Newspaper Page Text
2
any adopted plan, there must be
underlying it in the hearts of at least
the majority of the society, the same
grand principles,-*-an earnest, true
love for Christ, full of gratitude to
■ him for what he has done for us,
an ever searching desire to know hi s
will, —an unflinching determination
to do that will, when it is known»
regardless of the world’s smiling ap
proval or its misjudging frown, all
this—and then sweetly crowning it,
a veil of Christ-like charity through
which to see the efforts of every
other member. Out of these will
naturally grow that energetic perse
verance,heart-felt co-operation,punct
ual attendance, ever-willingness to
comply with the requirements of the
society, and true love and sympathy
so necessary to the prosperity to any
organization.
A missionary society thus united
with one grand end in view will
make a success of any plan it may
adopt, no matter how much that
plan xnay bo wanting in its construc
tion ; while a society without these
essentials would make a complete
failure of the grandest,|most effectual
plan that has yet been or will ever
bo conceived in any human mind.
Now suppose I suggest at this hour
no special plan at all. Possibly I
would render as much service as if I
were to present one that would prove
inopperative aud ineffective.
I might tell of the missionary
needle that flies faster as the one
who plies it thinks of the love of him
for whose sake and glory the work
is given, weaving in for those mis
sionaries who wear the garments,
the loving thoughts, the tender sym
pathy, the anxious prayers of those
at home who watch their work in
far off fields with so much sacrificing
solicitude. I might tell of the mis
sionary cotton-patch or the “mission
ary hen” whose increase, if rightly
looked after, will result in an aggre
gate greater than ever dreamed of.
It is highly desirable that some
plan be followed that will have sys
tem about it, and produce systematic
giving, and a regularity of contri
bution that can bo depended on.
But let no plan bo inaugurated that
will have the effect to almost coerce
contribution of money or work. Let
no one give because she feels that
“if I don’t do my part, the other
members will remark upon it and
charge mo jvith not having done my 1
duty.” Let there be no fl-antic fear
that will rush us ever into “ice-crcany
festivals,” “churef. fairs” and the like,
which appeal to tho coarser elements
of man’s nature. God loves heart
offerings ; but let us not reach that
heart through animal appetites. Let
no law bind tho heart but tho law of
love.
WE MUST BE IN EARNEST.
I would rather have a (plan that
was tho creation of several different
minds, than merely tho work of one.
What ever it be, let its workings
educate tho members of the society
up and into the wholesome habit of
giving. But oh, give! Let each one
determine that I will give something
every week or every month, “accord
ing as tho Lord has prospered me.’’
That is the Bible plan. I honestly
believe that if every Christian, re
membering that he has been “bought
with a price,” will consider the tithe
of his earnings, as not his own, but
holy unto the Lord, as many Chris
tians do, he or she will be far hap
pier, and will acknowledge from rich
experience, God’s plan as the best of
all. These entertainments which
bring tho people .together, giving to
us these free-will offerings, have been
blessed in tho past and will bo
blessed in tho future. This associa.
tion of ourselves together not in
suspicious envy, not in criticism, but
in sweet counsel and companionship,
hallows our ideas and efforts for
good, and if we determine to let noth
ing discourage us, it is a plan that
will ever prove a blessing to our
selves and an honor to God.
Addie L. Lindsey.
ENDORSING ERROR.
Some good people for fear that
they may seem to endorse error, go
to strange lengths to avoid the ap
pearance of it. They have an idea
that if they place themselves in tho
company, even for an hour, of those
whom- they regard as holding error,
they thereby endorse the error.
Some UMnister»*eay that if they oc
cupy the pulpit of another denomi
tion that preaches and practices doc
trines which these ministers belioveto
be quite erroneous.it would be a vir
tual endorsement of such preaching
and practices. But it by no means
follows that such is the case. One's
presence in a place where bad things
arc said, does not necessarily imply
that he endorses those things. If it
did, then we might say that Christ,
by his presence in the Synagogue,
during the hours of worship, gave
practical endorsement to the errors
which were taught there. But he
did not so regard the matter. lie
went to some places, which the Pha
risees regarded asjbeing of a very
questionable character, and they evi
dently thought that he endorsed the
people there and their practices, but
he did not thiuk so. He was some
times in what we would call pretty
bad company, but he did not give
any countenance to the conduct of
such people. The reverse is true
It depends altogether on what one
says and does when he is in the com
pany of those who hold to radical
error. If a man talks in favor of
the error, whether he be actually
in the place where it is publicly and
statedly taught or nut, he endorses
it. When Christ was in places
where error was taught, he never
said a word in favor of the error,
nor gave any sign that he favored it.
Even if he did not say anything
against it, his presence did not mean
an approval of it. The adage that
“silence gives consent,” is far from
always being true. Silence may
mean, and often it does mean a re
proof. Some of the most cutting re
proofs come from significant silence.
Now, it is a fact that some who are
much afraid of endorsing the errors
of others, are themselves possessed
of equally great errors and perhaps
even more mischievous practically.
It is a great thing to know ones own
self. C. 11. Wetiiekbe
”PLAIN WORDS.”
I am a common, plain, ordinary
Agent at a small station on R. R. I
have no influence; no political, and
no special social standing.
I see from the news papers that a
congressman recommended a man for
the Post Office in Albany, Ga., that
played poker. 1 see from the papers
that the good citizens of tho town
sent on proof of tho same and asked
that he be rejected by tho Senate.
No one denied that he was a gambler.
I see by the papers that tho Senate
of tho United States confirmed him
unanimously. Senator Colquitt, voted
for him. Senator Blackburn said
that, “ho was one of us.” The papers
say that Senator Blackburn plays
poker, and that other senators and
congressmen do tho same. 1 earnest
ly, honestly ask, can a Christian man
vote to confirm a man to any oflioe>
that is a gambler. Ido not blame
Senator Blackburn fojr voting for
the Albany Postmaster, for the sen
ator gambles himself.
Now I put this question to each
fathers heart, down in the depths,
between him and his God, if he be
lieves in a God, docs he desire and
want, that his son shall play poker
If his son should ask him tho plain
question, shall I play or not? What
would the answer bo ? Not one but
would say, my son, do not play poker-
Senator Blackburn is of strong mind,
he can play, and stop, as it suits
him, his intellect is powerful enough
to understand the game, so that he
wins more than he loses, lie for
gets that where he has brains and
genius, that ten thousand men take
him as a copy and point to him as an
example, and say, he is a United
States Senator,he plays poker: he bets
and wins on cards, he stands high
in the councils of tho nation, and
in society.
Why cannot Ido the same ? Ten
thousand boys go down to ruin try
ing to follow in the stops of Senator
Blackburn. They lack the brain, the
sense, the power to control themsel
ves. Ho can, they cannot. Will
Senator Blackburn advise his son, if
ho*has one, to play poker? Will he
sit down, and take his neighbors boy
by the hand, a simple, innocent,
mothers boy, and tell him to learn
the game, will he ? If he believes in
God: in God's name, I ask him, will
he? Oh no. Oh no.
You ask me why I write this?
And why I ask you to publish it ?
It can be told in a few- words. My
boy last night, just merging into
manhood, asked me about tho games
of poker. I have tried to be his friend
and companion, and to teach him to
be mine. He asked-me where the harm
was in it.’ I had told him often that
gambling was wrong. He then told
me that Senator Blackburn of Ken
tucky played poker and for money,
and he was respected and honored*
He told me that tho Postmaster re
cently confirmed at Albany, was a
poker player, and that Senator Col
quitt, whom I had said to him was a
good man and a Christian, voted for
him. He then asked plainly where
was the harm? Ho said to me, I
know father you mean for the best,
but where such distinguished men
approve the game of poker, and call
it the National game, where is the
THE CHRISTIAN INDEX: THURSDAY MAY 4, 1893.
harm ? Are you not mistaken ? And
then and there, I got down on my
knees and took that boy in my arms
and prayed. I prayed, that there
might be some power put forth by
the great God, to show Senator
Blackburn and Senator Colquitt, that
they were leading my boy, it might
be to ruin. lam poor and humble.
my boy knew it. He knew that Sen
ators had more brain than I had.
His impulse and feelings were to
be like Senator Blackburn, not like
his father. He has sence enough
to be like his father, he lacks the
sence to be like Senator Blackburn.
If he tries to be like the Senator, he
will go to hell, if he tries to be like
his father ho will be a citizen fill
ing the place in life he is qualified
for.
Am I wrong in writing this, have
I put it too strong? Oh! the boys
the boys that the Senators and the
Congressmen -who play poker and
vote for poker players to oflice, are
leading to ruin. Humble, poor un
known, I am, but am a Christian by
word, by act, by vote, opposed to a
man for oflice who plays poker. If
the church would do its duty,it would
strike from its role, the name of Sen
ator Colquitt. Provided that it is
true, that the proof was that the Al
bany Postmaster was a poker player,
and provided, that Senator Colquitt
voted for his confirmation. I am
right in the proposition.
Has tho Christian Index the
nerve to print this letter?
Has tho press of tho State the
nerve to copy, if it does print it?
I have said no wrong of any one.
I have told my story in a plain blunt
way. I admit frankly, Ido not be
lieve that the Christian press of the
land will print it; because forsooth,
it will sting the guilty, because it
will hurt.
I know human nature well enough
to. know that Senator Blackburn will
smile in derision should ho read my
story. I know Senator Colquitt well
enough to know that ho will wince
under the touch of tho truth,and say
nothing. But I would bo glad if he
would write mo the truth about the
Albany Post Oflice, so that I might
tell my boy, whether I was right or
wrong when I told him Senator Col
quitt was a good and true man,
W. W. Lumpkin,
Milledgeville, Ga.
THE ATONEMENT. {
I have been much interested in the
articles which havoSrecently appear
ed in tho Inde x on this important
subject. And now at the request of
my honored friend and brother Dr.
I. R. Branham, I write with special
reference to tho extent of the atone
ment.
The opposite views of general and
limited atonement are doubtless ow
ing in large measure to the pushing
too far of the commercial idea in
connection with it. That view of
tho atonement is briefly this, Jesus
Christ paid so muoh for so much.
In that admirable volume of ser
mons, Tho Old Theology Restated,
Dr. Tucker has a great sermon on
the Great Purchase. But it would
be a confounding of terms to call that
a sermon on the atonement. In that
sermon Dr. Tucker says; “the object
of tho text is to illustrate the plan of
salvation under the figure of a com
mercial transaction.” Ho then pro
ceeds to an analysis of tho subject
by an analysis of a bargain. Thus:
“1, A buyer. 2. A thing bought
and sold. 3. A seller, 4. A price
paid etc.” In the discussion God is,
represented as tho buyer, those
whom the apostle addressed as those
who were bought, the law, tho seller
and tho blood of Jesus Christ, the
price paid.
Forgetting that this is a figure,
illustrative of tho great transaction,
by which tho lost aro saved, we shall
be in danger of falling into gross
and grievous error.
Plainly, law is not a power, inde.
pendent of God, which holds, under
bondage of death, those whom God,
another independent power, longs to
liberate, but whom ho cannot liber
era to, until ho has satisfied the
first independent power, by tho
payment of his own Son’s blood as
the price of their freedom. Such a
view performs the wonderful and un.
known feat of making a figure at the
same time the boldest literalness.
Man is created under law. But
law, divine law, is not an arbitrary
institution. It is tho embodiment of
principles necessary to tho happiness
of intelligent beings, and has its or.
igirU not in the sovereignty, but in the
character of God. Tho law is op
posed to tho sinner, (because God is
opposed to him. When God is sat
ijftad with him, the law is satisfied
with him. But God’s opposition
to the sinner is not vindictive-
ness, but that which necessarily
arises from the organic and eternal
antagonism between holiness and un
holiness.
Now look at that passage in Rom
3:24-26, which has been called the
“Acropjolis of the Christian faith:”
“Being justified freely by his grace,
through the redemption that is in
Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as
a propitiation, through faith in his
blood for the exhibition of his righ
teousness, because of the passing by
of sins formerly committed, in the
forbearance of God; for the exhibi
tion of his righteousness in the pres
ent time, that he may be just and the
justifier of him that believes in “Je
sus.” Now observe. 1. God, in his
forbearance had passed by (sins for
merly committed. 2. In the present
time, God justifies the sinner. 3-
But God is righteous, and the ex
hibition of his rigdteousness, even
though he thus passed by sins form
erly committed, aud even now jus
tifies the sinner, is exhibited in
Christ whom He set forth in his
blood as a propitiation.
This wonderful transaction de
clares on what principle God has
proceeded and now proceeds in his
merciful dealing with the sinner.
If God is not righteous in freely
justifying him who believes in Jesus,
then Christ set forth in his blood as
a propitiatory sacrifice,is not an ex
hibition of it, for underlying the ex
hibition of righteousness, there must
exist tho fact. But there is just
and exact conformity between the
exhibition and the fact. God there
fore is just in justifying the believer
in Jesus, That is, there is nothing
in .God’s nature, and therefore noth
ing in his law, which puts an ob
struction in the way of this salvation
of any who come to him through
faith in Jesus. On God’s side every
obstruction, preventing salvation to
any and to all of the lost, is removed
by the propitiation of Jesus Christ-
Tho correct answer to the follow
ing question, will it seems to me;
settle the question as to whether the
atonement is limited or general: Can
God, in view of tho propitiation of
Jesus Christ, grant repentance and
remission of sins to all, if ho chose
to do so? If it be said that he can
not. Then what prevents him?
What law restricts him, and who
made that k‘i,w ? Nothing without
h’rm, that is, to him, can re
strict him, he is not Sov
ereign. If be said that he is
restricted by his holiness; That would
be to aflirm that the propitiation made
by Christ on Calvary was not fuff
aud complete, since it fails to satisfy
the divine holiness, that it is not of
infinite merit; or else to aflirm that
God, as a Sovereign Arbiter deter
mined that, that which possessed
infinite merit, should not possess
infinite merit; that, that which in its
nature and character was sufficient
to satisfy infinite holiness, should not
satisfy infinite holiness. That is,
that God of pure Sovereign will, de
termined that he would not be satis,
tied with that which his holiness,
righteousness, justice consents to, as
altogether satisfactory, which would
unecessarily involve the remarkable
contradiction, that which is, is not.
But if wo say that in view of the
propitiation of Jesus Christ God
could, if he chose, grant repentance
and remission of sins to all men. It
must not be forgotten that he could
not choose to do so, unless tho pro
pitiation of Christ, fully met the
demands of his holiness. That is, in
its Godward aspect, the atonement
is unlimited, infinite. To grant this,
js to grant all that is claimed by these
Baptists who intelligently maintain
that the atonement is unlimited.
This view of the atonement opens
the realm of grace as extensive as
tho whole race of fallen humanity;
and within this realm God acts in
his dealing with the children of men,
calling upon them, yea “command
ing all men everywhere to repent.”
Tho obstruction in tho way of
their salvation, which his holiness
interposed being taken away, by the
sacrifice of Christ, God can, and ho
does, in all sincerity command tho
gospel to bo preached to every crea
ture, with tho assurance that ho
that believes the gospel shall be
saved. To believe the gospel, is to
believe that Christ died for our sins,
that ho was buried, that ho arose
again from tho dead. (1 Cor. 151
1-4.) But if there aro those for
whom atonement was not made, can
it be their duty to believe that it
was? Does God command any to
believe that which is not true?
Would believing that which with
reference to themselves is not true,
do any of these the least good in
effecting their salvation? No one
will deny that salvation is tho end,
the thing contemplated in believing
the gospel. Is their refusal to be
lieve the gospel, seeing that the gos.
pel does not include them, a thing
for which they can be justly con
demned ? Can the advocates of a
limited atonement, who maintain that
Christ made atonement for particu.
lar persons, answer these questions
in a plain, straightforward way,easily
comprehended by the earnest, honest,
simple-minded enquirer after truth ?
If Christ made atonement for partic
ular persons, there being not the
least divergence in the God-head,
the Holy Spirit, who is to “guide into
all the truth,” will reveal this fact to
such persons and to no others. Then
there is nothing left for the others to
believe. The truth is, it is nowhere
taught in the Scriptures that any
man is commanded to believe that
Christ died for him in particular!
but all men are commanded to be.
lieve the gospel; and so soon as any
one is conscious that he believes the
gospel, he has ground to believe that
Christ died for him, yea as much
ground to believe that Christ died
for him, as that he died at all, since
the Scriptures do reveal that he died
for those that believe.
It has been charged, that since
multitudes are lost, if the atonement
is general, then Christ failed in his
purpose of salvation. This by no
means follows, as every discriminat
ing mind might easily understand by
dilligent study of the Scripture,
Christ purposed to save none, ex
cept through repentance and faith.
The truth is, the atonement as
such saves none. Nor is it such a
transaction as makes the salvation of
any, in view of Christ crucified even,
a matter of debt. Salvation is by
grace from first to last. The atone
ment brings God not under obliga
tion to any. But being always be
nevolent, in view of tho atonement,
ho can, and does, extend mercy to
those who are justly condemned.
Yet in this he is perfectly free, and
all that he does, is purely of grace.
The atonement was already com
plete, finished, while yet Saul of
Tarsus was in our belief, “a child of
wrath even as others.” On his way
to Damascus, the Lord met him
changed him into a new man, for
gave his sins, saved him- All of
which was purely of grace, and not
because he was Saul’s debtor by rea
son of wliiit had been done 911 the
cross- Nor yet was he impeded to
save Saul by the great transaction
by which propitiation for sins was
made. But it is rather this way: In
view of that great transaction, God
could, consistent with righteousness,
save Saul; and of infinite mercy,
sovereign grace,he|did it. God’s im
pulse to save lies back of the cross,
is not accounted for by the cross, but
accounts for the cross.
Atonement precedes and procures
redemption. And so we hear him
who is now Paul the apostle saying
more than once: “In whom we have
redemption, the forgivness of our
sins.” In atonement, the way of
righteousness, is opened whereby the
Lord, consistent with his holiness,
reaches tho sinner with the efficient
agencies of salvation. In redemp
tion sin is put away from the individ
ual, through repentance and faith.
The result of all which is reconcilia
tion perfect and complete. Where
fore the apostle says: “Being justifi
ed by faith we have peace with God
through our Lord Jesus Christ.”
Much more might be said; but I
desist. It is probable that I have
already said too much, unless it were
better said. Two classes of Scrip
ture, the one which seems to prove
the idea of a limited atonement, the
other which speaks of it as world
wide, might be noticed; and shown
to be not in accord with the theory
of a limited, but in accord with the
theory of an unlimited atonement.
But enough.
A. B. Vaughan, Jr.
ASKED AND ANSWERED.
BY C. E. W. DOBBS.
Is there any authority for the
statement that the Apostolic Peter
was crucified in Rome, and with his
head downward? Protestant.
Our inquirer says he is not a Bap
tist, but that he reads the Inedx
with delight and profit. In answer
to his inquiry we must say that the
statement in question rests upon a
very uncertain foundation. Os course
there is nothing in the Bible about
the martyrdom of Peter, except the
prophetic statement in John 21: 18,
Dr. Williams, in the American Com
mentary says that “tradition makes
him to have gone very early to
Rome, and to have founded the
Roman church ; but, if well sifted
the tradition is found to be chaff
•
That he went to Rome near the close
of his life, after the Roman church
was founded, and after the death of
Paul, is strongly attested. He suf
fered martyrdom, and probably about
a. d. 67.” The story as to the
manner of his martyrdom is based
on a misinterpretation of two Greek
words, kata kemphales, which mean
“by the head,” Tertullian, who was
born about a. d. 150, says simply,
that “Peter approached the passion
of our Lord.” Origen says that he
was “crucified by the head,” what
ever that may mean. Some commen
tators think it means that he [was
impaled. Eusebius says that he was
“crucified by his head,” and explains
that expression to mean that he was
crucified with his head downward.
Then Jerome, leaving out the words
“kata kephales,” says definitely that
Peter was crucified head downward-,
and the story arose between the last
two, and has been amplified by later
writers, that this form of execution
was adopted at Peter’s own request
as he was not worthy to suffer in the
same way that his Lord had suffered,
A story, once started in a non-criti
cal age, is hard to squelch, and we
suppose this particular story will do
service for centuries to come, as it
has for centuries past.
Some time ago a writer in the In
dex said that Noah preached to the
Antediluvians one hundred and
twenty years. How did he know?
M, S. H.
The Bible does not state the fact
in so many words. We venture to
suggest, however, that M. S. 11. will
obtain a very satisfactory answer to
his inquiry by carefully comparing
2 Pet. 2: 5 and 1, Pet. 3: 20, with
Gen. 6: 3. It has been wrongly as
sumed that the last named passage
limited the duration of human life
after the flood. A glance at the his
tory proves that the view is not cor
rect, for Noah himself lived three
hundred and fifty years after the
flood, and in Gen. x, we have a long
list of the descendents of Shorn who
lived several hundred years each.
Abraham lived to the age of one
hundred and seventy-five years, and
Isaac one hundred and eighty. The
hundred and twenty years must then
have reference to the period between
the threatening of God and the flood,
the years during which the ark was
preparing. As Noah is declared to
have been a preacher of righteous
ness, we may fairly assume that he
preached during those hundred and
twenty years.
What do the disciples in the sec
ular papers mean about the beautifi
cation of Joan of Arc? a. m. d.
Our correspondent probably knows
the story of the unfortunate “Maid
of Orleans,” and yet in order to in
telligently answer her inquiry, we
must recall some of the salient facts.
Joan was a French girl, borne Jan.
<»th, 1411, in Lorraine, now part of
Germany, and was burned at the
stake for heresy, in Roneu,May 30th
1431 J While yet early in her teens,
Joan saw the English overcoming
her country. France had fallen to
pieces, and lay helpless at the feet of
her conquerors. Joan seems to have
been very much of a believer in
fairies, and of course, was supersti
tious. Every one was in those days.
She thought she had visions, in which
she imagined she heard heavenly
voices calling her to deliver her be
loved country from the spoilers.
These visions began in her thirteenth
year, continuing almost daily for
live years. Repairing to the army
she fired king and soldiers with a
holy enthusiasm, and led them
against the English, who were in
gloriously defeated. The French
were everywhere victorious and
France was saved. The French al
most worshiped Joan, and the poor
girl’s head was turned. She began
to cheerish the wildest dreams of
martial enterprise. She threatened
to invade Germany and punish the
Hussites for theirjberesy. She also
announced the ambitious design of
leading a host to free the holy land
from the Saracens, and other great
dreams crazed her mind. In 1430
she again marched against the Eng
lish, but her marvellous career was
about to end, and she was captured.
She was accused of hersy and witch
craft, and tried by the Inquisition,
convicted and sentenced to bo burn
ed at the stake. It was a Catholic
tribunal, of course, for the English
and French alike bowed beneath the
papal yoke then. Popo Calixtus, in
1456, reversed the sentence which
the Inquisitson had pronounced
against the unfortunate maid, de
claring her visions as real, and her
“voices” as truly the calling of the
saints to her work. Four centuries
have passed, and now the Romanists
propose to elevate the wronged Joan
to religious honors. Blunt’s Diction
ary of Doctrinal and Historical
Theology says “beautification is the
act by which the Pope declares on
behalf of a person whose life was
holy and accompanied by miracles,
that he thinks that the soul enjoys
eternal bliss, and in consequence,
permits religious honors to be paid
by the faithful to him.” “Canoniza.
tion” is a still higher honor, and
comes latter.
jj? First. Suppose a Baptist church
acts either illegally, irregularly o r
unscripturally in the arraignment
and expulsion cf a member, and re
fuses to correct their error, and thus
precipitates herself and the denomi
nation into confusion, are other
churches bound by reason of their
associational relationship to endorse
her conduct?
Second. Suppose a member— a
minister—of a regular Baptist church
is arraigned, tried and expelled from
the fellowship of his church, and he
afterwards applies to the church for
a reconsideration of his cause, and
states, that subsequent facts have
been developed, that demonstrate
beyond doubt, that he was tried by
an illegal and incompetent court,
and pledges himself, that if be does
not demonstrate by proper testimony
facts and figures that he was not
wrong, that he will then and there
make a public apology for all the
wrong done, is it Raptistical or
Scriptural to refuse a rehearing, of
the case, and refuse the member an
opportunity of vindicating himself
against a stigma that has been fast
ened upon him? j. w. l.
Our good brother’s questions
savor very much of what we call
“special pleading.” They read more
like argument than inquiry. If the
circumstances of the supposed case
are as detailed, there can bo but one
answer given to his first question.
Unjust action on the part of man or
church cannot bo approved. In an
swer to the second inquiry we must
say that the supposed conditions
would certainly demand a rehearing.
But we have before said that no defi
nite advice can be given upon wholly
exparte statements of cases of dis
cipline. Wise and godly men fa.
miliar with all the facts in such
cases should be consulted and trusted.
You Need]
: not despair if your back is weak, r
;if you feel the want of energy— :
• if you are suffering and can not •
■ locate your trouble.
A Bottle of
Rankin’s
Buchu and I
Juniper
; will tone you up, start your KID- j
: NEYS to acting and make you :
: feel like a new man. It relieves ;
■ at once and permanently cures i
• all troubles arising from disor- >
i dered KIDNEYS, BLADDER :
; and URINARY ORGANS.
Large bottle for sl. All drug-;
: gists keep it. :
i :
Rciiie Railroad Co. ~of Georiil
In effort 9:00 a. m.. Sunday, October 30,1893
Right is reserved to vary from this schedulo
as circumstances may require.
Rome to Kingston—Passenger Ttrains Daily
Stations. No. 1. I No. 3. No. 5.
| I
Lv. Rome 9 00am'215pm 7 Vi am
Second Avenue.. 904 " : 2 19 " 717 "
Prick Yard 910 "I 225 “ 7 2.3 “
Freemansl 918 “12 33 “ 728 “
I tykes 23 238 “ 731 “
Bass Ferryl 929 “ 244 “ | 737 “
Eves 934 «" I 2 49 “ 713 '*
Murchisons 945 " I 3 00 “ 751 “
Wooleys 952 " 307 " 751 “
Ar. Kingston 1000 “ 1 315 " 800 “
Atlanta 115pm' 025 “ 10 25 “
Chattaneegal 130 “ I 600 " I
Kingston to Rome—Passenger Trains Daily
Stations. , No. 2. j No. 4. No. «.
Lv. Chattanooga 7 50am' 120 pm
Atlanta 810 “ | 120 " 3,35 pm
Kingstonllo 50 “ 405 “ COO "
Wooleysllo 55 “ |4 11 “ fi on “
Murchisons 10 59 “ 417 “ 610 '•
Eves 11 1.3 “ 426 “ 617 “
Bass Ferry 11 13 “ 4.34 “ 623 “
Dykesll23 “ 440 '* 628 “
Freemans 112.8 “ 445 “ 6.32 “
Brick Yardll.3s “ |4 51 " 6 .37 “
Second Avenue. [lt 42 “ 457 “ 643 “
Ar. Romell4s “ I 5 00 " 645 *•
Nos. 1. 2.3 and 4 trains run daily, making
close connection nt Kingston. Ga.,(bothßuorn
ing and evening! with Western A Atlantia
tramsgotng North to Chattanooga, Tenn., and
South to Atlanta, <ln.
No*. 5 and 6 (Rome Express) will run dally
between Rente and Atlanta, Gu.. except Sun
day, making close connection at Atlanta with
the Centrals fast train. "Nancy Hanks." for
Grinin, Macon and Savannah.
W. F. AYER, Superintendent.
oFnr Agent's profits per month, Will
VH / n Prove it or pay forfeit. New arti-
UU I.V < !>•- pisl out. A *1.50 sample and
~ ?r n\ R Jree. Jt Chidester i Son, 28
Bond St.,N, 1.
I)I,.. ll,Can be made by
1)112 tIOUPV ot'nvassing for tho
y tnvr American, a
t> . , , „ National. Weekly,
Patriotic Newspaper, Address < yrus R. Ray,
21 Pope s Building St, Lot ts, Mo. ’ 4t
S,YS SHE CANNOT SEE HOW
t. YOU 00 IT FOR THE MONEY.
" ,r “ I»»r»wd OttorS Hln|*r
Kk A. ▼ * >•»■« Wachliw J»»ffert Wntklßr. r«l>al>l«.
HkT Yf OHKI to ligbt and bsavy «or|u
I JAJKT. ri'* • •** «>»• »•«*•«
uj tUr B UgURTRawI for * tears Uuy
O -Ji ■ *** • ,n ~ur *"*7» 'Valrrs and M«atf
' A ,UKK TRtAL and ruu CATAIOuUt
CO.. DEPT. W Chicago, 111,