Newspaper Page Text
ESTABLISHED 1877?
The Christian Index.
I'OlibkeilEvtry Thursday at 16 East Mitchell
Street. Atlanta. Ga.
J. C. McMICHAEL, PuorniiToa.
Organ *t Dm Baptist Denomination 1b
Georgia.
Srßacßimoß Pnica:
One copy, ere year I 1.9°
One copy, *ix month* 1.00
Onmaaiaa.—On* hundred word* free of
clukja*. For earth extra word, one cent per
word.eaeh with eo*y.
To OwaaarrjMpaaT*.—Do not use abrevia
tion*; V* rat era earetui in writing proper name*;
write with task, an one side of paper; Do not
writ* copy tatendad for the editor and bnsi
nea* item* an annie sheet. Leave off personal
ities; ermdaaae.
Bviuxre*.- Write all names, and post offices
distinctly In arderlnt? a change give the old
as well asth* new address. The date of laltal
indk-ale* th* time your *nbscription expires.
If y*n da n*t wi»h it continued, order it stop
ped a week before. We consider each sub
**riber pvriaannut, until he orders hi* paper
discontinued. When yotrorder it stopped pay
up to date.
R*«rrr*sc« by check preferred; or regts
tered letter, money order, postal note
The expressions, pnstorless churches
and diarchies* pastors, have become a
very common utterance of late. We again
ask for an explanation. Brethren, let us
hear from you.
We might the better bear with every
“Paradise of Fools” which affect* to
blossom on the right hand or the left, if
we did not know that it may grow into
a “Purgatory of Fools” on earth and
into a “Perditioß of Fools” hereafter.
James Spurgeon recently said that
three-fourtliß of the pastors of England
would be glad to make a change and that
the churches of the other fourth would
rejoice in making a change. This is not
a condition of affairs favorable to the
prosperity t of the cause. We hope it is
not the same among our people.
Things might be better among our
Northern Presbyterian brethren; as ap
pears from the statement of the Chicago
“Interior,” that nine per cent of their
ministers are secularised or at least un
employed, and that seventeen per cent
of their churches are vacant. Perhaps,
in attempting to adjust the relation of
ths divine and the human elements in
the Bible, they have lost sight measur
ably of the question how far they have
suffered their religious life to be ruled
rather by the human elements than the
divine. Wo all encounter no little risk
along this latter line, and have need to
set constant and zealous guard against
it.
Rev. Dr. Trab-rt, in the Lutheran
Church Review for October, presents a
strong plea in behalf of “the Denomi
national < ’ollege.” He holds that this
College, among institutions of learning,
has for its special function “the conse
cration of the religious character of the
nation,” and that its abolition would be
“the funeral knell of positive Christi
anity.” Certainly, something may he
said in mitigation of this view; but no
'**•* i-t-rLe nly aft*r *'l that must he eon
./'M ?• 4 "t rcr.i *.i| jioj-
£:>le, ground* of ex< option, enough re
mains true to show the solemn rasponsi
■ bility resting on Georgia Baptists
thoroughly to equip and liberanyto pat
ronize Mercer University, if they would
do their full part toward “bringing up a
generation imbued with positive religi
oe* conii-li me." We hail with un
feigned delight, every token of prosperi
ty IT that school of our fathers, of our- I
selves, ami a* we trurt of our children;
but let us not forget tiian in the matter
of our gifts to it, our prayers for it, and
our advocacy of it, ws, as a people, have
only made a beginning; and let us bear
in mind that what lies before us, in the
way of growth bi steady increment.will
lift that institution to a height which
■ ust make the present, bright as we es
teem it, aad bright as it is, appear as
“the day of email things” only.
Before us lies an elaborate statement
that the serpent’s poison does not kill !
the serpent, but that the man is killed
by the man’s poison. How far the
alleged contrast is supported by facts,
we cannot say; but it is undeniable that
there are noxious secretions of the liver,
the stomach, nnd the veins, which can
not entt r the blood in any large amount
without fatal results. Not only may a
man be poisoned by the products of his
own body, but there is scarcely an organ
of the body which is not a possible
source of deadly virus to him. This
thought shocks ns—that as regards the
gntward man we may be self-poisoners;
without and against our will, too; nnd
through the very processes which, while
necessary to life, have become the sure
means of death also.
But there is a still more appalling
thought—that sin makes us self-poison
ers a* regard* the inner man. Our *ins
are products of the soul itself, its own
products; and they are poison to it, a
virus of most fatal malignity working
out that horrific issue, “the second
death” in "th* lake of fire.” Alas, the
faculties within us, faculties of thought
and feeling and will, faculties whose
working is all we know or can know of
‘he possession of life or the experience
of pleasure,—these faculties by this very
working, may work out our hopeless and
eternal undoing; work it out by virtue
of the pleasure in it; work it out as the
only harvest of the life'in it. Oh let us
fly to the one divine Physician of souls
for healing. Blessed Saviour, cast out
the poison of sin from us, and let us live
thy life and love thy love instead!
The Archbishop of Canterbury, not
long since, said: “As a boy, I resolved
that I would never seek a position by ap
plying for it, or by suggesting that I
might fill it appropriately, or by collect
ing testimonials o prove that I could.”
The writer of this paragraph, looking
back over more than a half century of
service to the Church of Christ in vari
ous positions, can bear a similar testi
mony. With respect to places, never, in
person or by proxy, when out, has he
asked to be put in, and never, when in,
has he asked not to be put out. On the
whole, as the sun of this earthly life
■ears its setting, he does not regret this
course. By a different course he would
probably have bettered the income or
eclat accruing from his work; but it is
doubtful whether he would have better
ed the work itself, or the measure of
success with which God has graciously
crowned it. Nor does he commend this
course to imitation, ad in itself and nec
essarily laudable. It may come, as well
of pride, as of humility; may be the out
growth of a heart not duly fired with
zeal or of conscience oppiessed with a
sense of guilt, no less than of a will
THE CHRISTIAN INDEX.
meekly submissive to the ordering* of
providence. But this at least may be
said: even Christian men have need to
be on their guard lest, in seeking or ac
cepting spheres of effort "for Christ and
hi* Church,"they should be led astray by
personal ambition, or by greed of gain,
or by some other wropg impulse of the
carnal nature as yet unslain though
wounded to the death. In some shape
this one battle must be fought, whether
in the shape in which the Archbishop
fought it or not: must be fought, we
say, unless indeed men are willing to
run the risk of appearing before the
Lc rd with this strange firs of self-ssaking
in their censers.
THE THEOLOGx’bFMOSES.
BY REV. S. G. HILLYBR, D. D,
Continued from November JO,
It is usual, I know, for religious
writers to use the word “theology,”
in a comprehensive sense to include,
not only our knowledge of what he
has done, is now doing, and of
what he will do hereafter, —or, to
express it more concisely, a know
ledge of his activities. There is no
objection to this two-fold sense of
the word, because a treatise con
cerning the doings and purposes
of God, is indeed a treatise about
God, and may fairly be included in
a system of theology. But the
distinction, which I have pointed
out, between a pure theology, and a
practical or applied theology should
be kept steadily in view.
Now, the theology of Moses in
cluded both the ideas just explain
ed. He knew God in his nature
and character a* fully as any hu
man being has ever known him ;
and he knew his doings in the ad
ministration of his providental and
moral government down to the day
of his own death, and he knew al
so his purpose concerning the
Messiah, as far as it had been re
vealed.
Moses was indebted for all he
knew to divine revelation. First
to those revelations which had been
given to Abraham, to Isaac, and to
Jacob, and which no doubt, were
handed down by tradition to his
own time. It was his faith in those
ancient revelations that made him
“refuse to be called the son of
Pharoah’s daughter, choosing rath
er to suffer affliction with the peo
ple of God, than to enjoy the
pleasures of sin for a season—es
teeming the reproach of Christ
(the Messiah) greater riches than
the treasures of Egypt.” But he
was chiefly indebted for his theolo
gy, to the wonderful revelations
which were made, directly to him
self, of which he gives us a full ac
count. .)
k Mt
sat ion was a more illustrious
medium of divine revelation than
was Moses. Consider him at the
burning bush listening td the voice,
that came forth from the miracul
ous flame, saying : “I am the God
of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob,
put off thy shoes from thy feet for
the ground where on thou standest
is holy,” Why holy? because the
holy one was thtre. There Moses
received hi* great commission to
redeem his people from their bond
age in Egypt. Consider the won
ders which God wrought, by his
hand, upon that wicked nation,
till the proud Pharoah was com
pelled to let Israel go. Follow
him to the Red Sea, where heopen
ed a way through its water* while
the piller of cloud—the symbol of
Jehovah’s presence—floated be
tween’the pursuers and the thous
ands of Isreal. Then follow him
to Sinai; mark its flaming summit,
listen to the awful word* that made
the people tremble, and even Moses
to quake and fear. Last of all con
sider how he went up alone on
that fearful Mount where, for for
ty days, he talked with his friend.
Consider all these stupendous facts,
and I think you will agree with me
that no man, save, perhaps, those
who, at a far later period, sat at
Jesus' feet, ever enjoyed such ex
alted access to God as Mose*
on Mount Sinai. No wonder “his
face did shine” with a halo of glory
when he returned to the people.
No wonder, filled as he was with
the afflatus of inspiration, he was
able to tell the story of the crea
tion, of paradise, of our first par
ents, of the forbidden fruit "whose
mortal taste brought death into the
world and all our woes ;” and then
to sketch the dealings of God with
mankind down to his own time,
This brief sketch was a most ap
propriate introduction to the main
body of the Pentateuch. It was just
such an introduction as we might,
a priori, have expected to precede
a volume of divine revelation,
which, though primarily given to a
chosen people, was designed to be,
ultimately, for the benefit of all
mankind.
It i* needless to ask where Moses
obtained his information. He
could not have obtained it from
national traditions. They were too
remote in their localities to be ac
cessible to him, except only the
traditions of Egypt. These he
possibly knew, but they were un
supported by any authority which
one acquainted with the traditions
of the Hebrews concerning the
God of Abraham, would likely re
gard as worthy of his attention.
Nor indeed were any tradition*
needed ; for he had the opportunity
ATLANTA, GA., THURSDAY. DECEMBERS!, 1893.
of learning, through a space of for
ty days, from God himself, all that
he has left on record.
It may be well, just here, to no
tice the progress of divine revela
tion. I prefer to use the word pro
gress rather than the word “evolu
tion,” simply because the last
term has’been adopted to designate
an unverified hypothesis in natural
science, which differs widely from
the science of (K>d and of spirit.
It is, therefore, premature to say
the least of it to call the progress
of divine revelation an evolution.
I am afraid of this word when ap
plied to religion. It is misleading.
lam inclined to believe that the
sanction given by religious writers
to the use of this word has led many
unregenerate thinkers to conclude
that Christianity itself is but an
evolution, to be accounted for up
on natural principles, thus doing
away with the idea that it is a
supernatural revelation of divine
truth. For these reasons I prefer
to speak of revelation as a thing of
progress, and not as a thing of evo
lution.
The subject of divine revelation
is God. Its design is to make him
known to mankind, both as to his
activities and his purposes. We
learn from the Pentateuch that it
began in the family of our first
parent. God revealed himself to
them as their creator, as their bene
factor, as their law-giver, and as
their judge,—not only as just, in
inflicting upon them, when they
had sinned, condign punishment,
but as also merciful, for the very
judgment, which drove them from
Paradise under sentence of death
was relieved by the* precious
promise, that the seed of the wo
man should bruise the serpents
head. >
.Such was the primeval revela
tion given to our first parents. Had
I space to amplify the several points
which it presents it would be easy
to show that it really contains no
small amount of a complete theolo
gy. Its significant effect was to
establish, at an early day, an altar
unto the Lord, whose meaning was
that God could be propitiated, and
sin could be expiated by blood. I
have called this an effect of the pri
meval revelation, because the record
does not tell us how Abel was led
to build his altar; but reasoning
upon all the facts of the case, we
may well conclude that the altar
and its sublime teachings, were a
part u the revelatieen ;i»ndthut thu
“Ki uXr 111 viuA i i’fr'oi; i. ri\i ran it
the primeval type of him whose
blood cleanseth us from all sin.
The influence of this first revela
tion was felt more than two thou
sand yeats. It developed a long
line of pious patriarchs who knew
and worshiped God.
The next step in the progress of
divine revelation, which we find on
record was taken when God made
known to Noah the coming deluge,
and gave to him instructions con
cerning the Ark whereby he should
save himself and household. It was
a revelation, however, which taught
no new doctrine about God, it was
only another illustration of bi* Al
mighty power, and of his judicial
providence in bringing so fearful a
judgment upon an apostate world.
But this was not all, it illustrated
also God’s power to save those that
love and obey him.
Afterwards God revealed himself
to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob,
to whom he gave the promise that
their defendants should possess the
land of Canaan, and that in Abra
ham's seed all the nations should be
blessed. And at length he reveal
ed himself to Moses in tlie manner,
and in the fullness already describ
ed, —including a pure theology and
a system of morality adapted to the
wants of all’ men, and a form
of worship and a civil polity for
Israel, that they might become for
ever his own peculiar people. Such
was the progress of revelation a*
given us in the Pentateuch.
The inspired writers, who follow
ed, walked in the light of Moses.
Their inspired histories illustrate
his theology in the moral and pro
vidential government of God.
Their seraphic doxologie* are ad
dressed to the God whom it reveals.
Their fervid persuasions to a holy
life are based upon the ethics
which it teaches, upon the judg
ments which it threatens, and upon
the hope which it inspires of what
shall be under the reign of the
great Messiah, whom it promised,
when the knowledge of God, (of
Moses’ God), shall cover the whole
earth as the waters cover the sea,
for the burden of their prophecies
is to unfold the glories of His
kingdom in whom “the gentiles
shall trust.
Another, and the most .brilliant
advance in the progress of divine
revelation, we find in the writings
of the New Testament. But this
deserves a more extended treatment
than can be given it in this paper.
It will be the leading subject of my
next article, in which 1 shall set
forth, what seems to me, some im
portant inferences suggested by
the foregoing discussions.
73 Auburn Avenue.
JEWIBH AND CHRISTIAN GIVING
00MPAMD-
BY REV. J. H. KILPATRICK, D. D.
A few weeks ago I sent some
thoughts to the Index in answer to
the question, How much should
the Christian give? I now wish
to consider this : Why should not
the Christian voluntarily give as
much as the Jew was required to
give?
All will admit that the duty of
giving has been enjoined upon
Christians, as it certainly was upon
the Jews. On examination, how
ever, we find that while very defi
nite and minute details were laid
down for the Jew as to the number
and character of his offerings, little
or nothing is said to the Christian.
Why this difference, we are left to
conjecture ; but probably the reason
is, that the Christian, the actual
new creation in Christ, being under
the constraining influence of love,
does not need the stimulus of defi
nite rule.
As, however, some may draw the
unwarrantable conclusioit that
being left so entirely free, they
may give but very little and very
seldom, and yet incur, no guilt, it
is well to inquire whether there be
not, at least, equal obligations rest
ing upon the presenttShristian or
upon the old Jew in the matter of
giving to the cause of God.
Noone can deny that God did
require the Jews to. give a very
large proportion of their gross in
come for religious uses—some
think, about a fifth. Nor can any
one doubt that God had good and
wise reasons for so doing. Now,
then, comes the question and it
seems to carry its own answer with
it. Is there any good reason why
God should have required more of
the Jews than of Christians?
1. Did the Jews belong to God?
So do we.
2. Did they belong to God in a
special seniie ? So do we.
J. Was their property really
God’s ? So is ours.
4. t Was it proper for them to ac
knowledge God as their Sovereign
by bringing gifts? It is no less
proper for us.
5. Was it proper thu» to recog
nize their dependence upon God?
No more so than for us.
6. Die God require them to give
as a manifestation of their grati
tude? We ive .-synuch
,to be thankfus tor 1
7. Did tbfcylneed io ‘r
should berrnm 'so were required to
bring him their first-fruits, arid to
use the choicest and most costly
things in his service? We surely
need the same teaching. God is as
truly first now as he was then, and
his cause is as certainly entitled to
the highest place to-day, us it was
three thousand years ago.
8. Were their gifts, and tithes,
and offerings, and sacrifices, needed
in serving God? Not one particle
more than are ours. The truth is,
God did not need either them or their
offerings—the need was all on the
other side ; and so, he needs neither
us, nor ours : and yet, just as truly
as in the olden time, do ,s God still
claim and use both the persons and
the gifts of his people.
Now, while every one of the
foregoing suggested reasons for the
abundant giving of the Jews,
seems just as appliable to Chris
tians, some of them plainly point
to even larger giving on our part.
(1.) Did the Jews belong to
God in a special sense? Ch istians
are his in a higher and still more
special sense. See 1 Cor. 6 : 19, 20,
and 1 Peter 2 :9, and many other
Scriptures.
(2*.) Did the large privileges and
blessings of the Jews make large
giving especially proper for them?
Our. privileges <tnd blessings are
immeasurably greater. What a
glootn would fall upon us if we
were remanded to the shadows and
darkness of the old dispensation !
If the manifestation of gratitude
has anything to do with giving,
surely our offerings ought to be far
costlier as well as more abundant
than-were theirs
(3.) Did the peculiar character
of the Jewish religious establish
ment demand large outlays. Cer
tainly it did, and while the simpler
forms of Christian worship may,
in themselves, involve less expense,
yet, when it is considered that we
have not only to maintain Christi;
iviity at home, but to extend it
throughout the world, most surely
nothing but our ability can be the
measure of our obligation. Yes,
verily, if the greater work de
mands the greater outlay, then
ought the Christian to give not less
but more than the ancient Jew.
OBJECTIONS.
Our carnal hearts are ever ready
with objections to more abundant
giving. Let us 'remember, how
ever, that no objection, bfe it ever
so plausible, can stand against duty.
If it is duty for us to give more
largely than the jews, and it cer
tainly does look that way, why, we
must just do it, or else be guilty
before God.
(1.) “But are not Christians
freed from the burdens of the
Jewish law?” True, but not from
the burdens of Christ’s law. Be
sides, giving is a blessing and not
a burden. The Saviour said it was
“more blessed to give than to re
ceive ,” and no one counts it a
burden “to receive.”
(2.) “But I can’t afford to give
as much as the old Jews did.” My
brother, if it is your duty can you
afford not to do it? Bear in mind,
for your encouragement, that a
part, and a very small part, with
God’s blessing, will go further, and
much further, than the whole with
out God’s blessing.
(3.) “But it takes all I make to
support my family, and we don’t
have enough at that.” And per
haps one reason of it is you do not
give more. Notwithstanding the
large proportion of their income
required of the Jews, when they
were faithful' in giving it, they
were blessed with plenty. If you
gave more to God, with single de
sire to please and glorify him, you
would doubtless have more for
yourself and for your family. See
Proverbs 3: 9, 10, and 11 : 24, 25 ;
also Matt 6 : 33, and Luke 6 : 38.
May God teach us all just what
our whole duty is in this, and in
everything, and then help us to
do it!
TEE BAPTIST CONGRESS.
BY REV. W. L. KILPATRICK.
Dear Index ; —As I am to-day
lying over at Sandersville between
a preaching appointment and a
wedding day, I thought I would
write you something about the Bap
tist Congress, held in Augusta, Ga.,
last week.
It convened on Tuesday the sth
instant, but I did not attend until
Wednesday, xhe subject for Tues
day was “The church and the
money power,” birt as I had no
money and my brethren around me
had no money, and my churches
were afflicted very much after the
same manner, I did not care to be
presei t that evening. I heard oth
ers say that the papers read were
all right, and I suppose that those
present who had money were in
structed as to the use they should
make of it.
Wednesday morning I was on
hand, and at the appointed hour
the house was called to order by
Gov'. Northen as president of the
Congress. It is needless for me to
sav that hr presided with ease and
.-ibi^iy,i . icqu iLite-l
Borrows was
present in the three-fold capacity
of xdfee-president, pastor of the
church where we assembled, and as
host in general. His great big
body was just the right size to hold
his great big heart. He took
charge of everything, and made
every body feel at ease. One of
the secretaries was present, the
Rev. Walter Rauschenbusch, of
New York, I did not spell that
from memory, nor from its sound,
but I copied the record letter by
letter, and it is correct, if the prin
ter reads copy correctly. Outside
of the brethren of Augusta, there
were in attendance some twelve or
fifteen ministers from our own
State, besides a number from South
Carolina and other States.
The first subject on Wednesday
was, “Emotionalism in religion,”
and the first reader was the Rev.
J. Lipscomb Johnson, pastor at
Columbus, Miss. The moment
your eye rests upon him you say
to yourself, there is a polished,
Christian gentleman, and before he
is half through reading you find
yourself ransacking your vocabula
ry, mentally to find, if possible,
some words still better suited to
express your idea of the man, and
failing to find any better words,
you add the sentence, yes, and with
the heart of a woman. Fortunate
the church, fortunate the communi
ty where the refining influence of
such a man is felt.
Then came the Rev. T. A. K.
Gessler, of New York, a stranger
to me, and I suppose a stranger to
nearly all of your readers. To say
that he impressed me favorably—
that he impressed me very favora
bly, would not measure the de
mands of the case. Now you ask,
What did they say about “Emo
tio'halism in Religion?” give us the
sum and substance of it all. Well
now just wait a moment till I tell
you a tale I once heard, or made, it
is immaterial which: A glass of
syllabub was handed to a very plain
man who had seen «nothing of the
kind before, and when the empty
glass was handed back he remark
ed, “1 kept on trying to eat the
thing, or drink the thing, but be
fore I got anything the thing was
all gone, but it tasted good.” Now
the truth is, that plain man was
better fixed up for bread and cheese
than he was for syllabub. I am
sorry that man, and all who are
like him, but there are a great
many people like him. Now broth
er editor, perhaps you do not wish
to press your question as to the
surn and substance of' what was
said on this subject.
The next was. “Shall our young
people be organized for Christian
work?” The first speaker was an-
nounced and as the name Henry C.
Vedder, Esq., editor of the Exami
ner, New York, was called, I ex
pected to see a venerable looking
man of about 250 pounds in weight
with flowing beard and silvery
locks, and stern features, about the
counterpart of the Examiner itself.
You may judge my surprise, when
a comparatively young man, under
medium size, with fair complexion
and light hair, and pleasing address
ascended the rostrum. He had a
good head, and is was packed full
of brains. 1 was much - pleased
with his spirit, and also with his
treatment of the subject as far as
he went. I would have been glad
if he had gone more fully into the
details of how to manage these
young peoples' societies.
This speaker was followed by our
own Dr. J. B. Gambrell, president
of Mercer University. I say our
own because he is ours now, ours
by choosing him, our by his choos
ing us, ours by nearly six months
peaceable possession. And such
titles will stand good against any
claim that Mississippi Baptists
have, or ever did have. Besides
that, he is a native Georgian now.
I mean to say he is a native of
Georgia after the manner of a good
old sister of my acquaintance, who
in reply to inquiry responded,! was
once a native of South Carolina,
because I was born there, but I am
a native of Georgid now because I
live here. So Dr. Gambrell is a
native of neither South Carolina
nor Mississippi, but of Georgia, be
cause he lives here.
The subject was discussed by
brethern Vedder and Gambrell, and
the general drift of their remarks
seemed to be in favor of the local
church retaining control of its own
organized young people. As I
said before, I could wish that the
speakers had been more full as to
details, since this a live practical
question. You know this scribe,
I mean the man who holds this pen
is an old fogy, and don’t believe
very much in every new organiza
tion that* gets on a stump, flops
its wings, crows loud, and then
fortunately jumps down and gets
ready to die, or dies without getting
ready.
The subject for Wednesday night,
the committee having changed the
order, was “Ethical versus Forensic
conceptions of The
the ca-e
were
\ <wli vi>le
Vlll < • .ol' < ' a.
Boston. These were all cultivatea
brainy men, they werd all right,
but this particular hearer was all
wrong, that is, he was continually
tangled up, or befogged, I don’t
know which. About the time I
thought I saw that the thing being
said was on the Forensic side, lo
and beheld it turned out to be on
ethical side ; and about the time I
was squarely on the ethical side the
speaker announced that it was the
forensic side. I said to myself, so
much for being a country preacher,
can’t understand when learned men
talk.
I suppose our good brother Gess
ler, of New York, and secretary
Rauschenbusch read the bewilder
ed expression on the faces of us |
country preachers, and in the kind- 1
ness of their hearts followed the
regular speakers with a few plain
words, and told us that whatever
in the plan of salvation was after
the manner of a loving parent deal
ing with his children, was ethical,
and whatever was after the man
ner of judge dealing with a crimi
nal, was forensic. It would have
done your heart good just to have
seen our faces after <ve came to
understand that “Ethical versus
Forensic” meant nothing more than
this, and there was not a bit of
harm in it. I vote for a medal to
be given to those two brethren who
came to our relief.
The next morning the subject
was “What constitutes valid bap
tism?” We plain men felt satis
fied that there was no chance to
get us befogged on this question,
because we had both the ”ew Tes
tament and the teachers of our
fathers before us. The first paper
was from Rev. J. Judson Taylor of
Mobile. As he was not present
the paper was read for him. It
was evident to all that this was the
production of scholar, the sen
tences were faultless, the verbage
very choice, also the spirit was de
lightful, but its teachings, in part
were not sound for the latitude of
Georgia. It opened the doors for
alien immersion, and while it did
not take hold of us and propose to
force us in, in substance it said,
“Walk in brethren it is a good
thing to do.” Some of us do not
propose to walk in.
The next paper was by Rev. E.
B. Pollard, Jr., of Roanoke, Va,
presented in person. The reader
is quite a young man, I mean
young for such a subject, and of
decided talent. Should his life be
spared, he will be heard from again
When he came to the alien iminer
sion part of his subject, he was
quite out-spoken, leaving no room
for any one to misunderstand his
position. Still it is nothing strange
VOL. 70—NO. 50
for young people to be very posi
tive in their assertions; it is the
part of old people to speak cau
tiously and walk timidly. You
and I were young many years ago ;
time works great changes in us.
Dr. Burrows announced that the
Rev. J. B. Moody, of Kentucky,
who had been “expected to take the
scalp” of the two preceeding wri
ters was absent, but that his paper
was here. He <used these very
words. It was at once called for.
I believe that I so far forgot myself
as to join in the call. In fact, I
liked the idea of that scalping busi
ness—liked it very much indeed,
wonderfully well. Dr. Burrows
read the paper, and when he was
through, I thought the scalping had
been attended to, I mean by Mr,
Moody’s paper. Ae (Moody) con
cluded by saying, in substance, that
he did not want anybody who ridi
culed immersion, and practiced it
only when he could not help him
self, to do his baptizing for him.
my heart said, Amen' He said he
did not want any one who immer
sed in order to make a man a child
of God to do his baptizing for him,
That same old fogy heart of mine
said, Amen, louder still. In fact,
some one near where I was ap
plauded faintly, but I did not look
round to see who it was. Applause
was out of order.
After this was over, Dr. Burrows
called for volunteers. Called es
pecially for those who did not agree
yith brethren Taylor and Pollard
as to alien immersion, but no Geor
gian responded. Dr. Burrows then
after the playful manner of a
school boy, dared us to speak. And
there we sat silent. I did hear not
any one give a reason for his silence,
but I suppose each one felt as I did,
that Dr. Moody had so thorough
ly lifted the scalps of these alien
immersionists, that there was noth
ing more to be done or said. In
fact, Georgia Baptists have often
read that Baptist prinpiples flour
ish to the greatest degree where
the fqnces are best kept up. This,
if nothing else would make them
opposed to this slip-gap business.
Let the parties come in to us
through the gate, and not through
a slip in the fence.
The last subject was ’“The in
dwelling Christ.” Rev. Carter
Helm Jones, of Louisville, was
called to the stand. Seeing that
he was a young man, I could not ex
pect very much of him, but. I was
disappointed. • Al) Ije a*-
BBWmtintly ‘evident Trial ne knew
/experimentally what “the indwell
ing Christ” was and he knew how
to tell us of the evidences of this
indwelling as to others. When he
was through nobody wished to dot
an “i” nor to cross a “t,” nor to
leave out a single word that he said.
It was so good. ’
After a few appropriate remarks
by the president, and the parting
hand, the Baptist Congress for 1593
became a thing of thq past. Many
thanks to the hospitable Baptists of
- Many thanks to their
warm hearted pastor.
A REMARKABLE SERVICE.
BY REV. GEO. BRAXTON TAYLOR,D.D
Dear Index :—Perhaps I can
in no better way pro\e to you the
esteejp that was felt for Dr. War
ren, in this city where he lived so
many years, and indicate the gen
eral sorrow which his death caused,
than to tell you of a remarkable
memorial service of him • which
was held last night. Almost all
the churches of the various de
nominations were closed and the
spacious audience room of the First
Baptist church was crowded, and
many must have been unable |o get
in. The meeting was presided
over by Rev. C. A. Tifrner, acting
pastor of the Tattnall Square Bap
tist church. Afterprayer by Rev.
J. B. Gambrell, D. D., president of
Mercer University, Mr. Turner
made a few appropriate opening
remarks and read the twenty-third
Psalm which was a great favorite
with Dr. Warren. The choir,
composed of S. A. C. Everett, esq.,
Mr. McCandle, Mrs. L. T. Stalling,
Mrs. Findlay, with Mrs. Everett at
the organ, sang a solemn funeral
dirge, and later in tjje service Mrs/
Stallings sang as a. solo “Not half
of that city’s bright jrlory.” The
first address was made by Rev.
S. L. Morris, D. D., the pastor of
the Tattnall Square Presbyterian
church. He said that he grieved
especially with those who had lost
their pastor. He also had lost his
pastor, for Dr. Warren had visited
him and listened to him as he told
his troubles and anxieties and
helped him. Dr. Warren was a
great moral force in this city.
Perhaps if the very strbngest church
in our midst should be blotted out
with all its communicants, with
all its influence, the loss of the
community in moral power would
not be as great as that which we
have sustained in the removal of
Dr. Warren. Shortly before Dr.
Warrens death the younger
preacher had said to him “I could
have no higher ambition than that*
your mantel might fall on me.”
Dr. Warren’s reply was “I wish