Newspaper Page Text
INDEX AND BAPTIST.
Pontributions.
NOTES ON THE iCT OF BAPTISM.
no. vm.
BY KEV. J. H. KILPATRICK.
IS WATER BAPTISM A SYMBOL OP THE SPIRIT’S
BAPTISM.
In the extract already given, Dr.
Summers says, “Baptism with water
represents the application of the influ
ences of the Spirit to believers.” * *
The “outpouring of the Spirit is re
peatedly called the baptism of the
Spirit, and is associated with water
baptism by which it is symbolized.”
[Another distinguished advocate of
affusion, Dr. Harrison, says, “The
baptism of John was typical of the
pounng out of the Holy Ghost.]
“Therefore,” continues Dr, S., “the
mode of the latter [water baptism]
must be affusion, or it would be no
representation of the former, [the
Spirit’s baptism.]
The presentation of the symbolical
or typical teachings of baptism, puts a
little different feature upon the argu
ment, and, therefore, we will give this
view of it an independent considera
tion.
1. Dr. S. says, “Baptism with water,”
and now suppose we render Matt.
3:11, as it undoubtedly should be, ac
cording to the acknowledged laws of
translation, “I indeed baptize you in
water, but * * * He shall bap
tize you in the Holy Ghost,” aud the
whole superstructure of Dr. S.’s argu
ment comes down with a crash, and
lies in irretrievable ruin. “But may
not the preposition en, in this place,
be joined with the dative of the instru
ment f” “Yes, it is possible ; but are
we at liberty to adopt any possible
rendering, without proof of its necessi
ty? This would destroy all definite
ness in language. A deviation from
the common, prevailing meaning of
a word, must not simply be possible,
it must be necessary. And shall we
also say, “baptized of him with Jor
dan,” “did baptize with the wilder
ness,” as we still have the same pre
position ?” “Oh, no! this would in
volve an absurdity.” It seems, then,
that we are at liberty to catch up any
possible rendering, which does not
bring with it an absurdity. Itself a
most absurd principle surely! The
very sense is the true cause of inter
pretation, i. e., adhere to the usual
meaning, except it should be impossible
or absurd.
As has already been observed, the
unusual meaning with may sometimes
be admissible to obviate a difficulty,
or relieve a harsh construction, but
most certainly, so important a matter
as the proper administration of a great
Gospel ordinance should have a more
stable foundation. Let it be distinct
ly understood, however, that while the
retention of with is absolutely essen
tial to every argument in favor of the
claims of affusion, this retention is
immeasureablv far from securing the
establishment of those claims, and
equally far from setting aside those of
immersion. Immersing people with
water will make certain their immer
sion in water.
2. It is said that “baptism with wa
ter represents the application of the
influences of the Spirit to believers.”
Now, if the meaning of this language
be that baptism represents or symboli
zes the fact of the application of the
Spirit’s influences, I will agree to it,
though if called upon, I should be at a
loss to furnish any decisive Scriptural
proof of it. Since water is the great
purifying element, it seems quite pro
bable that its use in baptism does
point to the cleansing power of the
Spirit upon the heart, and there are
some intimat ons in the Scriptures to
that effect, though no express declara
tion that I remember. But this ad
mission will not avail the cause ot af
fusion in the least; for any application
of water would serve to symbolize this
fact, whether that application were
made tty sprinkling, or pouring, or im
mersion, or just simply washing. And
it is certainly true, according to my
recollection, that under the Mosaic
ritual, water was used for ceremonial
purification, either by sprinkling it up
on the persons to be purified, or by
having them to wash or bathe their
bodies in it, most usually the latter—-
pouring water upon them, or affusion,
not being prescribed in any case.
But we are really not left to conjec
ture as to the meaning of this lan
guage, for it is afterwards stated that
“the mode of the latter [water bap
tism] must be affusion, or it would be
no representation of the former [the
Spirit’s baptism.] The meaning,
therefore, is, and must be, to subserve
the purpose of the argument, that wa
ter baptism symbolizes the mode of the
application of the Spirit. In fac*, the
author, elsewhere, uses the expression
“modal application,” in referring to the
operations of the Spirit. I remark,
then—
3. It ia not true that baptism sym
bolizes or represents the mode of the
Spirit’s operations. That, the fact of
the use of water does probably point
to the fact of the purification effected
by the Spirit, has already been con
ceded ; but that the baptism itself,
whether it involves sprinkling, pour
ing, or immersion, that this symboli.
zes or represents the mode of the
THE CHRISTIAN INDEX AND * SOUTH-WESTERN BAPTIST.
Spirit’s operation, will not be conced
ed, but most emphatically denied. And
this I do for the good and sufficient
reason that the Scriptures do not say
so. Let him who declares that they
do, make his assertion good. If such
an idea had been taught in the Scrip
tures, either expressly or impliedly,
the exigencies of the cause of affusion
would doubtless have caused its dis
covery long before this. It is not
there. And we say it is not there, not
only because it has not been discov
ered, but because the thing itself is
palpably contrary to the express
teachings of God’s Word, and even
the dictates of common sense, and,
therefore, we add, it is not only not
there but it could not be there. Baptism
does not and cannot symbolize or rep
resent the mode of the Spirit’s opera
tions, because—
1. This mode is entirely unknown,
being unrevealed, and, beyond doubt,
incapable of revelation to us in our
present, state. The fact of the Spirit’s
operation upon the heart is undoubt-,
edly the declarations of Scripture, and
the experience of the truly converted,
as also their changed lives, all testify to
this as a precious reality, but the meth
od is involved in darkness. “ The wind
bloweth where it listeth, and thou
hearest the sound thereof, but canst not
tell whence it cometh and whither it
goetu: So is every one that is born of
the Spirit.” And does baptism sym
bolize that which is absolutely un
known ? And are we to learn the
features of baptism by studying this
unknown thing ? Then must baptism
remain, until time shall be no more,
shrouded in deep, inpenetrable dark
ness.
2. The mode of the Spirit’s opera
tions is not simply unknown, but what
ever it may be, it can have no formal,
external mode, capable of delineation, or
even of apprehension. In short, there
is no possible actual mode predicable of
the Spirit’s work, and our employment
of the term “mode” is, itself, inconse
quence of our inadequate conceptions.
A formal mode of action belongs to
matter only, and the Holy Spirit is not
matter. And does the form, or exter
nal likeness of baptism,really symbolize
or represent the mode of the Spirit in
His work upon the heart? Then it
represents that which has no existence;
and as that which represents naught
is itself naught, the external form of
baptism, representing something which
does not exist, is not just simply veiled
in darkness—it is annihilated. And
since baptism itself is only a ceremony,
having no existence separable from its
form, take the form away and all is
gone—and so the whole ordinance van
ishes into nonentity ! Alas ! for such
an argumont.
3. If it still be urged that the Scrip
tures certainly do ascribe mode to the
Spirit’s operations, saying that the
Spirit comes down, falls, is shed forth, is
poured out, etc., I reply : These are only
figurative expressions, accommodated
to our methods of thought and speech,
just as God is said to come down to ride,
to walk, etc. In all of which cases,
while the things meant are real, the
designation of them by words implying
mode is an accommodation to us as
creatures of sense. The truth is, the
ascribing of modes of action or mani
festation to the Spirit must be under
stood either figuratively, or literally—
there is no. middle ground. If it be
admitted that the language is figura
tive, then there is no real mode, and
the refutation above stands impregna
ble. If, however, it should be contend
ed that the language is literal, not only
communicating the fact of the Spirit’s
operation, but also the mode, then it
unavoidably follows that the Blessed
Spirit, to whom we owe our hopes of
life, is a material substance —a mere
liquid at that, to be poured out like
water, and so, actually, more degraded
in the scale of being than the brute
which perisheth ! An argument which
necessarily leads to such a conclusion
as this, must be rejected with the ut
most abhorrence.
4. If it should be conceded, (as it
must be by every instructed Christian,)
that the ascribing of mode to the Spirit
is figurative, but is still contended that
baptism symbolizes this figurative'
mode of action on the part of the Spirit,
then we are shut up to the unexampled
absurdity of a symbol of a figure ! And
let it not be forgotten that the notion
of a symbol which this argument
adopts, and which it must adopt to
answer its purpose, is that there is an
essential correspondence in external
features between the symbol and the
thing symbolized. And let it be still
further borne in mind, that this sym
bolic representation, by baptism, of the
figurative outpouring of the Holy
Spirit, would not be merely what rhe
toricians call “a figure of a figure,” or
a figure founded upon a figure, though
this would be bad enough, but the visi
ble, outlined, embodied likeness of a
figure of speech ! Now, can we soberly
conceive of such a thing? Symbols are
signs of realities, whether events or
qualities, or existent beings. The com
munication of the Spirit, or His life
giving and cleansing power, is a reality,
and baptism may symbolize this; but
that the Spirit is poured out, or com
municated in any formal way, is of
necessity a mere figure, and if baptism
symbolizes this, I think it may be safely
said that it is the only case of a sym
bol of a figure which has yet found ex
istence. In vain will we search the
Scriptures |from Genesis to Revelation,
to find another case. In vain, doubt
less, would we search the anomalous
creations of heathen mythology, and
even the grotesque hieroglyphics of
Assyria and of Egypt. For though
the old heathen had innumerable rep
resentations of things unreal, they did
not so regard them. The human mind
does not readily, if even possibly, per
petuate such monstrosities. And even
if we could conceive of a symbol of a
figure, and could find illustrations of it,
shall we exercise our conceptive powers
upon the being and operations of our
Maker, and give painted, or sculptured,
or symbolic existence, to the products of
our fancy. Would not this be a virtu
al, if not indeed a point-blank, infrac
tion of the Second Commandment?
And shall we attempt with reference to
the Holy Spirit that which would be
deemed irreverent and shocking if the
triune God were the subject of it?
Why should it be any worse to try to
picture God at work in the first crea
tion, than to represent the working of
the Holy Spirit in the new creation,
and His subsequent operations on the
new creature’s heart ? Is it conceiva
ble that God should have authorized,
and even appointed, on the banks of
the Jordan, that which He forbade with
such terrible emphasis from the top of
Mount Sinai ? What! because a cer
tain mode of actiou is figuratively
ascribed to the Holy Spirit, shall we
feel authorized, aud even required, to
make baptism present a visible simili
tude of Hie mysterious and hidden op
erations r As well might we, because
the Bible speaks of God as having
hands and feet, and mouth and eyes
and face, feel authorized to embody
th se features in an image, and do
honor to it as a likeness of Deity ! Let
the thought perish !
5. If affusionists should cling to
this monstrous and unparalleled ab
surdity, (and there is no other alterna
tive but the materialization of the
Holy Spirit, which is worse,) then
there is a further difficulty, which is,
itself, insuperable : There is no fixed
and definite mode, ascribed to the
Spirit. Various modes of the motion
of water are mentioned as descriptive
of the Spirit’s operations—springing up,
as in fountains—flowing, as in rivers
—falling, as in rain• distilling; as in
dew, etc. And even other elements
besides water, as wind and fire, are
employed, with the modes peculiar to
each. It is impossible that baptism
should be fashioned after such diverse
and even contradictory modes of oper
ation. This fact, of itself, would de
feat the whole argument.
6. If it should be alleged that the
Scriptures have singled out pouring, as
the one mode of the Spirit, according,
to which baptism was fashioned, or
which it is designed to represent, this,
as was decisively shown in the preced
ing article, is a pure fiction, utterly
unsupported by any express declara
tion of God’s Word, or any warranta
ble influence from it. The Scriptures
do not say that the pouring out of the
Spirit is a baptism, or that it is sym
bolized by baptism, neither do they
say anything from which such can be
rightly inferred. As well might it be
alleged that they say that fire is called
darkness, or that it symbolizes dark
ness, because they predict that the
wicked shall be cast into outer dark
ness, and also that they shall be cast
into fire, and the one fe reat destruction
will fulfill both predictions. The out
pouring of the Spirit was predicted—
that the disciples should be baptized
with the Spirit unpredicted ; both pre
dictions were fulfilled on the same oc
casion, and yet not one particle of re
semblance or relation between the
pouring out and the baptism need be
supposed, and certainly is not taught.
Any one can see that two, or even
many different predictions, might be
made with reference to the same gen
eral event, and might all be fulfilled at
the same time. Even the very same
prediction might bn made at different
times, and yet the language conveying
it might be entirely different in the
several cases, presenting totally dif
ferent images to the mind, as when, in
one place, it is said the wicked shall
be cast into a furnace of fire, and in
another, that they shall be cast into a
lake of fire. Here we have entirely
different words, kaminos and lim, ne,
presenting wholly different ideas, and
yet neither the words nor the ideas are
so widely assunder as in the case of
baptizo and excheo.
7. The whole argument is unnatu
ral, unphilosopjiical, and inverted—
beginning where it should end, and
ending where it should begin; and, par
ticularly, assuming the groundless
conceit that there must always be an
exact correspondence in external fea
tures, between the type and the anti
type —between the symbol and the
thing symbolized. Christ is called a
lamb ; and so we say, the lamb sym
bolizes, or more strictly, typifies Christ.
To understand anything at all about
the lamb as a type or symbol of Christ,
we must begin with this lamb, and
find out all about it which is revealed.
Having this knowledge, we go forward
to the Saviour’s life, and character,
and work. And if we study these
aright, under the guidance and illu
mination of the Spirit, we may expect
a wonderful insight into the dark and
symbolic teachings of the old sacrifi
cial lamb, but we will not learn a
single particular about that lamb, or
the manner of sacrificing it, which
we did not know before. The most
attentive and exhaustive study of the
Saviour’s great tacrifice, will make
absolutely no addition to our knowl
edge of the details oft Lose old cere- *
monies—we only, thereby, obtain a
clearer understanding of their hidden
meauing. In short, we never study
the anti-typej to find out a single fact
about the type, but only that we may
find out the meaning of facts already
known. J
Granting, then, that baptism sym
bolizes or typifies the application of
the bpirit to believers, or specifically,
that it did typify the wonderful com
munication of the Spirit on the day of
Pentecost, it would be perfectly.allow
able and proper to avail ourselves of
all we know of baptism, both as to the
element and the act, to cast light upon
the character of the Spirit’s manifes
tations. Also, it would be strictly le
gitimate to study the Spirit’s manifes
tations, (the supposed anti type,) to
cast light ti''on the symbolic or typical
meaning of ba tism, the tvpe. To go
to work, however, studying the Spirit’s
manifestations, to fiud out some unre
vealed fact connected with baptism, is
to over-ride the laws of language, and
the acknowledged and fundamental
principles of interpretation. And to
go stiU further, and infer a correspon
tfbnce, in external form, between liter
al baptism and the mysterious and in
visible operations of the Holy Spirit,
is downright extravagance. The oper
ations of the Spirit have no form—the
thought is preposterous and blasphe
mous. And even if they had a form,
we could not infer that this form cor
responded, in external features, to wa
ter baptism. Was the Saviour like a
lamb in personal appearance ? Or
could we learn the external features of
the old sacrifices from looking at the
great sacrifice ? Were the seven
churches in Asia like the seven golden
candlesticks, by which they were sym
bolized ? There may, indegd, be a
perfect likeness between the symbol
aud the thing symbolized, though it is
certainly very unusual; but we cannot
learn this correspondence by looking
at either one of them alone—to find
this out, we must know the features of
both, aud that from independent
sources of evidence.
Finally, the conclusion itself is ille
gitimate. Not only are the fundament
al premises deficient, being assumed
without proof and contrary to proof,
but the subsequent reasoning upon
these premises is illogical; and not
only this, but the very conclusion itself
is not the one which this illogical rea
soning would warrant. From the lead
ing though groundless assertion, that
the pouring out of the Spirit is the
baptism of the Spirit, and the succeed
ing method of reasoning, we would
naturally expect the final inference to
be, baptism js affusion ; but instead of
this, it is, that baptism is to be admin
istered by affusion. This change in
the cause of the argument is brought
about by the additional gratuitous as
sertion elsewhere given in full, but
here implied, that the baptism of the
Spirit is administered by affusion. If,
instead of the term affusion, its exact
equivalent, pouring out, had been used;
and, further, if the alleged equivalent of
the baptism of the Spirit, namely, the
pouring out of the Spirit, had been kept
in mind, surely the author would not
have made so palpable and egregious a
blunder in his conclusion. The first
assertion is: The: pouring out of the
Spirit is the baptism of the Spirit. The
second: The baptism of the Spirit is
administered by affusion, i. e., by the
Spirit’s being poured out.l Now, in the
first, the pouring out of the Spirit and
the baptism of the Spirit are equiva
lent and convertible terms, but in the
second, we have one administered by
the other. Combining the two asser
tions in one, we have this : The bap.
tism of the Spirit (which is tlie pour
ing out of the Spirit) is administered
by affusion, i. e., by the Spirit's being
poured out. Or still more concisely,
substituting equivalents : The pouring
out of the Spirit is administered by the
pouring out of the Spirit —truly a sage
proposition! And this is the final
argumentative feat by which is derived
the cor cU sion that baptism is to be
administered by affusion.
Now, what is such a conclusion worth ?
A conclusion logically derived from
false premises would be valueless—a
conclusion illogicallj derived from true
premises would be equally valueless;
how exceedingly unreliable, then, as an
exponent of Scripture truth, must that
conclusion be which is illogically ob
tained from an illogical method of ar
gumentation upon false premises ? Is
not such a conclusion inconceivably
worthless ? And just such is the one
before us. Verily, it does seem that
some strange hallucination confuses
the perceptions of every one who at
tempts to find affusion in the Word of
God.
Thus, as briefly as consisted wilh
thoroughness, has the argument for
affusion based upon baptism as a sym
bol, been reviewed ; and it is not too
much to say that it is scarcely parallel
ed for unsoundness in the history of
argumentative writing. In all its parts
and proportions, within and without,
in its length and its breadth, from
foundation stone to topmost turret, the
whole is essentially and radically faulty
being either illogical or unscriptur
al, or both. It is not often that every
step in a process of reasoning, from the
initial premise to the final conclusion,
is unauthorized; but so it seems to be
here. A summary of the leading points
in the argument will show this at a
glance, ar.d m clear light:
1. The mode of the Spirit’s opera
tions is ascertainable.
2. This mode has external, sensible
form.
3. This external, sensible, formal
mode is definite and uniform.
4. This sensible, definite mode is
pouring, or pouring out.
5. This pouring out of the Spirit is
the baptism of the Spirit.
6. This baptism of the Spirit baptism
with water symbolizes.
7. Between the symbol and the thing
symbolized, there is exact modal cor
respondence.
8. The baptism of the Spirit is ad
ministered by affusion.
9. Therefore water baptism must be
administered by affusion.
Now, every one of these propositions
is either expressed or implied in the
foregoing argument, and every one of
them is without solid foundation, even
down to the conclusion, which is not
the one warranted by the preceding
premises.
Before closing I will call attention to
an entanglement in the fifth proposition
of the above summary, which, though
disconnected from the argument, yet
shows how unconsciously erru hobbles
its own feet. In this proposition,we have
the often repeated and much relied on
assertion that the pouring out of the Spi
rit is the baptism of the Spirit. Now, if
this is actually true, no more, no less,
as our affusion advocates confidently
insist, then, grammatically and logical
ly, the Spirit is baptized, and not the
disciples. If the baptism were only
the result of the pouring, as some of
their language in other places seems to
imply, this incongruity could not be
charged; but they frequently insist,
and with great positivity, as though
they had solid rock beneath them, that
the pouring out is the baptism. Of
course, then, that which is poured out
roust also be that which is baptized;
and the Spirit is said to have been
pot r id,out, the Spirit, and not the dis
ciples, must have been baptized. It
will, perhaps, be said, we mean that
the pouring out of the Spirit upon the
disciples constituted their baptism with
the Spirit. Well, the way I have put
it, is the way I find it written. But
let us take this latter : This gives us
for the Spirit’s baptism, His being
poured out upon the disciples, i. e.,
baptism means a pouring out upon.
Why, what a word! Sometimes it
means pouring, sometimes pouring out,
and sometimes pouring out upon ! Jesus
came “from Galilee to Jordan unto
John to be poured out upon of him,”
and he “was poured out upon of John in
Jordan !” What strange language !
Just here two sympathizing friends
of Dr. S. came to his rescue, and they
tell me that my mystification comes
from my confounding baptism with the
mode of its administration. Yes, and
it seems that Dr. S. is equally mysti
fied, for he has clearly done this very
thing himself, and that repeatedly.
In the next article, this wonderful
discovery, which is destined to work a
revolution in the baptismal controver
sy, will come under review, and that
will end the consideration of the
Spirit’s baptism. Dr. S. will stand
back, (within speaking distance, how
ever,) and his friends will come to the
front.
A Card from tho Treasurer of .Mercer
University.
Makers of Contribution Notes to Mercer Uni
versity, will confer a double favor by remitting
at the earliest possible day, interest, and install
ments now due, and past due. The Ti easiuer
will then be able to do what he is expected to per
form, viz : pay promptly the salaries of the
Professors at Mercer and the Teachers in the
Mercer High School. His post-office is Wash
ington, Wilkes county, Georgia,
JOHN T. WINGFIELD,
sep23tf Treasurer of Mercer University.
GOSPEL SONGS by P, P, Bliss,
For Sunday-Schools, Prayer-Meetings and De
votional Exercises.
This unrivalled collection contains Itold the
Fort, “Hallelujah ’Tis Done,” “Almost Persua
ded,” Ninety and Nine,” “More to Follow,” Only
an Armor Bearer," together with all of Mr.
Bliss’ late and popular melodies. Price @3O per
100 copies; by mail, 35 cents. For sale at all
Bookstores, or can be procured of tho Publishers.
JOHN CHURCH A CO., Cincinnati, O.
The “Moody and Sankev Song B„ok”
Is now used everywhere. Every family should
liavo it. Price, in boards, @3O per 100 copies ;
by mail, 35 ceuts.
Either Book sent by mail ou receipt of price.
JOHN CHURCH & CO., Cincinnati, O.
CHOICEI E° c £“ §
By McGRANAHAN and CASE.
A Wide-awake Book fcr Wide-awake Teachers.
Contains a novel elementary course, and a grand
collection of Music. “The Choice” is the work
ol experienced men, and is the most successful
Convention Book in the field, Price @7 50 par
dozen; by mail, 75 cts. Published bv
JOHN CHURCH & CO.,
Crozer Theological Seminary,
Upland, Pa. 14 miles from Philadelphia. Com
modious buildings, furnished rooms, choice li
brary, full corps of instructors, course of extra
lectures. Tuition, room rent ami fuel free.
Address the President. nov!8 ly
S'mo FOR ifATALOmfRif.
jau.tf
FIRvVEIN fa the name of anew remedy men
tioned m the Journal of Materia Medica for
January an part oularly valuable in catarrh
bronchitis, and all affections of the throat ami
lunge—those of publio speakers, and gives sev
eral cases of cure. utch9.3m.
#lB Forges for Plantations
NOJSSfS Z i e l loWß -. Will weld 3 inch iron.
nend 8 cent stamp for catalogue to Empire
I'obtable Foboe Cos., Troy, New York.
jan2o.ly
BOOKS, PERIODICALS, Etc.
THE
GEORGIA GRANGE!
\
A FIRST-CLASS EIGHT-PAGE
Agricultural, Commercial and Family Journal
Dovoted to the interests of the
PATRONS OF HUSBANDRY.
EDITION, 10,000 I'm
The Georgia Grange, representing and advo
cating the interests of the Patrons of Husbandry
is published by the
Georgia Grange Publishing Company,
Atlanta, Georgia. Advertisements inserted on
reasonable terms. Circulating in every county
of the State and adjoining territory, The Geor
gia Grange offers excellent facilities to adver
tisers. To Patrons of Husbanlry, aud others,
its merits will be its best recommendation.
Terms of Subset Iption s
One year $ 2 00
To clubs of ten and upwards j 5Q
Address
GEORGIA GRANGE PUBLISHING C 0„
tf - T- O. Drawer 34, Atlanta, Ga.
I urn to tne Press—its teeming sheets survey,
Big with the wonders of each passing day • '
Births, deaths and weddings, forgeries,’ fires and
wrecks,
Harrangues and hailstones, brawls and broken necks.
1876. CENTENNIAL 1876.
• AND
Campaign News.
SED .AND PRESS’D IN ONE
BRIEF CYCLE.
ec Thc Cfl.mpa.iffT. TJ-EWS for SX.BO, XXI. Advanco.'W
THE ALBANY NEWS
Will have a Place in the Picture, and March
with the Van Guard of the Grand Pageant
that is to Illustrate the Nation’s Pro
gross, and Record its Glorious
Achievements.
The campaign of 1876 will embrace the
election of President, Vice-President, rnern
bers ol Congress, Governor and members of
the and the ALBANY NEWS
will play a lively part in every scene in the
interesting drama, whose finale is to be the
overthrow of Radicalism, Corruption and Ring
I nJu- J m he Government, or give Grant a
j lhyd Term and license to plunder the
I people and disgrace the Republic for four
I years more.
i vrwS Pol i U “f A' 11 specialty with the !
I ant * H 1 ability and utmost energy
j wil* he exerted to secure the election of good
i men to office, the reduction of the tax burden i
; and the enactment of just laws, that shall !
j operate equally upon all classes and all colors.
I **-Subscription, $2.50 per Annum. ,
j for the Campaign, ending with the Centen- 1
mal year, we will send the NEWS to Cash ;
subscribers for $1.50, postage paid.
And now, with a promise to discharge our
[ duty as journalists to the best of our ability,
l w, 'h facilities afforded, we earnestly in
: vnke the aid of friends throughout South
western Georgia, and everywhere, to speak a
good word for the NEWS, and assist us to
extend its circulation, widen its influence and
increase its usefulness. It is emphatically the
people’s paper, and the people of the Second
Congressional District of Georgia are as much
interested in sustaining it as we are. Will
they do it ? Come along, gentlemen, and help
us to set the woods afire.
CAREY w. STYLES & CO.,
aprfi-tf Editors and Proprietors.
TEE LATEST S. S. SONG BOOK.
POLISHED PEARLS,
BY I AND
.T. J. Shelton H H. Roxerrang.
A choice collection of soul-stirring music for the
Sunday School and revival meetings. Printed in
Combined (figures and round) Notes.
... Sample copy 10 cts.; sl2 per hundred by mail;
$lO per hundred by express. Address
FILLMORE BROS., Publishers,
CINCINNATI, O
_febl7.l3t
THE SUNDAY SCHOOL SINGING BOOK
FILLMORE'S
fs the best book in the field. The sentiment is
B°°d and the songs arc grand.
The new figure notation is used.
Price, 35 cts per copy ; $3.60 per doz.
by express f s4.2oper doz. by mail.
FILLMORE BROS., Cincinnati, 0.
febl7.l3t
Barnes’ Centennial History!
OR,
ONE HUMORED YEARS
American Independence.
Illustrated with beautiful Steel Engravings.
1®“ Reliable Agents wanted.
Address G. H. HANCOCK,
State Manager.
Office at Burke A Haucock's, 26 Alabama
street, Atlanta, Ga. apr6.4t
C*9ft pOT anda J at home - Sample
T 0 ' worth $1 free. STINSON *
CO., Portland, Me eeptO.ljT
3
Mr subscribe now, If yon’wonld take an evenfstart witn the Centennial.***