differ
ent sets of opinion which the editor will have to
reconcile or bow down to.” All possible shades
of sentiment, from Puritan to Popish, vex the
Church: and, no matter what the point in issue,
their contrariety is but faintly imaged in the
statement of the Central Christian Advocate that
its patrons address it as tho “ Senteril, Senteral,
Centrule, Centrol, Centarel, Centearl, Centrail,
Senterail and CenteroL” Out of a much more
embarrassing “ confusion of tongues ” is Mr. Hol
land to cull “ the quietude of deference.” The
task strikes us as scarcely less difficult than Tom
Marshall would have found it to organize andt oork
his new church with Presbyterian order, Baptist
strict communion, Methodist zeal and Campbellite
faith ! But Mr. Holland, who, a year or two since,
gravely assured an Atlanta audience that the
Presbyter Jerome was a Bishop, thus putting
himself on record as a novice in the controversy
with regard to Episcopacy, has fine capabilities,
and may bring what seems a hopelees under
taking to a successful issue. If he does, we hop#
he will come far enough down on his “ ladder ”
to let us hear of it
“ Behold I Stand at the Door, andjKnock.”
There is a solemn question
To which I must reply;
Shall I accept the Saviour,
Or all His claims deny?
Behold He staudeth knocking
Upon my bosom door,
Pei haps it now He ceaseth,
’Twill be for evermore :
Oh, shall I now receive Him,
Accept Him and believe Him?
Or shall I now refuse to hear,
And bid Him go away!
How long He hath been waiting,
My heart aloue cau tell;
How patiently entreating,
My conscience kuowetb well.
What words of solemn warning,
What promises of love,
His voice hath ever pleaded
My stony heart to move.
Oh, shall I now receive Him, &c.
The question must be answered :
The tLme will soon be past:
It will not do to-morrow,
To-day may be my lagt.
I either must, reject Him,
And choose the world of sin,
Or open freely to Him,
And bid Him enter in.
Oh, shall I now receive Him, &c.
Oli! on that awful morning,
When He, upon Qis throne,
Shall summon all before Him,
Who life on earth have known;
How shall I stand before Him,
And look upon His face,
If, while He here entreateth,
I scorn His offered grace.
Oh, shall I now receive Him, &c.
—Archibald Alexander Stevenson.
The Other Side.
Without designing or desiring to enter into
the discussion of questions that have been
raised as to the wisdom of plans pursued by
the Boards of the Southern Baptist Conven
tion, l have thought that the exhibition of
some facts connected with the operations of
one of the Boards of the Convention, wpuld
be neither ill-timed, nor uninteresting, nor
the remarks that may accompany them be
considered impertinent.
In estimating the expenses of the Boards,
the salaries of Secretaries and Agents are
regarded as so much dead expense, money
subtracted from collections for the Boards,
for which no equivalent is returned, except
in the dollars and cents which they bring into
the treasury ; whereas, the amount of labor
performed in preaching the gospel is often as
great as if they did nothing else, fully as
much as pastors of churches who have but
monthly meetings. To this it may be re
plied, that these labors are given to churches
having pastors, and that the agents do the
work which would otherwise be done by the
pastor. Conceded. But is not this kind of la
bor continually sought by pastors, as a means
of promoting the welfare and progress of
their churches ? Is it not resorted to in sea
sons of revival, and to awaken the spirit ot
revival ? Is it labor wasted, when one pas
tor goes to the aid of another ? It is not so
regarded, either with respect to pastor or
evangelists. Why then should not the moral
results of the preaching of an agent of a
Board of the Convention be considered as
valuable as it would if he was not an agent?
I have before me the report of an agent of
the Board of Domestic Missions, embracing
a year. It is as follovs; Sermons, 201;
cash collected, $3,032.16; miles travelled,
7717; visits, 212; churches visited, 70;
prayer-meetings, 41; Sunday schools visited,
24; baptisms witnessed, 60; converted in
meetings attended, 125; collected for reli
gious papers, not including Horne and For
eign Journal, $108.25; Bibles sold, 11;
books sold, 37 ; copies of Journals subscribed
for, 160; salary, $1,000; expenses, $224.45.
Now, is this nothing? Has not the labor
performed richly compensated for the outlay
of his salary and expenses, ($1,224.45,) to
say nothing of the $1,807.55, above this ex
penditure paid to the Board. I may be mis
taken, preachers are not commonly regarded
as skilful financiers, but it does strike me—it
may be my weakness, my inability to meas
ure labor and time, and money expended,
and results gained, and make the proper bal
ances—but it does impress itself upon me that
this working man of God has accomplished
more for the good of humanity and the glory
of his Master, than the man, however well
meaning he may be, who uses his influence
by speech or pen to hinder the work ; who
stands off and cries too much expense —too
much machinery —too little done for so much
money. He may be right, but I cannot see it.
The comparisons which have been made
between the expenses of the Board of Do*
mestic Missions and other like bodies, are
unfair and unreliable. It is exceedingly diffi
cult to procure data from which to determine
the per centum of expense in carrying on
the work, and from the published report of
one of these Boards, upon which calculations
have been based, it is simply impossible, as
I will demonstrate. “A. F. C.,” in the Re
ligious Herald, affirms with great positive
ness, that the cost of conducting the work of
the American Baptist Home Mission Society,
is about 4$- per cent. Let us see how he
arrives at this. I find in the report of the
Treasurer of that Society—Cash paid for ser
vices of Secretaries, Assistant Treasurer, and
Clerk, at the rooms $7,400.00
Cash paid for rent of rooms 1,400.00
Making $8,800.00
This is about 4} per cent on $190,000,
the amount of their receipts and disburse
ments. This is staled as the cost of conduct
ing their work. Between these items in the
report, appear other items of office expense,
fuel, stationary, &c., running up to within a
fraction of s2,ooo—making in all nearly sll,
000. The Society reports three Assistant
Secretaries; (1 see no mention of their sal
aries, ) and twelve General Missionaries,
who are State Collecting Agents, whose ser
vices are included in the general item of lo
cal and general missionaries, amounting to
$75,000. No where are 15 officers in addi
tion to 3 Home Secretaries, Assistant Treas
urer, and Clerk, at the rooms, at a cost of
which the report furnishes no information —
it may be $5,000, or $25,000, and yet we are
gravely told that the expenses is about 4£ per
cent., or SB,BOO —52,000 less than the office
expense alone, and how much less than the
aggregate of all the expenses of the Sodiety,
is not shown by the record.
Again, “A. F. C.” credits the B. D. M.,
S. B. C., with $19,000, but the report of the
Treasurer shows $22,5G0 in round numbers,
and he estimates the expense at 25 per cent.
The entire cost of doing the work of the Board,
including salaries of Secretaries and Agents,
and all other expenses, is 22 per cent. But a
comparison of the expenses of the Boards,
Northern and Southern, is impossible, be
cause the report of the former does not specify
important items of expense, as I have shown.
Let “A. F. C.” apply the same rule to the
Marion Board that he does to the New York,
i. e. —take the salary of the officer in the
room and the rent of the office, the only two
items which he takes from the report of the
Northern Board, and he will find that the
result does not sustain him. The salary of
the Secretary is $3,000 —office rent nothing.
$3,000 on $22,500, is about 14 per cent., and
that is the true difference between what “ A.
F. C.” puts down as the cost of carrying on
the work of the Northern Board, and the cor
responding expense of the Southern. This is
not all the expense of the Marion Board,
neither is “ A. F. C’s” estimate all tho ex
pense of the New York Board, nor can he
show from the printed report what that in
creased expense is. The report informs us
that there are other (and I presume not in
considerable) expenses, but furnishes no data
by which they can be estimated. If it did,
we might .possibly find the difference growing
“ small by degrees, and beautifully less.”
I am not as familiar with “ commercial
words” as my friend, “ A. F. C.,” but 1 sub
mit to the candid judgment ol my readers
whether I have not demonstrated in words of
sober reason, that the comparison is unfair,
and the result unreliable. Is it just to insti
tute a comparison at all, between the work of
the Boards of the Southern Baptist Conven
tion, relying upon the limited resources of
the impoverished South, and the Northern
Societies, drawing from their great wealth,
and from every State in the Union, with
Mexico and Burnish added ? Asa matter of
course, it cost us more to do our work in
proportion to our receipts, than it would if
they were ten-fold greater. Would it not be
wise, to diminish the outlay by increasing the
receipts, than by unjust comparisons and hasty
conclusions to excite suspicion, foster pre
judice, and waste our strength in experiments
that may be more costly than anything we
heve yet had, and end in disgraceful disaster,
and the surrender of all our plans, and with
them our work.
But if the work is costly, shall we abandon
it? If “A. F. C’s” anecdote of the man who
gave a dollar to an Agent, for missions to the
heathen, and then five to carry it to its desti
nation, was a true illustration of the expense
of sending the gospel to them, would it justify
us in withholding it ? This recalls an anec
dote to my mind upon the same subject. An
anti-missionary preacher some years ago was
enlightening his audience upon the dishonesty
of this whole scheme for sending the gospel
to the heathen, and said, he heard that Dr.
Judson was living in a fine brick house, and
owned a bank, and that that was the plaoo
where all the money weut that these mission
ary fellows collected, and that he determined
to find out the truth or falsehood of it, and
so he saddled his horse, and went to see for
himself, and found it all true.
The writer can say, iu all sincerity, for
himself, and thinks he can for his associates,
that whenever, in the opinion of the denom
ination as expressed by the Southern Bap
tist Convention, changes in the plans of oper
ation, or in the location of the Board are nec
essary, he will cheerfully acquiesce in their
decision, (provided, in his opinion, no piinci
pie is sacrificed,) and labor as earnestly for
its prosperity, if placed in Nashville, or Balti
more, or Atlanta, as if it should remain where
it is.
I would, however, very modestly suggest,
that a comparison of what has been accom
plished by the Board of Domestic Missions,
in an insignificant inland town, with the re
sults that have been reached when other
Boards of the Convention have had the ad
vantage that populous cities afford, does not
reflect very much discredit upon either their fi
nancial ability, their fidelity, or their favor with
the denomination. True, there has been,
and is, fault-finding. It has always been so.
Long ago, when a disciple had “ done what
she could” to honor her Lord, it was asked,
“To what purpose is this waste? It will al
ways be so. Perfection, if attainable, would
not escape criticism and censure, when judged
by imperfect beings. Imperfect men riiust
expect to commit blunders, and to be blamed
for them, and to be blamed whether they com
mit them or not, by men as imperfect as
themselves, and who perhaps, have been
saved from like, or more serious, ones, by the
simple fact that they have never had the op
portunity to commit them.
Wm. H. Mclntosh.
Marion, Ala., April 7,1871.
Mistaken Prophecy. —ln a paper read by
Rev. Kendall Brooks, at our Missionary Ju
bilee in 1864, the following paragraph oc
curs : “A little more than a hundred years
ago, Rev. Dr. Ezra Stiles, of Newport, R. 1.,
afterwards President of Yale College, pub
lished an estimate of the relative strength of
the different denominations then existing in
New England, and of what their numbers
might be expected to become in one hundred
years; i. e., in 1860. He reckoned the Bap
tists as one twentieth as numerous as the Con
gregationalists, and estimated that they would
be in about the same proportion in 1860.
But if we confine our attention, as he did, to
New England, we find that to day the Bap
tists are eleven-twentieths as numerous as the
Congregationalists; and if we include all the
free States, the Baptists are thirty-one twen
tieths as numerous as the Congregationalists.”
The writer adds that within fifty years the
number of Congregationalists had been mul
tiplied by 2.71, while the number of Bap
tists had, in the same period, been multiplied
by 5.65.
Baptism and Churchship.— The Church
man says that “All persons who have been
baptized with water in the name of the Father,
Son, and Holy Ghost, are members of the
church, and the church has no other mem
bers.” “ This proposition,” says the Con
gregalionalist, “seems to be open to two infer
ences. In the first place, that anxiety to
baptize, which used to lead the Jesuits in
Canada to cheat the Indians by baptizing their
papooses when they did not know it, acquires
anew Evangelic character; and, in the second
place, there is r.o longer any possibility for
the Churchman and its friends to speak of
their own as ‘the church,’ inasmuch as all
collections of baptized persons, must be as
really portions of the church universal as its
congregations can be.” And we say: On
the ground of this proposition neither the
Congregationalist nor the Churchman are
within the church, —since there is no true
baptism but the believer’s immersion.
German Baptists. —ln the times of the
persecution of the Baptists in Germany, a
senator of Hamburg said to Mr. Oncken, that
he would oppose him as long as he could
move his little finger. Mr. Oncken replied
that it would be labor lost. The senator an
swered, “ Well, it shall not be my fault.”
Thirty years afterward the same man said to
Mr. Oncken, “The Baptists are the most
faithful subjects the government can rely on ;
and if all the people were Baptists, govern
ment would be a lighter task.”
{s3 00 A YEAR.} WHOLE NO. 2536.
Dying not Death.
It is not death to die,
To leave this weary road,
And midst the brotherhood on high
To be at home with God.
It is not death to close
The eye long dimmed with tears,
And wake, in glorions repose,
To spend eternal years.
It is cot death to bear
The wrench that sets us free
From dungeon chains, to beathe the air
Os boundless liberty.
It is not death to fling
Aside this sin ul dust,
And rise on strong exulting wings,
To live among the just.
Jesus, thou Prince of Life I
Thy choseu cannot die.
Like Thee, they conquer in the strife,
To reign with Thee on high.
— Beihune.
Books about General B. E. Lee.
The interest which our people feel in all
that concerns our great chieftain, and their
desire to secure correct histories of his splen
did campaigns, must servo as my apology for
asking a small space in the valuable columns
of the Index.
The country has been flooded with so called
“ histories ” of the war, and “ biographies ”
of its most prominent actors. Even the
“School Histories” have made haste to tell
our children the story of “ the Great Re
bellion,” magnify “splendid Union victories,”
exalt into demi gods Federal Generals, and
abuse and misrepresent our purest men. But
it is only of the “Southern Histories” we
wish to speak—as we presume that it is hard
ly necessary to warn our people against al
lowing Northern accounts of the war to enter
our homes or our school rooms.
We regret to say that much «f what is
called “Southern History,” is but little bet
ter than the Federal accounts. Men who
were never near enough to the army to speak
from personal observation, and who were in
such haste to print (und sell) that they could
not wait to make the necessary research, have
rushed through the press books filled with
the greatest blunders in facts, dates, etc., and
(what is worse) with most malignant attacks
upon the Confederate leaders who may have
incurred the potty spleen of these knights of
the quill.
Os such character are the books of E. A.
Pollard. As “Histories,” they are not
worth the paper they are printed on, while
the undisguised plagiarism of the author
(who does not hesitate to appropriate, with
out credit, whatever he may find in the news
papers or elsewhere, to suit his taste,) and
his malignant slanders of Ex President Da
vis, should drive his books from our libraries.
And of such character is “McCabe’s Life
of Lee,” which we were utterly surprised to
see favorably noticed in a recent number of
the Index. Mr. McCabe’s book was pub
lished, if we mistake not, in ’O7, (if not ear
lier,) and, so far from having “laboriously
collected materials,” “ for ten years,” he
gives evidence, on every page, of haste, want
of Information, and inaccuracy. We happen
to know, that General Lee himself had a
very contemptuous opinion of the book —that
the Lee family utterly repudiate it as a Life
of the Great Soldier, and that no Confederate
officer, of respectable intelligence, would, for
a moment, endorse it. It is more an attack
on Davis than a Life of Lee.
But we rejoico to know that there are now
appearing some books of which an old Corn,
federate need not be ashamed. Col. John
Eaten Cooke, (whose fruitful and facile pen
has produced a number of books which give
vivid life-pictures of the Confederate army,
such as we have seen no where else,) has
just issued from the press of D. Appleton <S t
Cos., a “ Life of General R. E. Lee,” which
we have read with deep interest. Col. Cooke’s
position on the staff of Gen. J. E. B. Stuart,
and afterwards on that of Gen. Wade Hamp
ton, gave him some peculiar facilities of
coming in personal contact with General Lee,
and of being thoroughly familiar with the
events which he describes. He began the
work in ’66, (with the full knowledge and
eonsent of Gen. Lee,) and has had many ad
vantages in its prosecution. He says, in his
introduction, that his book is “ intended to be
popular, rather than full and elaborate,” and
he has succeeded admirably in his design. A
few inaccuracies have crept into his work
which the microscopic vision of a certain dis
tinguished Confederate General has magnified
into a severe criticism ; but the book as a
whole presents a picture of the great Vir
ginian, which we should be glad for our peo
ple generally to contemplate. Clear in style,
vivid in description, abounding in incident,
and pervaded by a deep veneration and love
for “the greatest of Virginians,” this book
will be widely read, and will always remain
popular. Appleton & Cos., have gotten up
the work in splendid style. The maps are
accurate, the steel engravings superb, and the
wood-cuts admirable, while the paper, type,
etc., are all that could be desired.
The Faculty of “Washington and Lee
University,” will issue, about thp Ist of May
next, (from the press of the “University
Publishing Company,”) the “ Lee Memorial
Volume,” which must prove of deepest in
terest and value. The biographical sketch,
(written by Col. Charles Marshall, who was
General Lee’s Military Secretary, has the
highest literary qualifications for the work,
and has in his possession all of the private
papers which the family could furnish,) will
have rare historic merit. The sketch of Gen
eral Lee, as a College President, and the
account of his sickness, death and funeral
obsequies, by members of the Faculty, will
possess unrivalled interest, and the chapter
on “ Reminiscences and Incidents, Illustrative
of his Character,” will group together scenes
which will give a vivid picture of the man as
we knew and loved him. This book is not
only authorized by the Lee family, but they
have read and approved the MS9.
But the full and permanent biography of
Lee will be written by Col. Marshall, at his
leisure, and published several years “hence.
The family have placed in his hands all of
the material which General Lee himself had
collected for the history of his campaigns,
together with his notes of particular battles,
important plans, etc. Col. Marshall will
thoroughly study this material, and put it
into the best form. He also hopes, (with the
incoming of anew administration,) to gain
access to the captured papers of the Confed
eracy, which are under the charge of the
War Department at Washington, and to which
General Lee was denied access. Those who
know Col. Marshall well, confidently expect
him to produce a work worthy of his great
subject. No higher compliment could be
paid him.
We have written thus freely because the
fact that it was our privilege to see much of
General Lee, and to be very familiar with
the events of his grand career, has brought
it about that we are frequently asked “What
book about Lee shall we buy?” We may
add, that those who desire the most accurate
original photographs of the great chieftain,
can obtain them of M. Miley, Lexington, Fa.
He is one of the best artists in the country,
and had frequent “ sittings ” of General Lee,
during the last four years of his life. His
photographs of Lee are incomparably supe
rior to any others which we have seen.
J, Wm. Jones.
Lexington, Va., April 5, 1871.
