Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

4 ©he ©hrifitian in flex Published Every Thursday at b~’,i 8. Broad Street, Atlanta. Ga. TAMPERING WITH THE MAIL. We were informed, by our repre sentative Rev. James F. Edens, just as we went to press last week that he spent Saturday before, at Jones boro, in the interest of the Index. On arriving there he found our sub scribers nearly, or all quite indig nant, that, their Inekx of November 3rd. had a large two page political circular, folded inside their Index- The circular, was full of reading matter intended to reflect upon Con gressman, L. F. Livingston, with a view to causing the readers of the Index, at Jonesboro to vote against him, for reelection to Congress. Bro her Edens very properly assured, our subscribers that we certainly knew nothing of the circular being folded in the Index. We promptly wrote the Postmas ter at Jonesboro, giving him the facts as given us by Brother Edens- He has not deigned to answer. We will say that no such circular was folded in the Index, when it left this office as it was mailed by the nephew of the proprietor, and by him delivered to the postoffice in Atlanta. There are two bundles of Indexcs mailed to Jonesboro. These bundles were opened either in the postofficc in Atlanta or Jones boro, or in transit from Atlanta to Jonesboro. The Index force knew nothing of the circular till informed by Brother Edens. It was a dastard ly piece of work, but accomplished nothing to the perpetrators. If we can find out who did it, the penalty of the law will be asked. One of our Baptist papers refers, to a certain minister as “coming down” when he consented to become the governor of his State. Never theless he was rewarded for so com ing down with the honor of the vice presidency of the Southern Baptist Convention. Really, is it not time to seriously consider whether we do the best thing in airing denominational pride in electing men to ecclesiastical positions because of their civil or political prominence? Just here we turn in disgust from the following statement in the Standard: “Dr. P. S. Henson and Hon. John Wanamaker became friends about thirty years ago in Philadelphia ami this friendship has been growing unto the present time. JXIr. Wana maker attended the First church last Sunday morning and assisted Dr. Henson in the services, and many were those who were pleased to welcome him at the close of the service.” If Mr. Wanamaker had not been the Postmaster General, does any one believe this would have occurred ? It was the Sunday before the elec tion ! Referring to special collection for die centennial fund in a certain church, the Baptist and Reflector says: “Whatever may be said about this church, it can not be said it is not generous when it comes to giving to the Lord.” The sum realized was about 87,- 000, given after addresses and ap peals by several of the ablest minis ters in the denomination. We believe the church in question has the largest membership of any church in the Southern Convention, and we are informed that several millionaires arc on its roll. The aggregate wealth of the membership must bo at least 810,000,000. Seven thous and dollars is less than one-four teenth of one per centum on that sum ! The large amounts given by large and rich churches are not in proportion to the less-heralded con tributions of their smaller and poor er sisters. We know a town church, the aggregate posessions of whose members will not reach 8250,000, that will give proportionately five times as much as the rich church referred to. Here is one editorial paragraph from the Western Recorder, to which we can heartily say amen : “It seems strange to see much in dignation expressed that at the “Con vocation of Canterbury,” a sort of Episcopal General Assembly, in Ixm don all the “service” was in Latin. To be sure, that has always been a great point with Protestants against Catholics. But Protestant churches which allow choirs or soloists to give performances in their worship in which the words cannot be beard are just as certainly violating the command against using an unknown tongue in worship. A sense of shame should keep them from say ing a thing against the use of the Latin.” THE THEATRE. A troubled correspon dent desire 8 the opinion of The Index on this question : “Is not a Baptist pastor and his church acting with inconsis tency when they spend their even ings at theatres?” Our correspon dent adds: “I hope God will give you power to answer the above question so that it will reach the heart of every reader of the Index, who is at fault in this matter.” We give our answer in the editor ial columns, rather than in the de partment of “Asked and Answered.” We know very little about the thea tre and theatre-going, and what we do know is not favorable to the insti tion. It has always been condemn ed as immoral in its tendencies by the great mass of earnest pious Christians, and our experience sanc tions the condemnation. We have never found those church members who habitually attended the theatre, the ball room, and like places, among real religious forces of the congre gations to which we have ministered as pastor. They have not been the prayer-meeting members of the churches. Those who know most of the theatre do not urge that it is a mor al institution. Indeed the apologists for it are not usually noted for their interest in the moral welfare of the community. Before us lies an arti cle from the pen of the late distin guished Rev. J. B. Jeter, D. D., per haps the most judicious and wisest of our Baptist leaders fifteen or twenty years ago, in which he says; “I was acquainted with the late Mrs. W. F. Richie, previously Mrs. Mowatt, herself an actress of high character and of no mean abilities. She informed me that when she was in England, she spent some weeks in the family of McCready, the most celebrated tragedian of his age, and among the most gifted of any age. He had a large family of daughters, beautifnl, cultivated, refined and in teresting. She stated, all uncon scious of the bearing of her testi mony on the moral influence of the theatre, that he would not allow his daughters to attend it. He permitt ed each one, as she attained a cer tain age, to go once to it, that she might have some knowledge of its mysteries; but she must never go again.” The testimony is conclusive. If any man understood the influence of the theatre McCready did. He pos sessed eminent abilities, and had am ple opportunities to learn all the se crets and tendencies of theatrical entertainments. His opinion was formed under no bias against thea tres. He was indebted to them for his wealth, his reputation, his influ ence. Ho was the prince of the stage, admired and honored wherever he appeared. Yet this eminent trage dian forbade his daughters to attend the theatre, even when he was the star actor. Why did he do it? Sure ly because he knew it was no fit place for refined and modest ladies. There they are liable to hear jests and innuendoes, and to see sights, from which maiden eyes should be averted. The case is clear that Mc- Cready considered that the instruc tion and amusement afforded by the drama would not compensate for the evil influences of attendance on the threatre. If that was true of the attendance on the theatres where McCready was the presiding genius, how much more obviously must it be true of theatres designed tc minister to the tastes and satisfy the demands of the vulgar and the vicious? Similar testimony has been borne by the Rev. Dr. Lorimer, once an ac tor, but for many years now an emi nent Baptist minister. We have heard him say that from his personal knowledge of the theatre he consid ered it no place for Christians. And Mary Anderson, one of the best and purest of the later actresses, in bid ding farewell to the stage, declared that its morals were such as to make her turn from it in disgust. It is common for the theatre apologist to say that ministers and others who de nounce the theatre know nothing of that they condemn. But the testi mony we have given is that of those who do know. Indeced is it not possible to know considerable about the influence of the stage without frequent attendance ? Is it necessa ry to read many French novels to know their stain upon the heart? Is it not more probable that Christians of a high standard of thought and life, who avoid the theatre, may be able to discover its effects upon its votaries more speedily than the vic tims themselves? A deterioration of mind and heart creates a moral blindness in the man himself. A well known novelist makes one THE CHRISTIAN INDEX: THURSDAY. NOVEMBER 17. 1892. of his characters say: “I doubt if the theatre is a factor in civilization among us. I dare say it does not deprave a great deal, but from what I have seen of it, I should say that it was intellectually degrading!” Can a Baptist pastor and his church—can any Christian—consistently patronize an amusement so characterized by one who was himself a distinguished actor? A certain magazine editor who has been persistent in his efforts to popularize the theatre, says: “The fact is the modern stage is probably a little worse, and certainly no bet ter, than its condemnors have any idea of.” How charming is the inno cence of the apologist who charges the opposition to the theatre to the lack of knowledge! A converted actor once said to Dr. Cuyler, as he was passing a theatre in which he had often performed: “Behind these curtains lies Sodom.” We do not affirm that every popular play is im moral, or that every performer is impure, or that every theatre-goer is on the scent for sensual excitement But the stage is to be estimated as a totality ; and the whole trend of the American stage is hostile to heart purity. The claimed exceptions on ly confirm the rule. Even the most honest attempts to bring the stage up to a high standard of moral purity have utterly failed. The chief ob ject of the manager is to make money; and if he can spice his even ing’s entertainment with a plot that turns on a seduction, or a scene of sensual passion, or with a salacious exposure of physical beauty, the temptation is too strong to be often resisted. You must take the aver age theatre as it is, and not as you would like to have it. It is an insti tution which, if you patronize, you become morally responsible for, as much as if you patronize a public library or a public drinking saloon. As an institution it habitually un sexes woman by parading her before a mixed assembly in man’s attire. 'Too often it exposes her in such a pitiable scantiness of any attire at all that, if you saw your own sister in such a plight, you would turn your eyes away in horror. Yet some pro fessing Christians pay their money to somebody else’s sisters and daugh ters to violate womanly delicacy for their entertainment! They who habitually attend the theatre cannot evade, in the sight of God, their ac countability for its immoral influence! We are responsible for all the en couragement we give to an institu tion which, confessedly, robs hearts of their {purity and degrades the soul, Wo have space barely to allude to the influence of the stage upon the actors themselve. The editor of the London Punch, a man thoroughly familiar with his subject, says that “life behind the scenes is well-nigh fatal [to modesty, purity, and all nobler life.” Every generous, espe cially every Christian, heart should put aside a pleasure which begets such evils as those who know declare almost necessarily follow the pro fession. How can one who feels any touch of Christ’s spirit, advocate or encourage an amusement which so invariably defiles its employes ? Does one say “reform the stage?” Im possible. He who so hopes or at tempts shall be like Locke's rustic waiting on the bank till the river has run past. The Western Recorder has this paragraph in its issue of last week; “The Brittish Baptists have se cured $460,000 of the proposed $500,000 they were to raise during the Centennial year. Baptists in the South are far more numerous and have much more money than Bap tists in Great Brittain. There ought, therefore, to bo no serious difficulty in securing our Centennial Fund.” It was only a little while ago that our Louisville brother was energeti cally denouncing those same British Baptists as too “unsound” to be worthy of being called Baptists! The Baptist and Reflector thinks that “baptized for the dead” refers to the “baptism of a live person in the behalf of one dying unbaptized!” Though this interpretation is held by many eminent exegetes, in our opinion it is really too absurd to be entertained for a moment. The Greek “htipcr” does not necessarily mean “in behalf of.” See John 11 4 ; Rom. 9 :27 ; 16 :9 ; 2 Cor. 1 ; 8 ; 8 :28 ; 2 Thes. 2 :1 ; Philemon 16, 3nd elsewhere. In his verses on “Providence,” George Herbert speaks of “appoint ment” and permission” as “the right hand and left hand” of God, and argues, since “nothing escapes them both,” that, by the one or the other, God “lays hands on all things.” The imago is not without poetry and not without truth. PEACE AND THE MINISTRY. The apostle taught believers at Philippi that a spirit of love with a consequent life of peace, that free dom from murmurings and disput. ings as the issue of sincere mutual affection, was necessary to their use fulness as Christians and to their growth as a church. He taught them this truth in a very emphatic way. He dragged his own ministry into it. He told them that even this ministry among them would be of no avail, if they indulged the unlov ing and unlovely spirit of conten tion. He was an apostle; he was endowed with inspiration; he was chief of the apostles; his inspiration was of the foremost type and degree; and yet if they lived at variance among themselves, his service in their midst would go for nothing; he could not rejoiee in the day of Christ that when he came to them he had not run in vain and while he tarried with them he had not labor ed in vain. No. By reason of their strife, vain would the running, his running, prove to be, and vain the laboring, his laboring ? How much less, then, could inferior men hope to run and labor with ef fect ? We are thus presented with a truth of momentous significance. While a church suffers divisions and disputesto mark the course of events in her history,she can derive no profit from ail the gifts and all the toils of God’s servants in the ministry. So long as strifes spring up within her pale, as rank weeds overgrowing a neglected garden, just so long elo quence, energy, zeal, learning, tact patience, Godliness, prayer, expend ed in her service, are as water spill ed upon the ground. One minister may be dismissed and another in stalled but the same blight and bar renness will hang darkly around the efforts of both. It is not in accor dance with the purpose of God that a people should prosper while this spirit rules, and they will not, can not. If their breaches are not heal ed, if the voice of strife cease not from their midst, if they come not together again after all their divi sions, a Hall, a Fuller, a Wayland, a Spurgeon, nay a Peter, a John, a Paul, cannot suflice to stay the dead ly tide that sweeps their strength and prosperity from them. Pauls says so asregards himself,and therein says so as regards the rest. And this is the fruit of their own doings. It is they themselves that take the blessings out of the minis try as a means of grace. Theirs is the guilt of rendering [the ministrations of the pulpit ineffectual, of deplet ing or dispersing a congregation, of estranging or embittering a com munion, of changing a garden of the Lord into a waste or a desert. It is through their own agency that they are weakened, and humbled, and shamed, and brought down into the dust, and trodden under. The Spir it of God and the spirit of Belial can not possess and cultivate the same vineyard ; the dove and the vulture cannot nestle on the same bosom; and those who throw open their doors to the lovelessness of murmur ings and disputings, must see love going forth with all fruits of good to the souls of men and all power of the truth which come only through love. What a strange reversal of all church functions this want of love and peace draws after it! She dis misses a pastor-—dismisses him in bitter mood ; but it may be that even her highest kindliness and grace could not do him a more kind ly and gracious act, so far as re gards its results ; she may be dis missing him from a barren to a fruit ful field—from a people whose strife must make his ministry unsuc cessful, to a loving people where it shall never lack sheaves of joyous in gathering, so she may install another pastor, and smiles and songs may mark the installation; but it may prove the worst thing that she could do toward him. Call that minister unfortunate who has been denied the advantage of a libera] education. Call that minister unfor tunate whose pecuniary embarrass ments weigh down to the dust. Call that minister unfortunate whose en ergies are crippled, whose labors in terrupted by disease. Call that min ister unfortunate the partner of whose bosom is to him (as Adam Clarke phrases it) “a mainspring of discouragement.” These are unfor tunate, miserably so; but trebly un fortunate is this minister who has consented to the service of a divid ed people. He goes where there shall be appointed to him “daily heart-sore sighs and nightly tears.” He goes where he shall see slight fruit of his labor and enjoy but faint hope of his reward. He goes where faults not his own shall rise up against him; where his own heart may cease for a season to be his chief bane, but there shall be huge mischief for him in the hearts of others ; where no one may be his enemy in intention, and yet no one his friend in the effect of character and conduct. He goes to what may be the keenest disappointment and the greatest trouble of his life. Alas, that a church of the loving Savior should by its unlovingness prove such an instrument of hurt and wounding where it means not so! Oh, let us all everywhere bring back love and peace to the pews, that we may bring back to the pulpit the power that saves and comforts—that power of Christ’s truth which is the power of Christ. Dr. Hale, in his Atlantic articles on “A mew England Boyhood,” says that in his boyhood a Sunday-school was a very different thing from wnat it is now. “Then you were expect ed to learn something and you did.” He adds that much of his knowl edge of the scriptural history was acquired in the Brattle Street Sunday-school before he was thirteen years old. The writer is a much younger man than Dr. Hale, but he is old enough to have recol lections of a time when the average boy acquired in the Sunday-school much more abundant and accurate knowledge of the Scripture than to day. It is high time that the meth ods of Sunday-school instruction were changed so as to secure better results.—The Morning Star, Bos ton. True. This scribe adds his testi mony to the truth of the foregoing statements, both as to his observa tion of the results of much Sunday school work of the present day, and as to personal experience. Causes. 1. Too many lesson papers, and too little Bible. 2. Want of real earnesthearted ness among superintendents and teachers. Too much levity, too little serious ness. 3. Parents have, in too many cases, turned their home obligations over to the Sunday-school. There is very little down-right Bible study done at home under the guidance of mothers and fathers, specially fathers. It is, indeed, high time for a change. The Presbyterian has the follow ing admirable paragraph about Mrs. Spurgeon. Let those who have been bereaved learn from its perus al how to make good use of afflic tion also how best to honor the dead and to perpetuate their influence on the world. All we can do for our dead is to bury them. When that is done, let us give our time and at tention to the living. By so doing we may benefit them and mitigate our own sorrows. Mrs Spurgeon is no recluse. She does not selfishly nurse her grief, nor make a luxury of her affliction. She finds that she best honors her husband, as well as her Master, by carrying on the work to which Mr. Spurgeon so heartily and fully de voted himself. She puts her soul and prayer into the doctrines which he preached and into the enterprises which he started and fostered. She is especially interested in helping preachers of slender means, and finds ways and means of placing in their hands serviceable books. She does what she can to perpetuate Mr. Spurgeon's influence by circulat ing his addresses. Thirty-five thou sand of the most important of them she has recently distributed through the generosity of a friend. Thus she obtains cheer and comfort under her bereavement, as well as does good. Those who brood over their troubles and shut themselves out from Christian activity, not only fail in duty, but miss much joy and consolation. Bereavement is best sustained by getting out of self into others, by laboring for Christ as Ho indicates, and by carrying sunshine into society through Gospel minis tries.” *‘A MADMAN'S ORIME.” This is the flaring headline, with which a prominent Georgia daily calls attention to the act of a gentle man, who “lost his mind” and in that state attempted to kill several members of his family. We wonder what kind of a treatise on Ethics that paper would write, if its hand were turned to work in this line. “Crime” is a violation of law human or divine; but neither God nor man has a law holding the “madman” to moral responsibility, seeing the mad man has no power to recognize the distinction between right and wrong in morals ; and therefore, since there is no law for the “madman,” there can be ny “crime” in him. But the headline in question directly contra dicts this position, and to preserve its own consistency, that paper must teach the monstrous doctrine that divine and human law bind and should bind those who have lost the light of reason with the obligation of their precepts and to the endurance of their penalties! A QUESTION IN MORALS. In the issues of the Forum for the past two months, Prof. J. J. McCook, deals statistically with the number of “venol voters” in Connecticut, that is, of voters who accept money or other valuable consideration eith er to turn out for their own side or cast their ballot for the o'!her.” He reaebes the conclusion that of th 166,000 voters in that state 25,334, of one in six, are liable to be bought and sold at every election; and tells us that as a presidentai campaign comes round, this buying and selling costs each of the parties the sum of $400,000. This is a grave and omin ous showing, but we leave it to tell its own story. It is another feature of his statis tics that surprises us more, and pro vokes a word or two of comment. He says that out of every thousand “intemperate” voters 778 are venal, and out of every thousand “temper ate” voters only 45, while out of every thousand “total abstainers’ 341 are. We are inclined to thin k that these figures sin, in the first in stances by excess, and in the second by defect; but let that point pass. It is the third instance that disappoints our expectation and tries our faith. Can it be possible that taking moral principle, (which surely may be done fairly,) by its relation to so gross a crime as intrigue, bribery and corrup tion,” by the selling of a vote which is the selling of a man’s own self and a selling of his country, “to tal abstainers” lack only a little less than fifty per cent, of being as bad as the drunkard class and are more than seven hundred per cent, worse than the class of moderate drinkers? It seems to us a thing incredible; we do not believe it for the simple reason that we cannot. The figures must have a chance to prove that they have not lied, and must prove it too, before they can win our assent. Prof. McCook avows frankly that “he is not a total abstainer either theoritically or practically, and has always voted in favor of license.’’ Without impeaching his candor, we may reasonably suspoct some uncon scious bias in his judgment, and we are not only free, we are bound, to sift it out if there is any. For, if general statistics throughout our country support his present finding, he has brought to light the strongest of all arguments against total ab stinence, the presumption that in the type of mind embracing it there lurks some weakness of the moral sense to prompt that embrace and account for it. Dr. Lorimer, in his late address at Philadelphia, specifies some of The Drifts of the Hour, in methods of Church woi;k. Among them he mentions the drift from the clergy to the laity, from the men to the women, from the old to the young. On the last “drift” he asks this per tinent question. “If things continue as they are, and if societies multiply within the limits of the local church, will we not be obliged to meet in solemn supplication, that God, through His gracious interposition, may avert disintegration and destruction ? We are in danger of being organized to death, and of having so many wheels within wheels ns to leave no place for the living Spirit to move there in.” Churches and church members, young and old will do well to pause and, ponder it and to heed the warn ing contained in the last sentence. A reasonable division of labor, accompanied by a judicious classifi cation of laborers, may enlarge and facilitate results. But when details are so multiplied as to exceed the power of one mind to comprehend of one eye to supervise, and of one hand to guide, inefficiency, waste, and failure inevitably follow. The local church, proper, affords the or ganization and the opportunity for the use of all the time, talents, and money of its members. Will the “Biblical Recorder” hunt up the recent issue in “the John s Hopkins University Studies in His torical and Political Science,” a monograph on “the Religious Devel opment in the Province of North Carolina," by Prof. Stephen IJ. Weeks of Trinity College in that State? The author attempts the desproof of the current belief that North Carolina was settled chiefly by religious refugees, alleging that the motives of the settlers were economic; ami also of the current bej lief that it had always maintained full religious liberty, alleging that for three quarters of a century there was an establishment of the Episco pal Church there, and at times posi tive persecution. These are things with which the history of our Bap tist fathers was in some measure intertwined, and we want the assur ance of our brother of the “Recorder’’ that the wish of Prof. Weeks is such as to inflict no detriment on their memory, whether by oversight or inaccurate statement. And if the Prof, has brought to light some worthy deed of theirs heretofore lost from view, we desire that our brother may help us, that we may help our readers, to a knowledge of it. The Pittsburg Christian Advocate, speaking of Joseph Horne, a promi nent layman of the Methodist Church who recently died in that city says : “He was first a Christian and then a man of business. While managing an immense business, and holding the details of it in his own hands, he still found time for religious de votions and duties, and to keep him self thoroughly informed concerning his own church and the movements of the cause of God in the w'orld.” That was as it should have been, first a Christian, then a man of bus iness.” “Seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness.’’ Many business men do not find time for religious devotions. They are first business men and then Chris tians. So absorbed with their world ly concerns and so wearied by the work of the week, that on Sunday they have no strength nor heart for the services of that holy day. They have no time during the week to read a religious paper, not even their own denominational paper. There fore they know little of what their own people are doing and less of what is being done in the world out side their own church. Consequent ly, they feel comparatively indiffer ent to Christian work. The injunc tion is, be “diligent in business, serving the Lord.” Prosperity in business is unsafe unless soul prosperity moves at even pace with it. John’s prayer for “the beloved Gains” shows the propor tion, or ratio, that one should bear to the other. “Beloved, I pray that thou mayest prosper and be in health, as thy soul prospers.” Business, prosperity and wealth acquired thereby, sanctified by reli. gion, will be a blessing both to the world and to the owner. Os late, much has been said of pastoral changes. Here is the best sample of a short pastorate that has come under our observation. It em braced just eight days. It must have been a case of mutual disgust at first sight, else, it was too sweet to last. The Northern observes : “Some of our flying stars have short pastorates. Perhaps the brief est on record is that of Rev. J. Z. Armstrong, D. D., at First Church, Auburn. He was appointed on Monday, welcomed by his people on Saturday, preached to them on Sun day, and on Monday started for a new field of labor in Kansas City.” The Central Church, Memphis Tenn., has extended a unanimous call to Rev. G. A. Nunnally, Presi dent of Mercer University, Macon, Ga. A L Illi® Hr. David M. Jordan of Edmeston, N. Y. Colorless, Emaciated, Helpless A. Complete Cure by ROOD'S SARSAPARILLA. _ Tills is from Mr. D. M. Jordan, a re tired farmer, and one of the most re spected citizens of Otsego Co., N. Y. *' Fourteen years ago I had an attack ot the cravel, and have since been troubled with my Livor and Kidneys gradually growing worse. Three years ago I got down so low that I could scarcely walk- I looked more like a corpse than a living being. I he.| no appetite and for five weeks I as® nothing but gruel. I was badly emaciated and hid no more color than n marble stntne. Hood's Sarsaparilla was recommended and 1 thought I would try It. Before I had finished the first bi ttlo I noticed that I felt better, suf fered lets, (he inUnmtnntion of the blad der had the color began to return to mv face, and I began to feel hungry. After I had taken three bottles I could eat anything without hurting ni". Why. 1 got so hungry that I had to eat r> times a day. I have uow lully recovered, thank, to . Hood’s Sarsaparilla I fori well and am well. All who know me marvel to see me so well." D. M. Jonnajr. HOOD'S PILLB are ths best after-dinner PUMs Malat -I’.tbi ,-urv !,<>ndarli(iMAMMNMlb A b/m T h ” AfV-lrun Liola Vlnnt jrloTlll ■1 lA difCQVtroii In Como. Weil s»«. < “ rr “uarantrod or No i. . r "IPSE!,otbee, list Hruodway, New York. luiLaWß’, fuses: by Mail. address wotA utroaixna co., ua vu-at.,'tauusu.oaia.