Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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.