Newspaper Page Text
4
®lxrietian gudex
Published Every Thursday at 57 S. Broad
Street, Atlanta, Ga.
BAPTISM IN THE OLDEN TIMES.
There is considerable discussion
in European Protestant circles, as to
the document known as “the Apos
tles’ Creed,” growing out of the fact
that a Wurtemburg pastor has been
deposed from the Christian ministry
for his refusal to continue the use of
that venerable, historic Confession in
his church-services. As a part of
this discussion, Dr. I 4 '. W. Katten
buseb, Professor of Systematic Theo
logy in the University of Giessen,
contributes a Historical Sketch of
the Creed to No. 42 of the “Christ
liceh Welt,” Leipzig. In that sketch
he cites the lately deceased, Dr.
Karl Paul Caspari, professor of
Theology in the University of Chris
tiana, as m his day and generation
the leading authority on this ques
tion. What we propose to quote
from the article, then, has virtually
the warrant of two Professors of
Theology, in two Universities, and
gives the sanction of both their
names if not of both their institu
tions, to the light shed incidentally
on the baptismal usages of ancient
times. We quote the article as sel
ected, translated and condensed for
the “Literary Digest” of Nov. 26
1892:
“In the old Church, before infant
baptism had generally become the
rule, it was the custom to teach the
candidate shortly before baptism, a
brief confession of faith, which was
to Embrace the leading features of
his faith as he understood it. The
communication or ‘transmission of
the symbol,’ as it was termed was a
most solemn act; it was the final in
itiation into the essence of Christian
ity and an entrance into the congre
gation. The candidates had to learn
this formula by heart. At their bap
tism, they were ‘asked’ concerning
their faith. They then pronounced
their ‘Confession’ and, as it seems,
while they were standing in the wa
ter. The ceremony of baptism it
self took place by being immersed
three times; between these times
the candidate was asked first, wheth
er he believed in the father; then
Jesus Christ, the Son of God, etc.
In uttering the word, “I believe,’ he
gave expression piecemeal to his
faith in the formula of tha Symbol
which had been given him. No
where else was greater care taken
in this respect than in Rome. Here
there was in vogue from very an
cient times, not only the solemn act
of a ‘transmission’ of the symbol, but
also a special act of his ‘return’ of
the symbol by the candidate. Each
one was compelled before the assem
bled congregation, from a raised plat
form, to repeat in a loud voice this
formula. Only then, when he had
been diligently ‘interrogated,’ was
he admitted to baptism. Baptism
was not only a congregational act,
but also a congregational festival,
and took place in the midst of largo
assemblies only on stated days, e. g.,
in the Western Church, only on Eas
ter or Pentecost In this way the
Symbol always remained a living
reality in the consciousness of the
congregation. When infant bap
tism became the general custom,
(probably since the fifth century,)
the so-called ‘baptismal times’ were
still adhered to; the forms, too, of
the symbol transmission, etc., were
retained, with the one difference tha
the priest or the sponsor took the
place of the child. In the beginning
of the Middle Ages, the ‘transmission’
of the symbol had disappeared.”
Side-lights are cast here on the
question as to the practice of the
church of antiquity in the matter of
baptism. Let us glance at them :
1. There was a time in the his
tory of that church “before infant
baptism had generally become the
rule,” and it was the first stage of
this history, as it has descended to
us apart from the Sacred Volume.
In other words, the very earliest
glimpses we catch of the church af
ter the days of the apostles show us
rejectors of infant baptism in it!
This is what Professors Kattenbusch
and Caspari tell us; and what we
are told more expressly by the pedo-
Baptist historian Gieseler, when ho
says, of the period from A. D. 117
to A. D. 193, “The baptism of in
fante was not a universal custom,
and sometimes even expressly dis
countenanced.” What we are told
by Dr. Hanna, too, who writes: “In
fant baptism cannot be clearly traced
higher than the middle of the sec
ond century, and even then it was
not universal. ’ How came these fore
runners of the modern Baptists there?
How came they there then? The
presumption is that they were simp-
ly following in the steps of the first,
the apostolic, Christians, and that
these Christians were Baptists. How
else could Dr. Hanna find occasion
ta say : “.Scripture knows nothing
of the baptism of infants. There is
absolutely not a single trace of it
to be found in the New Testament.’’
And so the Dr. pronounces it “a rite
that was probably unpracticed in the
apostolic age.” A conclusion reach
ed in a still more positive form by
Neander, the historian, who alleges
as further reasons, that “not a trace
of it appears until so late a period as
Irenatus at least, certainly, not ear
lier than he” (the second half of the
second century), and because “it
first became recognized as an apos
tolic tradition in the course of the
third century.” In the same scale is
the weight of the fact, as given by
Prof. Kattenbusch, that it was “pro
bably since the fifth century,” “when
infant baptism became the general
custom.” Must not these ancient
Baptists have been very strongly en
trenched in the Church, when it took
so long a time to cast them utterly
out?
2, Quite as plain is the testimony
to the baptismal act in these old
days. There was a “standing in the
water,” and “the ceremony itself
took place by being immersed three
times.” Just as Alzog, the Romish
church historian, says of baptism as
observed from A. D. 1 to A. D. 313:
“This sacrament, which was confer
red in the baptistery, was adminis
tered by a triple immersion of the
body in the water, and by the solemn
invocation of the three persons of
the Blessed Trinity, the Father, the
Son and the Holy Ghost. Here was
“much water” certainly—more, in
fact, than Baptists need. We did
not have to strive for it, then, in that
“long ago.”
3. Let us say, in closing, that,
like Profs. Caspari and Kattenbusch,
we do not regard “The Apostle’s
Creed,” as a name descriptive of the
origin of the document. It docs not
come to us from the Twelve, or from
the time of the Twelve. But in the
olden times it did what had been
done by the apostles before it: it
stood between infants and baptism
and kept them back from the rite
To that extent its work had been
apostolic and not the least non-apos
tolic and anti-apostolic invention of
men, has been the order of sponsors,
who, by recital of the creed became
themselves the agents and make it
the instrument of bringing baptism
and infants together thus breaking
down the middle wall of parti
tion between the church and the
world.
For ten or twelve years, the Bap
tists of Virginia have had a Commit
tee of Co-operation, charged with
the special mission of reaching every
church in the State and bringing it
pito line with the General Associa
tion. The report of the Committee
this year showed that only eighty
five out of ail the Virginia Baptist
churches are now non-contributing-
Has this question been as much as
fairly broached in Georgia? Is any
one among us prepared to say how
many churches in the State regularly
represent themselves in our State
Convention by actual, yearly contri
butions to its treasury? how many
contribute only at irregular intervals,
according to the varying measures
of zeal on the subject manifested by
successive pastors? and how many
never contribute? Does any one
know how these numbers vary from
year to year? which of them arc grow
ing? and at what rates of growth?
We apprehend that this matter has
been at least measurably neglected
among us; and that in the absence of
knowledge as to the facts of the case,
the things that need correction have
not always found proper and prompt
attention. Is it not expedient to
give more explicit and detailed
thought to all the aspects of this
question? Let us decide whether
the Baptist Convention of the State
of Georgia shall or shall not at its
next session raise a “Committee of
Co-operation,” or adopt any other
measure that seems more feasible, to
bring all our churches if possible into
active connection with it.
Divine law is strict in all things
and demands exact obedience. The
Jew was allowed to eat all beasts of
the earth that part the hoof and chew
the cud. And it was branded as
disobedience to eat of those that
chew the cud ami do not part the
hoof, or to eat of those that part the
hoof and do not chow the cud. There
was no cleanness where the com.
mandnient was not met and answered
in both of its terms. How shall we
dare to diminish or to divide any
requirement of the Lord God?
THE CHRISTIAN INDEX: THURSDAY JANUARY 12,1893.
THE PEBBONALITY AND MISSION
OF THE HOLY BPIBIT-
Christianity is the ministration of
the Spirit. Paul brings out this
fundamental truth very clearly in
the third chapter of his second Co
rinthian letter, in which he contrasts
the two dispensations. Before leav
ing his disciple our Lord gave them
the promise of the Comforter—the
Holy Spirit of truth, saying: “It is
expedient for you that I go away •
for if I go not away, the Comforter
will not come unto you ; but if I de
part I will send him unto you.” Ah,
how hard was it for the distressed
disciples to realize that his going a
way could be a blessing! Yet he as
sures them that it is expedient. We
can see more clearly than they could
just then. Only his departure could
effectually disabuse their minds of
their false ideas of the Messianic
kingdom. That kingdom was to be
a universal spiritual kingdom, and
continuance in the flesh unfited Jesus
for the throne of that kingdom-
Then we know that the sacrifice and
departure of Jesus were essential
parts of the scheme to save mankind.
Only after Calvary and Olivet could
the kingdom be fully established.
Only tden could the Spirit come to
do his full and gracious work.
It is to be feared that too many
Christians fail to properly conceive
of and appreciate the Holy Spirit.
In the teaching of the Gospel God is
seen as the triune One—as Father,
Son and Spirit. We speak of each
as a Person in the Frinity- Con
fessedly personality as applied to
God is a difficult thought, for per
sonality implies limitation, and we
naturally conceive of Deity as illimi
table. Yet we must employ the
term personality for want of a bet
ter, for only in its use can the finite
mind have any idea f God at all. In
our thought we do not limit God
when we speak of the three persons
in the unity of the Godhead. Rath,
er it is the effort of the finite to
grasp something of the Infinite. The
New Testament recognizes in the u
nity of the Godhead a diversity of
office. To each of the three Per
sons is assigned a peculiar activity
in redemption.
The Holy Spirits special preroga
tice implies personality.
attributes and actions aue attributed
to him. He comes, wills reproves
etc. Our Lord, in his gracious
promise, uses terms that necessitate
personality. He speaks of the Spir
it as “another” and applies to bun
the personal pronoun “he”. In the
Greek this is emphatic, even what
we would call a grammatical blun
der being perpetrated. The Greek
word for Spirit (Pneuma) is neuter
yet the masculine personal pronoun
(ekeinos) follows it. Certainly there
was reason for this emphasis. We
should never speak of the Holy Spir
it impersonally as “it,” or of “its in
fluence.” This is a common fault
and should be avoided by all who
would properly reverence him. We
are glad to note that the Canterbury
Revised Version has “himself” in the
important passages Rom. 8: 16, 26,
instead of “itself” as in the common
version. This is not a matter of tri
vial import, it is essential to the true
concept of the nature of the Holy
Spirit.
Just as ciparly is the Holy Spirit a
divine Person. Two passages only
need be quoted to sustain this prop
osition. In his last commission our
Lord puts the Spirit on a perfect e
quality with himself and the Father
“ Baptizing them unto the name of
the Father, and of the Son, and of
the Holy Spirit.” In the completest
form of the “apostolic benediction,’’
we see a similar studied expression
of this divine equality: “The grace
of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of
God, and the communion of the Ho
ly Spirit.” These and similar passa
ges are positively misleading if the
Holy Spirit be not a Divine Person,
for we have no right to so associate
an inferior personality with the
Father.
There is much meaning in the
word Comforter, by which Jesus de
scribes the Spirit. The Greek term
(Parakleetos) means more than Com
forter. In the margin of the Revis,
ed Version we have Advocate or
Helper, from which we get a com.
plete meaning. The Holy Spirit
does comfort, but that is a small part
comparatively of his work in the
hearts of believers. He instructs,
pleads, helps—he is the Advocate.
We meet the same Greek word in
1 John 2: 2, and the allied word in
Rom. 15: 4. The “comfort of the
Scriptures” is the instruction, the
truth, the promises, whereby the
Scriptures bring peace and hope to
the soul. The Holy Spirit was
promised as Teacher and Guide of
the saints.
In the promise of Jesus before
quoted he said he would “send the
Comforter.” Was tlie Spirit not in
the world before then? Certainly,
for from the begining God’s saints
had enjoyed the presence and power
of the Spirit. All the saints of all
ages have been regenerated, sancti
fied, and glorified’by him. But the
Christian dispensation is peculiarly
the “ministration of the Spirit,” and
he could come in his fullness only
after the Christ was glorified. It is
interesting in this connection to note
the striking figures of speech by
which Jesus promised that “coming.’
Compare Luke 24: 49 and Aets 1: 5’
“Endued,’ is “clothed” in the Re-'
vised Version. The same word is
elsewhere rendered “put on” and
“clothed,” as in Mark 1: 6 and Rom .
13: 14, and in other passages. So
the baptism in the Spirit was to be
a putting on of the Spirit, as one is
clothed in his garments. In the fig
ure we at once see an appositeness
when we remember that Jesus and
the disciples knew baptism only as
immersion. Snch names as Plump
tre, Neander, Lange, Meyer, and, in.
deed, all competent commentators so
look at these passages. The coming
of the Holy Spirit on the first day of
pentecost after the ascension was the
fulfillment of'the promise. The Ad
vocates of sprinkling sometimes ad.
duce the pentecost baptism in the
Spirit as proof of affusion, because
it is said in Joel “I will pour out of
my Spirit,” etc. (Acts 2: 18). The
argument is untenable, as the fore
going illustrations abundantly show.
One'of the earty Christian bishops
of Jerusalem, Cyril, in the fourth
century, writing of Christ’s promise
in Acts 1: s,said:
“The Lord saith; ‘Ye shall be bap
tized in the Holy Spirit not many
days after this.’ Not in part the
grace, but all-sufficing the power!
For as he who sinks down in the
water and is baptized, is surrounded
on all sides by the waters, so they
wore completely baptized in the Ho
ly Spirit.”
We reserve further thoughts on
this important subject for a subse
quent article.
“I have gotten a man from the
Lord,” is given us in King James’
translation as the exultant exclama
tion of Eve when Cain was born.
Scholars tell us that this is not the
best translation, that she said, “I have
a man the Lord.” She evidently
thought he was the promised seed
that should bruise the serpent’s head.
When her next son, as some think,
a twin brother, was born she called
him Abel, which means vanity, as if
this one was one too many for her
theory. Rhe' had expected one but
not two, would bruise the serpent’s
bead.
Matthew Henry says, “Many sup
pose Eve had a conceit that this son
was the promised seed; if so, she
was wretchedly mistaken.”
Poor woman ! how 4 far away from
the fruition of her faith! If she did
really think Cain was the promised
one, how sadly must the future of
that life have fallen upon her.
How little any mother knows what
kind of man the darling she presses
to her bosom will make. We are
apt to say that he will make about
what she makes him. This is quite
true in general, but there are many
notable exceptions. In the case of
Cain and Abel, we may suppose
Cain to have had as much parental
care as his brother. And in a mul
titude of examples of the same
kind, we have boys of the same fam
ily whose lives and characters are as
dissimilar as it is possible for them to
be. Is not this striking proof of
the depravity of human nature.
If in the treatment of her son Eve
had reason to think she was respon
sible for the course he pursued how
awful must have been her misery.
She would no doubt have prayed the
Lord to take him in infancy if she
could have b.ul a glimpse of the fut
ure, but that she did not have. If
he like many other children was ev
er very sick she watched and prayed
night and day that he might be
spared her.
May it not be possible that my
pen has led me astray at this point ?
Her son Abel is likely the first per
son that died on the earth and the
awful realization of the temporal
side of the curse began in that fate
ful hour. She may never till that day
have known what her eldest son was.
His life of pent up evil may have
broken faith then for the first time.
As she stood* if she was permitted,
by the lifeless clay of her second son
she learned that her first born,
whose advent she had hailed with so
much delight, was a murderer. How
awful the revelation! Iler hopes all
perished. Neither the one could be
the Messiah nor the other. One is
dead and that by bis brother’s hand.
The Lord help any mother bear
her awful burden who may be called
to witness the ruin of her son. The
dead son was a source of comfort
when compared with the one still a.
live. There are now possible in a
league of this writing, sons that had
better a thousand times be dead.
WILFUL IGNORANCE:
Men who affect to speak with au
thority, do not always take care to
speak with intelligence. Notable
instances of this are furnished by
those who claim to solve all problems
in the history and functions of the
Christian church, and yet never con
descend to ascertain the commonest
facts in its currant operations. Dr.
I’elix L. Oswald, in the Chicago
‘‘Monist” for October, ranges himself
with this class. Discussing the ques
tion of “Hereditary Influences,”
which cannot be obliterated by force
of rhetoric or of government edicts,”
he says that “it would solve many
riddles if we would apply that prin
ciple to phenomena of ethical and re
ligious evolution.” Among the rid
dles he specifies is this: “How else
shall we account for the success of
Christian missionaries in Tasmania
and Otaheite, and their utter failures
in Burmah and Hindustan?”
You notice his implied solution of
the problem of Christian missions.
They are simply “phenomena of
ethical and religious evolution,” with
nothing to produce them except
“force of rhetoric or of government
edict,” and succeeding or failing only
as this force, exerted jn their behalf,
meets or does not meet with “heredi
tary influences which cannot be ob
literated by it.” This is bold and
brazen infidelity; what then is his
knowledge of things out of which he
thus sweeps the supernatural and di
vine?, or is the hand that grasps and
wields the besom guided by igno
rance? Plainly by an ignorance so
crass as to suggest, on his theory of
heredetary influences” a profound
despair that any force can be found
able to obliterate it: and so that theo
ry, while it may not explain the mis
sions; may very well explain their
critic.
Otaheite, better known now as
Tahiti, was s field of successful mis
sionary effort, and the majority of
the natives profess the Protestant
religion to-day; but I do not see how
“hereditary influences” revolving
around a system of human sacrifices
and savoring of savage brutality 4 ,
could have smoothed the way to
Christianity,particularly in that form.
Whether a field of successful mis
sionary effort was found in Tasmania,
formerly called Van Dieman’s Land,
we cannot say just at present: the
country is noted rather for the cele
brated “Black War” against the na
tiues and for their extinction, the last
man dying in 1862 and ten years
later the last woman.
Dr. Oswald has certainly chosen
his examples of successful missiona
ry operations as no intelligent friend
of missions would have chosen them.
This we have seen. Not less cer
tainly, he has chosen his examples of
unsuccessful missionary operations
as they would have been chosen by
no intelligent enemy of missions.
We are now to see this.
In Hendustan, the scene of alleged
“total failure,” there were at the close
of 1881, as many as 417, 372 Protes
tant native Christians, no mean body
of evangelical adherents to the cross,
and the sure promise of a body great
er still. For the ratio of progress
had been growing through the three
proceeding decades: from 1851 to
1861 it was 51 per cent, from 1861
to 1871 it was 61 per cent, from 18-
71 to 1881 it was 86 percent. Sure
ly the mistake of the doctor here is
too patent to excuse our dwelling on
it. If this be failure, Heaven send
ns more and yet more of it
Bad as the appeal to Hindustan
was, a worse was possible; and the
Doctor made that worse—that worst.
He could have turned nowhere to
meet a more emphatic and wither
ing refutation; for, as Dr. Cathcart
expresses it, “Nowhere in the whole
range of modern missionary toil have
Christian labors among the heathen
been more signally blessed than in
Burmah." Our first Burmese con
vert was baptized in 1819 and our
first Karen convert in 1828. Last
year, the two missions on the one
geographical territory reported 112
American missionaries, 136 ordained
and 438 unordained native preachers,
524 churches, and 29.144 members.
What marvelous growth! And it
was chioily among the Karens—the
“wild men” as their names imports;
an oppressed, uncultured but noble
people. A church of theirs at Ongole
organized with eight members on the
beginning of 1867, had at the end of
1779 no fewer than 13,106 members,
probably the largest chutch in the
world. Os Rev. John E. Clough, un
der whose hand and council the work
went forward, Dr. Cathcart w-rites;
“Christ has given eternal life through
his ministry to the greatest number
of converts ever brought into his fold
in so brief a space by the labors of
one man. “And it is to this point,
this of all points!—that Dr. Oswald
bids us turn in search of failure, ut
ter failure. It must be because he
was “given over to himself” and “left
to do it,” as one whose own act suf
ficed to put him to shame and put
him to silence!
Or, was he suffered thus to write
his name on the list of men who, by
the maintenance of error, become in
their own person a proof, by example
of truths which they discard, and of
the most holy faith of which these
truths form part? The “hereditary
influences that cannot be obliterated”
of which he speaks, what are they in
their darker aspects but that de
pravity of human nature, handed
down from sinning sire to son, of
which both Scripture and othodox
Christianity testify as a power that
no force of mere nature can over
come? And when this depravity
evinces its control over us by lead
ing to the rejection of all the super
natural light of divine revelation and
all the supernatural energy of the
Holy Spirit,what wonder, as it shows
itself incurable, that it calls itself so,
not knowing, the while, that what
issues from its lips is self-disclosure?
So the Doctor, its unconscious spokes
man, like hosts of modern sceptics,
though he writes about missions, does
not acquiant himself with their histo
ry, in this way having witnessed a
gainst himself that he belongs to
those slaves of their own depravity,
who, as pictured in Holy writ, “re
gard not the work of the Lord, nei
ther considered the operations of his
hands.” This one thing, then, the
case of the Doctor teaches us: Wil
ful ignorance in the matter of Chris
tian missions is not the least of the
proofs that our sad heritage of a
fallen nature has not lost its usurped
and ruinous power over the soul.
THE BIGHT BASIS OF MISSIONS.
Attention is directed to an article
in this issue by C. K. Henderson, on
the above named theme.
It is long, but will repay the
reader. A question prominent be
fore Christians in the centennial
movement is presented in a phase
somewhat new. It affords a topic
for study and thought, and enforces
the scripture reason for preaching
the gospel to every creature.
Just as was predicted in these
paragraphs, the papal heirarchy has
found it impossible to muzzle the
American press, and the foreign pre
late who was landed with so much
show in New York found a very dis- 1
ferent atmosphere from that he was
accustomed to in the Eastern City. !
He will return to Rome, it is said,
having failed to accomplish the ends
for which he was sent out.
• • «
Meantime, the fight over the pub
lic school question betwixt Messrs, i
Ireland and Corrigan and their fol
lowers waxes hot. Baptists and
protestants, who have so often been
twitted with the profound peace and
harmony of “the church” when they
were having a little “set to,” can
look on with complacence while
these dignitaries “fight it out.”
The end of the year has come.
We think the custom of call
ing a pastor by the calendar, or for
any limited time, is unwise, for many
reasons, but it is far worse (for more
and weightier reasons) to let the end
of the year come without paying all
you have promised him. Don’t
compel the faithful man to try to
make bricks without straw. Pay
him up promptly and, if possible, in
crease his salary. The pastor who
gets all he ought to have is a rare
sight.
We find the following paragraph in
one of our secular papers:
“The latest evidences of ecclesiastical
straight lacedness is the expulsion from
the Hebrew priesthood of Rabbi Bosen
berg of New York City, for eating freely
of tempting slices of ham. He has booh
summarily dismissed and Hebrew circles
are discussing the equities of the ease.”
Let us see. The Jew believes in the
perpetuity of the Mosaic law, at least
professes to so believe. That law pro
hibits the eating of £wine flesh, and
every sincere and honest Jew should
govern his appetite accordingly. In
this case the sin was not expulsion of
the offending rabbi, bwi ln the effrontery
of him who, professing allegiance to the
law of his faith, yet deliberately tram
pled upon its provisions. Os course
viewd from tlie point of view of the
Christian, the prejudice against the ham
is unreasonable—Christ having abroga
ted the Mosaic law—but the rabbi
should have refrained from outing, or
else honestly surrendered his Jewish
priesthood.
LYNCH LAW.
The frequent visitation of swift venge
ance upon criminals at the hands of en
raged citizens, without the sanction of
law or the decision of courts is a fearful
feature of these times. Lynch law is no
law. No law is anarchy. Anarchy i s
the destruction of social order, of per
sonal safety, of the security of property,
and of the peace of the people.
The order loving law-abiding ele
ments in every community ought to
speak out in no uncertain tones, and
unite in the purpose to uphold all exec
utive officers in the administration of
law. Crime can be successfully sup.
pressed only by the stern, but steady
and peacable administration of law in
pursuance of judicial decisions, and by
the hands of legally appointed officers.
There are already movements in this di
rection being made in some communi
ties in Georgia. Let there be a general
expression of condemnation of lynch law
throughout the State, coupled with a
fixed purpose to stand by the decisions
of the courts and the administration of
the law through legally appointed offi
cers.
Here are timely words from the Chris
tian Observer on this subject.
1. “It is mnrder. God has committed
the execution of law into the hands of
the magistrate. When, after due trial,
the officer of the law takes life, it is
God’s act, done by the officer as Gcd’s
deputy: and it carries God's approval.
But if a citizen, or a crowd of citizens,
snatch a prisoner from the officers and
hang him, they are simply committing
murder. Why should the secular press
systematically incite men to this crime?
2. It is attacking the foundations of
peace and order, and of society itself.
The fundamental principle of peaceful
government is that every man shall be
secure from harm until lawfully con
victed of crime. But the incitement of
the paragraph quoted is to kill him be
fore he is tried.
We shudder at the assassinations and
venget'nl murders in half-civilized lands’
And formerly we boasted of the safety
of life and liberty in this country.
But now our papers are continually in
viting peeple to deeds of assassination.”
Ministerial success is a variable quan
tity. There is success and success.
Some men succeed in business on a very
small capital. Others fail, though start
ing with large capital. Even so in the
ministry. With God's blessing, there is
no reason why every earnest minister
may not succeed in the only worthy
cense in which the word can be applied
to the ministry. Any “success” which
is not based on honest work is not un
worthy of the minister’s ambition. We*
find this paragraph floating around
and it expresses much truth: “The
way to get success in the ministry is to
deserve it. To get it in another way is
dishohest. Constant reading and think
ing and writing, diligent pastoral visita
tion, and incessant prayer, will sooner
or later win the day.”
“Praying is more than “saying pray
ers.” We are not heard for our much
speaking. The ear of the Heavenly
Father listens to the faintest cry that
comes from a sincere soul, and that
alone is prayer which thus comes.
Here is something good on this point:
“God weighs our prayers rather than
numbers them. That we should pray
often, and even “without ceasing,” is
important, but that we should pray
with sincerity and earnestness, is still
more so. The mere mumbling of a form
of words, whether long or short, comes
to but little. If we expect to find ac
ceptance at the throne of the heavenly
grace, our hearts must be right in the
sight of God.
Rev. Gibbert Dobbs, pastor of the
First Baptist church, Paducah, Ky., has
made himself qualified for the bishopric
by becoming the‘■husband of one wife.”
He and Miss Eula Jones were married at
Brownsville, Tenn., Dec. 28. Bro.
Dobbs is the third son of Dr. Dobbs,
who performed the marriage ceremony
for the happy couple. The Index ex
tends hearty congratulations.
Rev. J. L. D. Hillyer, who has gone as
far South as he can without expatriat
ing himself, is stirring up the saints in
Key West on denominational differences.
In his sermon on the 11th inst, he paid
a glowing tribute to the zeal and cour
age and devotion of the Methodists, and
then procceeded, in effect, to say
“Nevertheless. 1 have somewhat againts
the<!” At night he turned his attention
to the Presbyterians.
The Gulf Pennant says that he is
preaching to crowded houses.
p "-V
P F
" Jk
Mr. Geo. W. Turner
Simply Awful
Worst Caso of Scrofula the
Doctors Ever Saw
Completely Cured bp HOOD’S
SARSAPARILLA.
“ When I was 4 or 6 years old I had a scrof
ulous sore on the middle hng-r of my loft hand,
which got so had that tin doctors cut the
linger oil, cud later took off inoro than bait my
hand. Then tho sore broke out on my arm,
cam.) out on my neclt and two on both sides,
nearly destroying the slaht ot one eye. aho
on my right arm. Doctors said It was the
Worst Caso of Scrofula
they ever saw. It was simply awful! Five
years ago I began to take Hood's Sarsaparilla.
Gradually I found that tho sores were begin
ning to heal. I kept, on til! I had taken ten
bottles, ten dallara! Just think of what a
return I got for that Investment! A ihon
saad per eontf Yes, many thousand. For
the past 4 years I have had no sores. 1
Work all tho Timo.
Before. I caald da ao week. I know not
what to say strong enough to express my grnt
Itude to Hood's Sarsaparilla for my perfect
euro.” GroHUK W. Tvaxm, Farmer, Gai
way, Saratoga county, N. Y.
HOOD'S PILLO do not weaken, but aid
dlg.sUoa and teas the stcmacb. Try Ihcau 14a.