Newspaper Page Text
2
far outstripped their Northern breth
ren ? No doubt it was predestinated,
but predestination runs with causes-
In this case the causes are not far to
seek. The Southern white people
are the purest blooded Anglo-Saxons
on the continent. They are decend
ed from a liberty loving, Bible read
ing ancestry. They have not been
modified by contact with foreign
peoples. Then the Southern people
are agricultural. They maintain in
greater force than others that sim.
plicity of life specially favorable to
the acceptance of the Baptist faith-
Two classes make good Baptists, the
common people, and thoroughly edu
cated people. The half breeds, like
mules, are very uncertain. The
South has always had a great element
of well cultured people, and these
belong largely to the Baptists. As
to the negroes—a blessing on their
wooly heads, they came to us as a
charge from God. They had no
ideas, no language, no religion to
speak of. They were taught the re
ligion, the language and the indus
tries of the white people. Their pro
found reverence for the Bible they
learned from their white owners-
New Testament seed never fell into j
more congenial soil than when they
fell into tho simple, tropical hearts
of the negroes. They are Baptists,
of course. Now look North. The
negroes were early transferred South
of the Potomac, because their labor
did not pay in the cold North. This
built a wall round us and opened the
North to a foreign population. From
every clime, for many decades, a
great flood of population has poured
into the North, not one percent of
which has been favorable to Baptist
ideas. The North has been changed
from a rural to a predominating ur.
ban population. Tho foreign element
has saturated the public mind with
Anti-Biblical ideas. Out of this
mixed order of things have come
those freaks for which certain sections
of the North have been noted. But
in the face of it all, our northern
brethren have fairly held their own.
That an occasional break should be
made in the ranks of a people so
is what we would expect. Let
it be said, that while we have the
members, the North has far more of
efficiency. They are an army: we
are a gang. Their great work is to
win converts; ours to train the vast
host already* won. The North in
pushing ministerial education toward
a high standard of ministerial schol
arship, with their wealth and mag
nificently equipped schools have
largely overtrained. The preacher
has been trained out, and tho scholar
remains. The South has hardly be
gun to train up her ministry, four
fifths of our preachers being practi
cally untouched.
As with the city Baptist and his
country brother, so with Southern
and Northern Baptists; they need to
supplement and help each other.
They have helped us in our training
work by giving liberally to our
schools. They should help more for
a few years. On the other hand our
best equipped men by scores and
hundreds should plunge into the
great battle being fought with for
eign ideas all over the North. A
little later they should go with our
money as well as with our prayers.
It would not hurt, if we began now
to send men and money. Look at
Minnesota, for instance. It has a
population of a million and a half.
There are 14,500 Baptists in the state.
Os Sweeds, there are 200,000, to say
nothing of a dozen other nationali
ties. To help win the multitudes
crowding to our Southern States, and
thereby save them and save our
people up there, and save ourselves
in tho long run is a duty as plain as
if written by the finger of God across
the vault of heaven. To do that, the
mighty hosts of Southern Baptists
need to be drilled and sent afield.
J. B. Gambrell,
Meridian, Miss.
~REJOINDER*
I desire to say that I accept Dr.
Branham’s criticism on my answer
to his fifth question, and on Dr-
Samson’s interpretation of Katallan
gen, Rom. 5:11. I agree most
heartily with him in thinking Paul
was a better Greek scholar than
either Dr. S. or our translators, and
certainly knew exactly what word
to use to convey his thought, or rath
er the Holy Spirit knew the exact
word to put in Paul’s mouth to ex
press God’s thought I think, a>
brother B. suggests, that such inter
pretations of God’s Word are danger,
ous, especially for that people whose
one aim above all others, is to give
to the world the truth, tho whole
truth and nothing but the truth.
Nothing short of a literal transla
tion of God’s Word will over do this.
Hence I now repudiate the inter,
pretation as given by Dr. Samson of
Katallangen, Rom. 5 : 11, and assure
my good brother B. that I shall
never again be guilty of adopting
such a method of interpreting God’s
Word.
I misapprehended brother B. in
his sixth question, or I should have
given a different answer. The an
swer which I gave has reference to
man. Taken in the sense in which
it was given, my answer is correct,
bnt with reference to God it is not
correct. The atonement of course,
is offered to God on the behalf of
his people.
In my answer to (7) I desire to be
understood as saying the atonement
is limited to God’s elect, with the ex
ception of the temporal good which
it incidentally brings to the whole
race. “In some respects the atone
ment is general; in others limited; in
respect of sufficiency it is infinite; in
respect to its application in the final
salvation of men it is limited; but in
no respect is it indefinite.”
My answer to (8) was given be
cause I thought it most in keeping
with the commission and the genious
of the gospel. Perhaps a better an
swer would be to say, reconciliation
and redemption are offered to all to
whom the gospel is preached. And
this, except to the elect, is only inci
dental. Ido not believe God would
require the gospel preached to any
nation or people among whom he
did not have an elect.
Paul and Silas “were forbidden of
the Holy Spirit to preach the word
in Asia, and after they were come
to Mysia, they assayed to go into
Bithynia, but the Spirit suffered
them not.” But they were called of
God in a vision to go into Macedo
nia, Acts 16:6-10. There God had a
people whom he determined to save
through the foolishness of preaching.
When they preached the gospel at
Antioch in Pisidia, only those who
were ordained to eternal life believ
ed Acts 13 :48. In the midst of his
persecution at Corinth, God encour
aged Paul by telling him, “Be not
afraid, but speak, and hold not
thy peace; for am I with thee, and no
man shall set on thee to hurt thee,
for I have much (many) people in
this city.” Doubtless if God had
had no people there in that city he
would have let Paul leave. And
thesOj many p«»pole ttyat he had in
that city were as truly his redeemed
people before they heard and ac
cepted the gospel as they were after
they heard ami accepted it.
Now, in preaching the gospel to
these elect, it was necessarily
preached to others, but this was in
cidental. Bro. B. does not believe
that God would send a preacher to
preach the gospel to the whole
world if it were not for the fact that
he has a people among all nations
whom he has appointed unto eternal
life and appointed the gospel as the
moancs of saving them.
In my answer to (9) it was my
purpose to show that the scope of
these Scriptures could not be con
strued in a universal sense. This is
proven to be a false view by the fact
that millions of the human race have
died, and are now dying without
the gospel, and according to the
Bible they are lost, Rom. 2 :’l 1-16-
Rom. 10:13-17. Except infants
and idiots, God lets none for whom
Christ died, die without the gospel.
In tho sense in which I believe these
Scriptures were intended to be un
derstood, they have been fulfilled.
In a certain sense Christ died for
tho whole world, in a certain sense
he has been preached to the whole
world and in a certain sense the
whole world has believed and been
saved; Jew, Greek, Indian, Negro
rich, poor, high, low, moral, immor
al, wise, unwise, weak, strong, in
fant, idiot, young, old, —all men of
every clime, kindred, tongue, nation
and tribe, have heard the gospel, ac
cepted it and have been saved; and
this will continue to bo so till Christ
come.
Our discussion of this subject has
developed the fact clearly that Dr.
B. is a firm believer in the universal
atonement theory and conditional
redemption theory. This is precisely
the Arminian view of salvation—
universal atonement, conditional elec
tion, which means tho same as con.
ditional redemption. He correctly
says reconciliation and redemption
are effects of the atonement, but he
views these effects, only in the ab
stract, as not necessarily effecting
the sinner at all.
According to his idea of redemp
tion, Christ has no redeemed people
till they repent and believe; Christ
did not actually buy back from
under tho law any one, but only
purchased a chance for all sinners to
be saved without making certain the
THE CHRISTIAN INDEX: THURSDAY MAY 11, 1893.
. salvation of any—the whole thing is
f conditional. This chance theory of
> salvation saves no body, never has
I and never will. I cannot conceive
; of redemption in this abstract sense
i Redemption is true only as it abso
lutely secures and makes certain the
salvation of sinners. If I buy re
demption for a number of prisoners,
that means that I have absolutely
’ bought them from under the law,
and while they may be ignorant of
, this fact and may be suffered by me
to remain for a time in bondage to
, the law, they are none the leas mine-
They are as truly my redeemed ones
before, as after it has been made
effectual to them. So with the re
deemed of Christ; their redemption
is as much a fact before, as after it
has been made effectual to them-
God would not let his Son die for
the sins of this world and then let
tho world go to hell—never! Not
one for whom Christ shed his inno
cent blood will ever go to hell. It
is true, repentance and faith are con
ditions of salvation, bu t Bro. B.
knows well that grace supplies these
: conditions to the redeemed, or they
would never be complied with. The
idea that one sinner is saved because
he repents and believes, and another
1 is lost because he refuses to repent
• and believe, is a mistake. Just the
reverse is true. A sinner repents
i and believes in Christ because he is
saved, and his repentance and faith,
1 instead of being the conditional
cause, are the proof of his salvation-
There are two difficulties in tho way
1 of a sinner’s salvation, a legal and
1 moral, and the atonement means
’ nothing if it has not provided for the
removal of both these troubles. The
former makes it impossible for a sin-
■ ner to be saved even if he were
1 morally disposed to be, justice for
! bids it; the latter makes it impossi-
• ble for a sinner to be saved even if
- he were morally disposed to be, jus-
• tico forbids it; the latter makes it
' hnpossible for him to be saved even
’ when tho former has been removed.
' Our moral bondage to sin is, if any-
thing, more serious than our legal
1 bondage. It takes infinite power to
1 remove both. Hence both had to bo
’ included in the purpose of tho atone
-1 ment. “ The blood of Jesus Christ,
' His son, cleanseth us from all sin,”
‘ not only from our legal sin, but our
' moral ruin as well. Did Christ die
1 to remove-thw legtjt trouble from theZ
whole race and not the moral also A
Did ho have a divided purpose in i
the atonement?
Why would ho remove ono and not
’ the other when ho knew that none
could be saved unless he removed
both ?
5 What could he expect to acconi-
) B *
plish by atonement for tho sins of
tho whole world only in a legal sense.
All sinners would repent and be
j lievo in Christ if they were regenera
ted, and all sinners would be regen
erated if Christ had died for all.
I know that this is called “Hard.
. shell doctrine” (not antimissionary.)
But I see no middle ground between
strict Calvinism and Arminianism.
One or the other of these theories of
salvation is true. If wo stand on
tho Calvinistic platform, we must
t . .
take it just as it is, with all its diffi
culties, we cannot soften it. If we
> stand on the Arminian platform, we
4 . . . . 1
must take it just as it is, with all its
difficulties, (and it has more difficul
ties than the other) we cannot hard
en it.
Definite atonement and particular
redemption are generally held by the
Presbyterians and strict, or regular
Baptists.
Before I close this paper permit
me to ask Dr. 8., a few questions.
(1.) Did Christ have a definite pur-
1 pose in the atonement which he of
fered for sin?
(2) What is the difference between
a definite purpose in the atonement
and a definite atonement?
(3.) Will any for whose sins
Christ really died finally be lost?
(4.) Are sinners regenerated and
i saved because they repent and beli
eve in Christ as a condition pre
[ cedent, or do they repent and beli
[ eve in Christ because they are re
. generated and saved? (Eph., 2: 1-
. 10.)
(5.) Is it not a moral impossibili
ty for an uuregeneratod sinner to re-
• pent and believe in Christ? Jno. 6:41-
i 65; Rom. 8: 5-8.
(6.) Would Christ make atone,
ment for sinners to whom he knew
beforehand it could never become
effectual on account of their inability
to comply with the conditions prece
dent, without providing for the re
moving of that inability?
I shall have nothing more to say
on this subject I thank the Index
for tho space so kindly given to its
free discussion. I know much more
about this doctrine now than I did
before this discussion began.
While I am only more confirmed
in my conviction that definite atone
ment and particular redemption are
correct, and that the two things are
jnseperable, the one extending as far
as the other. I have been able to
correct some wrong ideas that I be
fore held.
Reader, this is, indeed, a great
doctrine; on it depends your hope of
heaven. You should study it for
yourself. As a help in this I sug
gest Dagg’s Manual of Theology.
He very ably discusses it under
the head of “Particular Redemption.”
Also Dick’s Manual of Theology,
Encyclopedia of Religious Knowl
edge, and a sermon by Dr. H. H.
Tucker on the text “Ye are bought
with a price,” Ist Cor. 6: 20. This
sermon will be found in “The Old
Theology! Restated.” Study these
authors in connection with the fol
lowing Scriptures: Isa. 53: Matt. 1:
21; Jno. 10. 11; Eph. 5: 25-27; Titus
2: 14; Rev. 1: 5-6; Jno. 6: 37-39; Rev-
Si 9; Acts 20: 28; Heh. 2:9-18; 1 Jno
-2: 2; Jno. 4: 42; Rom. 5: 14-21. Rom
'S: 11; Matt. 6: 12; Ist Cor. 6: 20; Ist
Peter 1: 18.
L. W. Parrott,
Talbotton, Ga.
HOLD THAT TEMPER. <
You cannot have much talent
without much temper; but much tal
ent is worth but little unless the
temper which goes with it be kept
under a good degree of subjection.
Some very talented people have
been very unpopular with (those
who come in contact with them, be
cause they allowed their hot temper
to spit out its ungoverned fury-
And such ones are seriously hinder,
ed from doing anything like the
amount of good which their talents
would enable them to, simply be
cause of their unchecked, impetuous,
miserable tempers.
Rev. Dr. N. J. Burton in one of
his lectures to the students at Yale
college, gave this wise and very
wholesome advice: “When trouble
is brewing; keep still, when your
feelings are hurt, keep still till you
recover from your excitement, at any
rate. Things look different through
an unagitated eye. In a commotion
once, I wrote a letter and sent it, and
wished I had not. In my later years I
I had another commotion and wrote
letter; tkt life bad grubbed a j
little sense j into me and T kept that
letter in my pocket against tho day
when I could look it over without
agitation and without tears. I was
glad I did. Silence is the most
massive thing conceivable, some"
times. It is stretgth in its very
grandeur. It is like a regiment,
ordered to stand still in the mad furv
of battle. To plunge in were twice
as easy. The tongue has unsettled
more ministers than small salaries
ever did or lack of ability. A min
ister with a hot temper has often
wished, shortly after letting his tern
per jump out of his mouth, that he !
did not have any tongue. It is bet- ■
ter however, to wish for more power '
to hold the temper in quiet keeping, ■
till the right words can be written or I
uttered. To wish that we had no i
temper at all, would be equivalent I
to wishing that we bad no ability to |
do anything, good or bad. To be 1
temperless would be useless. Yes, j
wee need tempers—strong, lively,
ambitious tempers —but we also ;
need great grace from God and j
great self-exertion, to hold our tem
pers in judicious restraint, that we
may not only be true to our own
best good, but also best serve others-
Blssed is the man who keeps victo
rious hold of his temper.
C. H. Weth'erbe.
ASKED AND ANSWERED.
BY C. K. W. DOBBS.
Is there a personal devil ?
W. H. H.
As well ask if there is a personal
God. The mystery of mysteries is
the existence of evil in the universe
created and governed by the infinite
ly wise, holy and good God. But
no mystery, no objection, no argu
mentation, can set aside the fearful
fact that sin is. Many theories have
been advanced in explanation of the
awful problem confronting us, but
however we regard or explain evil,
the further and important question
in the background remains unaffect
ed. What is its source or origin ?
The Holy Scriptures distinctly at
tribute it to the above agency of a
porsoal evil spirit called Satan. There
were two theories widely embraced
by mankind before the Christian
era—the Dualistic and the Pantheis
tic. The Dualistic theory is of great
antiquity, and of eastern origin. Ac
cording to it, good and evil are two
distinct essences produced by two
original principles, one of good and
one of evil, from whose agency all
the good and evil existing in the
world have respectively flowed.
This is the underlying thought of
Parseeism, the religion of the an
cient Persians. It taught that the
universe was originally created by
two rival powers, Ormuzd and Ahri
man, that is, light and darkness.
Ahriman, though in no way subordi
nate to Ormuzd, was inferior and
destined eventually to be overcome-
Dualism is chiefly interesting to us
because of the attempts of various
Gnostic sects to interweave it with
Christian doctrines. The Pantheis
tic theory, instead of treating evil as
essentially different from good, re
garded good and evil as only vary,
ing manifestations of one original
principle. This was the basis of the
old Hindoo religion, and has reap
peared in modified forms since the
Christian era in the seventeenth
century, and of Schelling, in the
nineteenth. Thus have men differed
with regard to the nature and origin
of evil. From the fact that the free
action of a personal will is the only
ultimate cause discovered, in the
visible world, some have been lead
by analogy to approach so closely to
revealed truth as to refer evil to the
personal agency of some spirit or
demiurge; but the question really
lies beyond the region of human
cognizance, and it is only on turning
to revelations made by divine knowl.
edge that we find an uniform and
definite solution of our difticulties-
In the Bible we are clearly taught:
1. That all evil is caused by a
malignant spirit, hostile to God, and
called the Devil or Satan. 1 John
3:8; John 8 :44.
2. That God, therefore, is him.
self the author of evil only in this
sense, that though able to prevent it,
he has permitted it to exist. Isa.
44:7; 1 Kings 22 : 22.
3. That though permitted by
God to exist; Satan is still under his
control, and made subservient to his
purposes.
4. That God will ultimately over
rule the machinations of the adver
sary to his own glory, when all evil
will be seen by us to have been in
complete accordance with perfect
order and supreme rectitude.
We not do quote particular texts in
support of the last two propositions ;
they are sustained by the general
tenor of the word of God. That the
New Testament represents Satan as
a personal evil spirit, is clearly seen
in the following passages: Matt. 4 :11J
12 :26; 25 : 41; 2 Cor. 11:14; Eph.
4:27 ;6 : 11; Hob. 2:14; James 4:
7; 1 Pet. 5: 8; Jude 9, and very many
others. Admitting then, as reverent
students of tho word must, that Satan
is a personal spirit of evil, another
question arises: What was his ori
gin ? The popular conception of
Satan is Miltonic, rather than strictly
Biblical. The deduction usually
based on certain somewhat obscure
passages in the New Testament is
that he was a fallen archangel. We
refer to such passages as these:
Matt. 12 : 24 ; Eph. 2:2; Matt. 25 :
41 ; 2 Pet. 2:4; Jude 6 ; Rev. 12 : 7,
9, 10; Luke 10:18; John 12:31,
and others. Without laying too
great literal stress on these passages!
we might still form the [following
conclusions: That Satan is a spirit
or angel; that, beyond this, his ori.
ginal position was that of archangel
or prince in the heavenly hierarchy;
that, although no record survives of
his actual fall, yet it seems to have
been caused by a rebellion against
God, and that the cause of that re
bellion was lust of power. This last
particular is implied by the apostle
when, warning Christians against
pride, he adds, “lest they fall into
the condemnation of the devil.” 1
Tim. 3-. 6. We should rejoice in
the fact, that great as are Satan’s
power and influence, he is not invin
cible. Christ met and conqured him.
The primeval promise that the seed
of the woman should bruise the ser.
pent’s bead has been fulfilled. Final
ly Christ’s victory shall be complete
and Satan shall be cast into the lake
of fire.
Since preparing the foregoing
answer, the following has come to
hand:
Please give explanation of Eph.
2: 2. lam at a loss to know how
Satan, or the eatanic spirit, is the
prince of the power of the air. Does
it mean that Satan has control, or
power in the mind ? enquirer.
Enuqirer appears to desire our
opinion only with reference to the
one part of this verse, “the prince of
the power of the air.” By “prince"’
is meant Satan, called elsewhere, the
“prince of the devils,” or “demons.’’
(Matt. 12: 24). The American com-
pany of revisers preferred “powers,”
in the plural, though the noun is
singular in the Greek. Dr. Hovey
says the preference might do very
well as interpretation, but not as
translation. The “improved Bible
Union version” has “authority,” in
stead of “power.” The Greek word
means “power” in the sense of con
trol, authority rather than force.
Thayer (Greek lexicon,) understands
the word, in connections like Eph.
2:2, as meaning the “leading and
more powerful among created beings
superior to man, spiritual potentates.”
The same word is found in Eph. 1:
21; 3 :10; 6:12. Over these “pow
ers” Satan .exercises sovereignty.
According to a Jewish notion, the
air, the lower region of the atmos.
phere, was filled by demons, over
whom Beelzebub ruled as prince.
Dr. J. A. Smith, in American Com
mentary, says: “That men, especial
ly wicked men, are objects of the
malignant activity of such spirits we
are made to believe by many allu
sions to them in Scripture, and oc
casional express mention, which
makes the fact beyond doubt. Com
pare 6: 12-16 of this epistle. So
much as this may be distinctly in
fered from the words in our present
passage.” Satan is the spiritual
prince working in the “sons of diso
bedience,” ever tempting them to
sin.
Has a Baptist church the right,
according to Scripture, to exclude a
brother for non-attendance on the
Saturday meetings of the church,
who lives a consistent Christian life,
attends the Sunday meetings, pays
his pastor liberally, aids in all neces
sary church expenses, and provides
ways for his family to attend meet
ing regularly? g. t. h.
We really know of no Scripture
requiring “attendance on Saturday
meetings.” At the same time it does
seem that so pious and devoted a
Christian man as our inquirer de
scribes, might yield to tho decision of
bis church and attend the meetings
especially when by no possibility of
interpretation can he show such at
tendance to be sinful. Eph. 5: 21.
1. Did not our our Baptist denom
ination form a Resolution some years
ago, probably about 1866 against
further co-operating with the Ameri
can Bible Society? Please give us
the form of Resolutions.
2. Have not Baptists as good facili
ties in the way of Publishing Houses,
as American Bible Societies?
3. Is it not disloyal to our Baptist
Zion to use other Publishing Houses
when they can get the same article,
and work done at our own?
s. K. BUTCH.
1. This whole matter has been
quite freely discussed in this column
and editorally in the Index, but we
cheerfully give place to Bro, Blitch’s
queries. The difficulty first arose in
1836, when the A. B. Society refus
ed to grant funds to print versions
made by Baptist missionaries among
the heathen. Since then Baptists
have been divided in their attitude
towards the Society. Some have
continued co-operation in the circula
tion of the English Scriptures, but
the whole burden of printing Bibles
for our foreign missionary work has
been borne by the denomination.
Efforts have been made to heal the
breach, but tho Society has persis
tently repelled us. In 1883 a great
“Bible Convention” was held at Sara
toga, N. Y. This convention decid
ed that self-respect demanded that
Baptists decline co-operation with
the American Bible Society, and our
Bible work was committed to the
American Baptist Publication Socie.
ty. This Society gives SIOOO an
nually to our foreign board at Rich
mond for its foreign Bible work.
2. No. The A. B. Society has
greater facilities, and prints the
cheapest Bible in the world, unless
the British Society does as well.
3. Every Baptist must decide for
himself. He can buy any Bible he
wishes from our own Society for the
same price he would have to pay the
A. B. S.
The Baptist Standard announces that
it will ere long add three new depart
ments, viz: One on lightning bugs, one
on fools, and one on correspondence with
the man in the moon. We did not know
that the Baptist Israel was in need of
such a diversity of literature.—Christian
Messenger.
Tho Baptist Israel is all right. The
investigations suggested are being made
for the benefit of our Campbellite friends.
We are trying to find the source of their
theology. We think that we will locate
it with the man in the moon, feeling per
fectly sure that there is no basis for it on
this globe. Perhaps the man in the
moon may have written some work on
theology, and if so, we shall do what we
can to get comfort out of it for the editor
of the Messenger. Certaingly there is
no foundation for his theological vaga
ries in tho Bible—Texas Baptist Stand
ard.
The Campbellits and Baptists in Texase
not unfrequently como down to hard
knocks. The two paragraphs above,
will show you a little of their sparring.
The versatile Cranfill, one of the editors
of the Texas Baptist Standard, is too
much for any man on the wrong side of
a question, Bgt strong as he is on the
right side, he, like all other men is weak
on the wrong side.
«
• •
This plain, pointed, practical preach
ing may not be always welcome. It is
often on the contrary odious, arousing
antagonism and wrath. In Queen Eliza
beth’s day the royalists had a method,
as they called it, of “attuning the pul
pit,” that is of forcing it to come into
harmony with their own debased notions
and evil practices, rather than applying
the truth, as the Apostles did to the
actual sins and circumstances of the
times. All great Reformers, like Martin
Luther and John Knox, and Elijah be
fore them, have however refused to be
“attuned” by hearers. They go straight
ahead in applying God’s Word to charac
ter and conduct whether men will hear
or stop their ears. But the fact is men
do not stop their ears; they are forced
by something Divine within them to give
attention. Indeed, they will travel miles
to listen to the earnest, fearless, practi
cal herald of a Biblical message, when
they will go one block to sit nerveless
and drowsily under some abstract and
far off, though it may be learned, disser
tation. The world is hungry, not for
speculative cobwebs but for the honest
food of an every day and living Gospel.-
Christian at Work.
One of the devices of the devil to
silence the earnest and faithful preach
ing of the consequences of sin, is to have
the man who does it, dubbed “a hell
fired preacher.” Many men spend their
whole time in preaching the mercy of
God, as if there was no justice. Others
again give their entire time in making
plain, as they conceive of it, the plan of
Salvation, which in brief is, accept Jesus,
accept Jesus. Such persons need to
know that there is such a thing as the
terrors of the law, tho wrath of an offend
ed God, and that Sinners do not accept
Christ until they are convinced of sin;
that God's law is the school master to
bring us to Christ, that repentance, not
dry-eyed repentance, not a mere learn
ing-our-state-under-law repentance, but;
that repentance involving the keenest
and deepest emotions of the soul, that
repentance which proceeds from Godly
sorrow for sin, needs to be preached,
and must be exercised before the Sinner
will come in faith to Christ, “Except yo
repent, ye shall all,” high and low, rich!
and poor, learned and unlearned, “like
wise perish.”
The higher use of education. —If
people could get the idea that what ia
called education is a good thing in itself
without reference to its practical uses,
what a long step ahead the world would
take! The notion that education must be
for some dofinite purpose is responsible
for much misdirected effort and many
disappointments.—Charles Dudley War
ner in Harper's.
Lying back of all special preparation
to make specialists, there ought to be,
and there must be, if the best results are
to be realized, a broad and deep founda
tion, well and nicely laid. These special
preparations conducted as they are now,
excluding well nigh everything that does
not bear directly on the business of life
contemplated, unfits a man for any other
business, and not unfrequently we find
such a man for want of employment, as
helpless as a baby. Long disuse of those
faculties which a broader education
would have called into exercise, robs
him of almost all the common sense that
he had when he began his special prep
aration.
• •
The rage for honorary degrees in let
ters, theology, philosophy,and law, does
not abate. Nothing is more disgusting
than the shameless persistency with
which men who cannnot write ten con
secutive sentences of good English seek
to secure for themselves the supposed
honor of these titular distinctions. We
rather think that the time has come
when our institutions of learning should
bestow their degrees only on those who
pass a stipulated examination.—Nash
ville Christian Advocate.
Well said. And the Index adds that
the evil might in great measure be reme
died, if our colleges would exercise a
somewhat stricter discipline with refer
ence to the recitations and examinations
of our ministerial students. The minis
terial student's fluency of expression, or
wholesome influence over fellow stu
dents, furnishes no ground for excusing
him in either the recitation or examin
ation room. But as in the college course,
his piety and ease, and gracefulness of
speech secured his diploma, so these
gain for him in after life “titular distinc
tions,” although ho “cannot write ten
consecutive sentences of good English.”
•
♦ *
Recently in Mound City, Mo., a mer
chant on the watch for burglars, saw a
man in the act of entering his house and
shot him. The burglar proved to be a
youth of good family and of hitherto
blameless character. By interrogating
him the fact became known, that from
reading “The Adventures of Tom Saw
yer,” a book written by Mark Twain, ha
and a number of other youths had form
ed an oath-bound organization for tha
purpose of robery. Parents who are
careful about the associates of their chil
dren, often times take no oversight of
their rerding. See to it that your children
do not read those books which may be
justly termed moral murderers. In the
homes of many professed Christians,
may be found that class of literature,
where the Bible is neglected; and a good
religious paper is excluded on the ground
that its cost is too great The cheapest
thing on earth, is a good religious paper,
which comes into the family fifty times
a year, with words of warning, of com
fort, of solid instruction, restraining
from evil, and constraining to deeds of
nobility, which gives entertaining views
not of the immoral, but of the moral,
not of incarnate devils, but of the nobla
self-sacrificing men and women in whom
the Christ lives, and all for two dollajs.
Will not Christian parents think, and,
instead of allowing their children to
revel in scenes of diabolical scheming,
unfolded in the “Tom Sawyer” class of
reading, put into iheir hands that litera
ture which is clean, and pure, and
ennobling? How many a mother is there
whom the infinitely just God will hold
responsible for the moral murder of her
own daughter? How many a father is
responsible in God’s sight for the inoral
death of bis own son?
TfjTuKswHtßt jit
*m| Uwt Cough Byrup. Theleg Good. Use gl
El * n Um* Bold by drugg If tn
■B