Newspaper Page Text
ESTABLISHED 1821.
The Christian Index.
?üblhhed Every Thursday, Cor. Ivy St.
and Edgewood Avenue.
j. c. McMichael, proprirtor.
Organ of the Baptist Denomination in
Georgia.
Subscription Pricb :
One copy, one year • ?.00
One copy, six months I W
Obituaries.— One hundred words free of
Charge For each extra word, one cent per
wor<h cash with copy.
To Correspondents.— Do not use abrevia
tions ;be extra careful in writingproper names;
write with ink, on one side of paper: Do not
write copy intended for the editor and busi
ness items on same sheet. Leave on personal
ities, condense. , .
Business — Write all names, and post offices
distinctly tn ordering a change give the old
as well as the new address, fhedate of label
indicates the time ycur subscription expires.
If you do not wish it continued, order it stoo
ped a week before. We consider each sub
scriber permanent, until he orders his paper
discontinued When you order it stopped pay
up to date. ...
Kemittancbs by check preferred: or regia
tered letter, money order, postal note.
LECTURES ON BAPTISM-
DR. JAMES H. KILPATRICK.
No. 12.
BAPTIZNG IN WATER.
John says, according to the com
mon version, “I indeed baptize you
ici'f/i water but John really said no
such thing. The original is en ha
dati, which is just as certainly in
mi/tr as if John spoke in English
and used those words. Our in is
the lineal descendent of the Greek
en, and has to a remarkable degree,
inherited its exact meaning. W here
the Greeks used en, we, even in our
idiom, almost invariably use in, and
doubtless, in every instance, the
radical idea is the same.
As to the relative frequency of
in and with as renderings of en, sup
pose we just refer to the gospel of
Matthew. We find en nearly three
hundred times. It is translated in
two hundred and eleven times, and
in a few cases, wherein and within,
giving the same essential idea, say,
two hundred and sixteen times.
Now, how often do we have with?
Only ten times. Two of these ten
are involved in the present discus
sion, and so are not to be consid
ered. Os the remaining eight,
(found in ch. 7:2; 20:15 ; 22:37 ; 25 :
16; 26:52), all tut one, (26:52),
by a very easy and legitimate anal
ysis, are found to really mean in.
And the one excepted, should be
rendered by rather than with. And
even here, while our idiom, per
haps, does require by, it is not im
possible to see the radical idea in :
“They that take the sword for pro
tection will rather find in it de
struction.”
Other books in the New Testa
ment reveal a still less uie of with
as a translation of en. John’s gos
pel for example, has this preposi
tion translated in about one hundred
and seventy times, and (throwing
out the cases in connection with
baptize) not once do we find with
Now take the universal rule in
the interpretation of language, th; t
we are to understand words in their
common meaning, except there be
manifest and necessary reasons for
some other, and we are forced to
understand John as saying, -‘I in
deed baptize you in water,” and
this certainly gives us immersion.
BAPTIZED INTO THE JORDAN.
According to the common ver
sion, Mark says, ch. 1:9. that Je
sus “was baptized of John in Jor
dan.” If we should accept the ver
sion here given, and make it mean
the least it can mean, namely, po
sition in the Jordan when the ordi
nance was performed, still this
would clearly indicate immersion ;
for as already said, why go into the
river except to perform immersion?
But the original here is not en, but
eis, and so, literally, it is into the
Jordan — eis ton Jordanen. A bap
tism in a river would naturally be
an immersion, for it would be
greatly un natural to go into a river
for the purpose of affusion; but a
baptism into a river must necessa
rily be an immersion.
Some affusionists, however, con
tend that eis here means, not into, its
overwhelmingly predominant and
common meaning, but at— at the
Jordan. But what can be said in
favor of at in this place? By every
acknowledged rule of interpreta
tion the prevailing meaning must
have preference and only be dis
placed upon absolute necessity.
Now into is certainly the common,
first-sight meaning of eis, and so is
entitled to the place ;and as for at,if
a meaning of eis at all,it is exceeding
ly rare, occurring not one time in a
hundred, and nothing but the most
urgent necessity can justify its ad
mission here.
Two insuperable difficulties em
barrass the claims of at: First,
there is no good reason for displac
ing the common meaning into. Sec
ondly, if into were set aside, at has
not the shadow of a title to present.
Into is the plain meaning of the
word, and into necessarily gives us
immersion.
So unmistakable is the meaning
of this passage, that the celebrated
commentator, Bloomfield, though
so ardent an affusionist as to say
THE CHRISTIAN INDEX.
tiat after Philip and the eunuch
“descended into the water, Philip
seems to have taken up water with
his hands and poured it copiously
on the eunuch's head,” ( !) yet even
he, is constrained to admit that “the
sense of ebaptisthe eis, is was dipped,
or plunged into* And Jesus it was
dipped, or plunged into the Jordan,
(and that is just what the original
says), he was surely immersed.
THE NATURAL MEANING OF ALL
THE WORDS IN DISPUTE PROVES
IMMERSION.
The argument from the natural
meaning of the several words
which have been under review, de
serves separate development and em
phasis. These words are baptizo, eis,
ek and en. Ido not include apo, for
I do not know of a single iminer
sionist who does not admit its natu
ral meaning to be from — which,
while it does not necessarily indi
cate immersion, is ifi perfect har
mony with it. But take the words
whose meaning has been disputed
—the natural meaning of all these
words we adopt, and this natural
meaning in every case, requires im
mersion.
1. Baptizo. The natural mean
ing, i. e., the meaning first suggest
ed to a scholar on seeing the word,
is immerse or some equivalent idea.
Even granting that it sometimes
has another meaning—which I do
not grant, for no other meaning
has yet been proved—yet, most un
doubtedly, the common, current
meaning is what we claim for it.
This natural meaning, which of
course gives us immersion, we
adopt, and apply, in every instance,
throughout the whole New Testa
ment , while anti immersionists
have never yet been able to find a
meaning upon which they can all
agree. Nay, it is rare to find one
who is even consistent with him
self, much less with his anti-immer
sion colleagues. Quite evidently,
the most ot them are loath to say
what they believe the word does
mean, and the more indefinite
and misty a meaning is, the better
they seem to like it.
2. Eis. The plain, natural, first
sight meaning is into. Granting
that it occasionally means some
thing else, this is certainly the pri
mary and the prevailing meaning,
and this meaning we adopt, and
are willing to abide by, in every
case pertaining to the administra
tion of the ordinance. But this
meaning naturally indicates immer
sion in the case of Philip and the
eunuch, and necessarily indicates it,
when Jesus is said to have been bap
tized hit') (eis)the Jordan. Mk. 1 : 9.
3. Ek. The natural meaning, not
to say the invariable one, is out of.
This meaning we adopt; and this
meaning adopted proves Philip and
the eunuch to have been in the wate r
when the latter was baptized ; and
no good reason can be given why
either one, much less both, should
have been in the water, except for
the purpose of an immersion. I
will just add that all the late criti
cal authorities unite in putting ek
in the original text, in place of apo,
in Mk. 1 : 10, so that we really have
two passages, instead of one, prov
ing that people came up out of the
water after their baptism.
4. En. The natural, and over
whelmingly common meaning is in.
This meaning we adopt and use
throughout, i. e., in every case con
nected with the ordinance. E- g.
“Baptizing in the wilderness” —
“Baptizing in Enon near to Salem,
because there was much water
there”—“Were baptized of him in
the river Jordan, confessing their
sins”—“l indeed baptize you in
(en) water. . . . He shall baptize
you in (en) the Holy Ghost.” But
baptizing in the Jordan certainly
points to immersion, while baptiz
ing in water is immerson itself.
Now mark :
While we adopt the natural
meaning of all these words, affu
sionists, on the other hand, have
not only to adopt rare and far
fetched meanings, if they be
meanings at all, but even these
they have to vary, from time
to time, sometimes making the
same word have different meanings,
and sometimes different words the
same meaning. In the case of bap
tize, while agreed in forsaking the
natural meaning, they can by no
means agree among themselves
what unnatural meaning they shall
adopt. The prepositions suffer like
violence atjheir hands. In order to
keep Philip and the eunuch out of
the water, they plead for to
as the meaning of eis; when,
however, they come to the
baptism of Jesus, “baptized to
(eis) the Jordan,” wmuld make
nonsense, and so they adopt cd,more
far-fetched still. So also with en.
They admit the natural meaning,
when it is said, Mk. 1 : 4, “John
did baptize in (en) the wilderness.”
In the very next verse, however,
this same natural meaning would
give us “baptized in (en) the river
Jordan,” and as this points so plain
ly to immersion, the unnatural
meaning at is brought into requisi
tion. In verse 8, en occurs again,
but here the rendering at will not
serve them.“ Baptized you at water,”
“ baptize you at the Holy Ghost,”
this would be too incongruous, and
consequently with is resorted to.
1 subscripts ' • s ?°2-
ITO MINISTERS. •••■ 1.00.1
ATLANTA, GA., THURSDAY, MAY 9 1895.
Now what do we see? In verse 4,
en is admitted to mean in— in verse
5, it is said to mean at— while in
verse 8, with is claimed as the mean
ing—and all in the space of a few
sentences. In verse 9, the mean
ing at which had just been given
to en, is ascribed to eis, which latter
preposition, in the case of Philip
and the eunuch,is alleged to mean to.
Alas, what hopping and skipping
we have here! What shifting and
veering and dodging ! If there were
any necessity for these changes of
rendering, either historical, logical,
or grammatical, the thing would be
different. But there is none. Rea
son, and grammar.and history,are all
the other way. And can it be that
the truth requires the assistance of
such tactics?—such a wholesale
forsaking of the natural, and such
a constant resort to the exceptional
and the anomalous? Take a single
one of these prepositions in its
natural and common meaning, and
the spell is broken, and we are
driven to immersion as the baptism
of the Bible. Take them all in their
natural sense, and the proof of im
mersion becomes cumulative and
overwhelming. That even one of
the words in dispute, (baptizo in
cluded), should be used unnaturally
in a plain narrative of important
gospel history, would be quite
strange; that all of them should be
thus used, surpasses belief. And
yet this wonderful thing, for which
there is not one particle of evidence,
must be received as true, before the
claims of immersion can be set
aside. Nay, nay, the natural mean
ing of all these words must stand,
except there be neccessary rea
sons for some other ; and the plain,
natural meaning gives us immer
sion.
ROM. 6 : 4 AND COL. 2. 12.
To see immersion in these passa
ges, one needs only to look. Not
to see it, requires tedious and tor
tuous processes of reasoning—a con
tinual struggle against the testimo
ny of one’s own eyes. Hence, Phil
ip Doddridge, of the last century,
said it was the “part of candor”
to admit the fact; and Phil
ip Schaff, of the present, said, “All
commentators of no‘e, except
Hodge and Stuart,” have admitted
it. And it may be added with
reference to Stuart, that while not
willing to admitt that immersion is
taught, but lengthily arguing to the
contrary; yet, after all his argu
mentation, it is quite evident that
he did not succeed in convincing
even himself. For he announces
his conclusion : “For these
reasons I feel inclined to doubt the
usual exegesis.” He does not reject
the usual interpretation, he only
doubts it—nay, his misgiving does
not rise to the dignity of a respecta
ble doubt, but he just feels inclined
to doubt it! Well, when a man’s
reasoning fails to convince himself
he should not expect it to convince
others.
While, therefore, it would seem
altogether unnecessary to give any
formal presentation of the proof for
immersion furnished by these pas
sages, (for why attempt to make
manifest what all can see for them
selves?) Yet, that we may bring
under actual review all the more
important Scripture proofs, I will
present two lines of thought, both
legitimate, and in perfect harmony,
and yet, each independent of the
other.
i. Combming the two passages,
they declare that we are buried
with Christ by baptism and in bap
tism, and in it raised up with him.
Being the declaration of Scripture,
it must be true. But how? It
cannot be true literally, for in a lit
eral sense, Christ was alone in His
death, his burial, and his resurrec
tion. To suppose that baptism puts
our bodies in Christ’s literal grave,
and then raises them up again, is
too absurd to think of. Neither
can it be true spiritually, except we
should receive the dogma of bap
tismal regeneration, and say that
the new birth takes place in and by
baptism. For mark, it is distinctly
declared that the burial and the ris
ing again, take place “in baptism”
and “by baptism.” Now if this be
really true in a spiritual sense, then
we must accept baptismal regenera
tion, full and complete.
And surely the one who adopts
this notion should consider well
just what baptism is, for without
it there would be no salvation.
This is really Stuart’s theory,though
he did not seem aware of what it
legitimately involved.
If we reject the literal theory as
self-evidently false, and the spirit
ual one, as plainly subversive of vi
tal Scriptural truths, the only alter
native is to understand the apostle
to be speaking symbolically—just
as Jesus did when He said, “This
is my body.” And so, we believe
that Paul meant that the ordinance
of baptism, involving as it does,
both our immersion in water and
our subsequent emersion from it,
represents or symbolizes our actual
spiritual union with Christ in His
death, burial, and resurrection,
thereby proclaiming to the world
our own death to sin and resurrec
tion to newness of life—both of
which, however, really come
“through faith of the operation of
God.”
2. We may reach identically the
same conclusion by following an
other and independent line, thus :
In combatting the licentious prin
ciple that we may live in sin in or
der to make more conspicious the
forgiving grace of God, Paul re
fers to the fact that all believers
have died to sin. And in proof
that they to whom he was writing
themselves recognized this fact, he
alleges the testimony of their own
baptism. Still further emphasizing
this point, he continues : “There
fore,” i. e., because of having died
to sin, “we are buried with Him by
baptism into death ; that like as
Christ was raised from the dead by
the glory of the father, even so we
also should walk in newness of
life.”
Now to make the apostle reason
logically, our baptism must testify
that we have died to sin with
Christ,(i. e., as Paul says elsewhere,
“crucified with Christ,”) with him
to have been buried, and with him
risen again. And this testimony it
does give, most expressively and im
pressively, when we are buried be
neath the waters “ in the likeness
of his death,” and raised again “in
the likeness of his resurrection.”
Without faith, however, which
really unites us to Christ, and thus
gives the death to sin, and the res
urrection to righteousness, the
whole ceremony is unmeaning and
inappropri; te —which well ac
counts for the supplemental state
ment in Coilossians, “ through faith
of the operation of God.”
Understand baptism to be an im
mersion, and these Scriptures are
clear and forcible; reject immer
sion as Bible baptism, and the
whole becomes hopelessly confused.
Hence the justly celebrated work
of Coneybeare and Hqwson says :
“ This passage (Rom. 6 : 3 5) can
not be understood unless it be borne
in mind that the primitive baptism
was by immersion.”
And this closes our reference to
the New Testament proofs of im
mersion. Really, the demonstration
was complete without any of this
corroborative testimony. Baptizo
having been proved to mean im
merse in current Greek outside of
the New Testament, would, of
course, have to be understood thus
within it, except there wen: posi
tive internal proof to the contrary.
Examining the inspired volume,
however, we find not only nothing
against this meaning, but abundant
and decisive evidence H r it. Im
mersion, then, and immersion only,
must stand as the baptY‘m of the
Bibite. A
And here closes thijs series of
Lectures. As intimated, however,
there will follow after awhile a few
supplemental lectures, in which
special attention will be given to
the Baptism of the Spirit as furn
ishing a basis for the practice of af
fusion.
For The Index,
FROM MISSISSIPPI.
BY REV. W. H. ROBERT.
A few days since I read some
ideas advanced as to the Holy
Ghost helping us in preaching and
in our prayers and alms giving.
I was reminded of some incidents
in my ministry on these points,
which it may gratify my friends to
hear, and benefit ministers to no
tice.
1. I accepted charge of the First
Baptist church in Atlanta, in Nov.
1851. With great timidity in hu
mility, watchfulness and prayer
I engaged in that work. My first
discourse was based on the second
verse of forty-eighth Psalm. I
presented the “beauty of the
church.”
(1) In its foundation, (or situa
tion.)
(2) As the joy or salvation of
the whole earth.
(3) As the residence (city) of
the great King.
In Gospel ordinances correctly
administered.
2. When we had great trouble
about our music and brethren de
bated dearly all day, whether the
melodian should be allowed to re
main in the house any longer ! On
Sunday I was asked by sister Kel
lum (whom I had recently baptiz
ed, and who was our organist)
whether she should play on that
occasion—l said certainly, we have
decided to determine its fate next
church meeting day. 'i ou begin
the service and give us “Blow ye
the trumpet, blow,” and “Old hun
dred,” and “Baterma.”
The dear brethren who were op
posed to the music, at once left the
house, though it was communion
day, they did not return, and I
was very much discomforted and
cast down ; threw away my pre
pared sermon, and said “Oh, Lord,
help me now to teach aright.” I
was directed, blessed much and
comforted.
3. Yet again when the finance
committee (the deacons) were
much troubled by a small debt
against the church, and I was call
ed by Bro. I. O. McDaniel and Dr.
B. F. Bomar from my study on Sat
urday p. m., to try and work with
them in arranging for it. When
I returned home quite late, my dear
wife, who was always most deep
ly and prayerfully interested in my
preparations for the pulpit, (God
bless her memory! her children and
and all who ever knew her are
constrained to praise her) —said,
now, dear husband, you have been
disturbed in your preparation for to
morrow. What will you do ? Ire
plied, God helping me, I will give
them my sermon on 1 Cor. xvt : 2,
“First day of the week,” etc. And
my dear Index, I was blessed in it.
Tho’ I said not one word about my
own finances, good, dear sister Lip
ham slipped a twenty dollar bill in
my pocket, and from that day I
never heard anything mere of that
church debt. God’s Holy Spirit can
and will work wonders with His
Word when applied to the hearts of
His dear people.
After two and a half years of
hard work in Atlanta, 1 found our
church largely increased in num
bers, and among the members were
Bapitst’s from many of the states
and communities. We had gather
ed in some anti-missionaries, who
were accustomed to once a month
preaching, to foot washing as a
church ordinance—opposed to Sun
day Schools and Temperance So
cieties, and choirs, and any kind
of singing save what they had
heard in their youth, etc. etc.
Percieving the elements irrecon
cileable—and noticing the growth
of Atlanta, and that our Methodist
brethren were now rearing their
second church house, I urged pray
erfully and carefully on brethren
I. O. and P. E. McDaniel, Dr. B F.
Bomar, John Myers and their fami
lies and sister Lipham and one or
two others to unite with Bro. John
B. Gordan, (then a -young and
promising Baptist lawyer) and
others to unite in forming the Sec
ond Baptist church for Atlanta.
This was one of the grandest
works of my life—a work which
was watered by my tears, and
nursed by my prayers —and in the
midst of great suffering and trou
ble was accomplished, and to God
be all the praise.
We purchased the lot f<r one
thousand dollars, and God blessed
the cause in building their house
of worship. Bro. I. O. McDaneil
who about that time had to con
tend with a commercial disaster,
remarked to me once that he and
his brother P. E., had saved all
they put into that work, though
the greater portion of what they
had owned bad to be lost. 1 think
the two brothers put in it fifteen
hundred each, and sister Lipham a
like amount.
Though I was called to Prof, of
Mathematics in Griffin with Bro.
Attaway, and then to Cherokee
Baptist College, at Capville, Ga.,
to educate my children—yet I
prayerfully watched the work and
aided liberally in its progress.
I found the church with 127
members in the Association 1851,
and after the three years work and
the constitution of the church on
Peachtree, (then two miles out in
the country) and the formation oi
the second church, we had a mem
bership of 229 in 1854.
My last sermon preached as pas
tor there was from 1 Cor. xv : 58,
Christian activity, 1, urged by pre
cept —2, by example in Old and
New Testament —3, encouraged by
the promises of God scattered
throughout His Word.
Atlanta in that day and time
was greatly misrepresented by
strangers at a distance—being then
a new place and terminus of three
rail roads —the Georgia—the West
ern—and the West Point—men of
loose and irregular habits visited it
to carry on their gambling and
other dissipations of which Atlanta
had the credit.
There were many good and no
ble citizens then —our population
was emphatically’church going, for
eight Sundays one winter had fall
ing or damp weather, yet each
time I had at church a respectable
number of men—lawyers, physi
cians, murchants, railroad and bus
iness men were men of Christian
life and energy,
While we were decided in our
Baptist devotions and discipline,
(and we had very much of the lat
ter to annoy us) yet administering
it with faithfulness and prayer, we
was blessed of God, and had the
confidence of the denominations of
the city.
I thank God that I was enabled
honorably to spend the two thous
and dollars which I did then more
than I received for preaching, and
that it has gone on in producing
good fruits to the honor and glory
of God—in increasing the number
of houses of worship till now the
city can claim eighteen white and
twenty colored churches. To God
be all the glory now and forever.
Amen and amen.
Centerville, Miss.
Rev. J. F. Cargile, of Culloden,
Ga., has resigned his position as mis
sionary for the Rehoboth Association
and expects to enter general evan
gelistic work, and give Bible readings
with blackboard diagrams in connec
tion with same, until Oct. when he
will go as a foreign missionary to
Brazil.
For the Christian Indky.
EIGHT KINDS Os BIBLE READERS-
BY REV. W. M. HARRIS.
Many have a notion that reading
the Bib e is reading the Bible, and
that all who do so good a thing are
about equally pious. As a matter
of fact, there are Bible readers and
Bible readers.
1. There is the man who reads
the Bible simply as literature. It
is worth reading in that way too.
Where is there truer poetry than is
heard in Isaiah’s song or in David’s
Harp? James Anthony Froude
gave the book of Job the ve y
nighest place in poetry of its kino,
and Thomas Carlyle said that it
was the grandest production of
the pen ot man, inspired or un
spired. Where can finer specimens
of reasoning be found than in the
epistles of Paul, or sublimer im
agery than in “the Revelation of
St. John?”
Yes, considered merely as lit
erature, the Bible s worth reading.
The man who thus uses it, I
would say, reads his Bible educa
tionally!
2. Then we have the man who
reads it to detect errors. He tall I
of “the mistakes of Moses ” He
searches for contradictions, and is
happy when he thinks he has found
them ; and he is constantly finding
them, for we usually find what we
are in the Bible. He
clasps his hands and says “I told
you so, this book is no divine reve
lation, let us eat drink and be
merry.” I would say he reads his
Bible carpingly.
3. Bible reader number three is
a white haired old brother who is
found in every community. He
pores over the sacred page con
stantly and eagerly. His object is
to find out who was the father of
Melchisedec, and where Cain got
his wife. He delights also in the
song of Solomon, and in the most
mysterious passages of the Apoca
lypse. He takes pleasure in tell
ing which is the shortest verse and
which the longest chapter, and
what two chapters are alike al
most word for word. He is a sort
of Biblical curio collector. I would
say that he read* his Bible curi
ously.
4. Number four is a brother who
has embraced certain denomina
tional views and whose special mis
sion in the world is to wage war
against the heretics. He is on the
hunt for proof texts. To him the
Bible is a great arsenal furnished
with weapons wherewith to attack
the c-. false doctrine. He
has on his war paint and sallies
forth armed and equipped to do
battle for the truth. He has abso
lutely found the absolute truth.
“Orthodoxy—is his doxy, and hete»
rodoxy the other fellows doxy.”
How diligently he searches the
Scriptures. And he finds exactly
what he is looking for Remarka
ble book! Every one finds in it
what he seeks. This brother reads
his Bible controvertially.
5. Then there is the one who
reads a chapter every night. He
makes it a rule to open the book
every night at random—for any
part of the blessed book is good
enough for him. He is sleepy, and
yet could not sleep were he to read
less than a whole chapter. It is a
duty he must go through with. He
reads his Bible perfunctorily.
6. In the next place we have the
scholar, who burrows down, among
the roots of the Hebrew and the
Greek. He is a college professor
or a doctor of divinity ! The ob
ject he has in view is to find out
exactly the meaning of the lan
guage. He calls to his aid gram
mar, philosophy, hermeneutics etc.
His intellect is completely enlisted,
his heart is utterly untouched, and
it has not occurred to him that
there are many things in this book
that are Spiritually discerned, and
that in order to understand them,
one must sit at the feet of the Holy
Ghost. He reads his Bible critic
ally.
7. Then, thank God, we have
that humble Christian who reads
his Bible to know more and more
perfectly, the way to God, to find
out hew to Eve, to get spiritual
food and consolation ; and as he
bends over his blessed volume there
is a light on his face “that never
shone on sea or land.” For he, too,
finds what he seeks—light for his
pathway, guidance for his feet,
strength in his weakness, comfort
amid his tears.
He reads his Bible devotionally.
8. The ideal Bible reader com
bines in himself the last two types ;
he reads his Bible critically and
devotionally. Those who have un
dertaken the critical study of the Bi
ble have found that it will not take
the place of devotional reading. It
's very easy to backslide while de
laying around in philosophy and
hermeneutics.
On the other hand the devotion
al and reverent spirit carried into
critical study must yield the best
fruit possible in Bible study.
I repeat that in him who studies
critically and reads devotionally we
have the ideal Bible reader, and I
think instinctively of John A.
Broadus. lam sure he must have
read the Scriptures that way.
VOL. 75—NO. 19
Oh ! for more patient, constant,
systematic, u devotional,
reading of God’s Book.
But in conclusion let me say that
almost any sort of Bible readingjs
better than none. Men have been
led to Christ by the most indiffer
ent reading of the Bible. A mis
sionary gave a copy of the Script
ures to a heathen who took it home
and threw it among the plunder.
One day he picked up a stray leaf
of the book and glanced carelessly
at it, read the words “Love your
enemies.” The beauty and sublimity
of the sentiment startled him, and
by reflection he was lead to the
conviction that so beautiful and
blessed a doctrine was from God—
he became a Christian. “ The en
trance of thy words giveth light.”
Greenville, Ala.
WHAT IT WILL DO-
THE ANTI-LIQUOR SALOON BILL
AND HOW IT WILL WORK IN
GEORGIA.
There are 977 liquor saloons in
Georgia, licensed by the State.
“The Anti-Barroom Bill” will close
every one of them.
There are about 45 Government
distilleries, and a number of brew
eries, in Georgia, and they are de
stroying about 150,000 bushels of
grain, every year. The “Anti-Bar
room Bill” will stop all this waste.
Unless some of the “dry” coun
ties repeal their prohibtory liquor
laws, there cannot be more than
45 places in the State where liquors
will be sold, and that for medical
and scientific purposes, only.
There are about 100 high licensed
saloons in Atlanta now. When
“The Anti-Barroom Bill” becomes
a law there can be but one in Ful
ton county, and that one not allow
ed to sell liquors for beverage pur
poses.
There are about 100 saloons in
Macon, and about 125 in Augusta,
and about 332 in Savannah. When
“The Anti-Barroom Bill” becomes
a law, there can be but one in Bibb
county, and but one in Richmond
county, and but one in Chatham.
And that one not a saloon—not
allowed to sell liquors for beverage
purposes.
And so of the 41 counties in
which liquors are now sold. And
it will be for the people of each of
the forty-five counties to say,
whether or not, they will have it
sold for medical purposes. They
will not be allowed to have it sold
for beverage purposes. And it is
quite probable that a number of the
45 counties will not have it sold for
medical purposes.
In other words, it will stop all of
the Government distilleries and
breweries, and close nearly a Thou
sand saloons ; and there cannot be
more than forty-five, and will not
likely be more than twenty-five,
Vendors; and they forbidden to
sell liquors for beverage purposes.
“Our cities are now dependent
on the State legislature for the
measure of autonomy they are per
mitted to enjoy.”
In licensing saloons they have so
abused their power that the people
of the State should take the matter
in band.
“The Anti-Barroom Bill” will
take the matter out of the hands of
the towns and cities, and leave it
with the people of the county to
say whether or not, they will have
liquors sold for medical and me
chanical purposes.
People of Georgia are paying
about nine million dollars a year
for liquors. And to this is to be
added the indirect cost—lost labors,
crime, sickness, pauperism caused
by drunkenness, which will likely
amount to three million dollars. So
allowing that the law be very much
violated, it will save to the people
of the State six or seven million
dollars the first year. And in a few
years it will be saving to the people
of the State ten million dollars,
annually.
The mission of the saloon is to
tempt boys and men to their ruin.
And notwithstanding the many
restrictions it is under in Georgia,
it is likely debauching more men
and boys than all the churches are
saving! And to accomplish its
diabolic designs it corrupts politics,
and government.
But when ‘The Anti-Barroom
Bill” becomes a law, this greatest
corruptor, and enemy will go from
Georgia. Then there is no calcu
lating the tears that will be
staunched, nor the heartaches that
will be prevented.
These are just some of the good
things that will come to Georgia
when this bill is enacted into law.
It will bring nothing but good to
anybody. There is nothing possi
ble to human instrumentality that
will bring so much good to Georgia.
The committee has carefully con
sidered the matter, and find that it
would be possible in one way only,
to improve on the bill, if that would
be an improvement, and in that we
are barred by the constitution.
Will not the good people of the
State demand that it be enacted
enacted into law?
A. J. Hughes.
Lexington, Ga.