Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

ESTABLISHED 1821. WChristiarilfidex Publlibel Every Thursday By BELL At VAN NEBS* Address Christian Index, Atlanta, Ga. Organ of the Baptist Denomination in Georgia SUBSCRIPTION PkICXI Oneoopy, one year.. IS.OC One copy, six months 1.06 About Our Advertisers.—We propose kereafter to very carefully Investigate our advertisers. W'e shall exercise every care to allow only reliable parties to use our col inns. Obituaries.—One hundred words free of charge. For each extra word, one cent per word, cash with copy. To Correspondents—Do not use abbrevi ations; be extra careful in writing proper names; write with ink. on one side of paper. Do not write copy Intended for the editor and business items on same sheet. Leave off personalities, condense. Business.—Write all names, and post Offices distinctly. In ordering a change give She old as well as the new address. The date Os label Indicates the time your subscription •xplres. If you do not wish It continued, or der it stopped a week before. We consider each subscriber permanent until he orders his paper discontinued. When you order It stopped pay up to date. Remittances by registered letter, money order, postal note For the Index. David, Kin? Over all Israel—Sun day School Lesson for July 12 2 Sam. 5:1 12. BY S. G. HILLYER. Last week we saw David crowned king over the tribe of Judah at Hebron. The present lesson presents him to us as es tablished as king over all Israel. I would take this occasion to make a few general remarks ap plicable to this and all other les sons of like character. You will notice the lesson before us gives us an item of history in the life of David. A large portion of the earlier books of the Bible is his torical. Many readers do not appreciate these historical books as much as they deserve. Many consider them dry and tedious. And they are the books w T hich the enemies of the Bible are often eager to assail. Notice first,Bible history is the basis of Bible religion. It is the religion of the Bible that invests the book- with its transcendent su premacy over all other books. But its religion rests upon the facts which it records. Take the Bible with its facts absolutely from under our theology, and we should be relegated to the dark necessity of learning our religion from the birds in the air, and “from the flowers in the field.” How successfully mankind have been able to do this, let the wretched system of priestcraft and of superstition that nave cursed the heathen world tell us David had reigned seven years in Hebron over the tribe of Ju dah. His government was wise and prudent. Ishbosheth reigned two years over the rest of the tribes. He was the fourth son of Saul. His three brothers, in eluding Jonathan, had been slain with their father at Gilboa. So he had, as the oldest surviving son of Saul, a color of title to the vacant throne, and eleven of the tribes adhered to him and made him their king; but Judah clave unto David. There was war between the two kingdoms, but David waxed stronger and stronger, while Is rael became weaker and weaker. So it came to pass that the elev en tribes became dissatisfied with their condition. They remem bered David as the great cham pion of Israel in the days of Saul; and with one accord their chiefs came up to Hebron and gave their willing submission to David as their king; so he was anointed king over all Israel, and the words of Samuel the prophet which he spake concerning Da vid at Bethlehem were fulfilled. Soon aft°r he was thus firmly settled in his kingdom, David looked round for a city that would, in all respects, be suitable for his capital. His choice was fixed upon Jerusalem. But it was an alien city. A war-like tribe still occupied it. It was surround ed with a wall, and protected with a fortress of great strength. The Jebusites had held it against the forces of Joshua, and at the time of David they still held it. It was perhaps within the terri tory of Benjamin, but close on the borders of Judah. The city with its strong for tress was taken by assault. The castle that stood on Mt. Zion,Da vid appropriated as his royal res idence. He soon added to it other walls that made it the strongest fortress in all the land of Israel. From that day begins the his tory of Jerusalem. Its early his tory is wrapped in much obscu rity. Some learned men have thought that it was the ancient Salem—the city of Melchizedek, who was called the king of Salem and the priest of the Most High God. This hypothesis may be true. It is supported by the fact that it could not have been very far from the place where Abra ham met Melchizedek and receiv- THE ( IIHIS’I’I.W INDEX. ed his blessing. To identify Je rusalem with the Salem of that ancient and royal priest would invest it with special interest. The word Salem means peace; Melch ; zedek was therefore king of a city whose name was “peace.” Jerusalem means,“they shall see peace.” These points of resemblance make it easy to believe that Salem was the germ and the promise of the future Je rusalem, just as Melchizedek was the type of the great Messiah who was ordained to be the king of eternal peace and a priest for ever after the order of Melchi zedek When David took possession of Jerusalem his thoughts may not have ranged beyond its fitness, to be the capital of his kingdom,and, as soon as practicable,to be made also the tinal resting place of the “Ark of the Covenant,” which was the abiding symbol of Jeho vah’s presence. But in all this there was an un seen hand that had guided the movements of David along that line of eterijal purpose which God had stretched from Adam to Noah, from Noah to Abraham, from Abraham to Moses, from Moses to David, and from David to Christ. And that line was the nucleus around which, from age to age, were formed the resplen dent crystals of divine revelation, glowing at last in the full efful gence of the gospel plan of hu man salvation. “Oh, the depth of the riches, both of the wisdom and of the knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judg ments and his ways past finding out!” David personally worked but a little way along that line of pur pose; but he formed the nexus between the ages that were past and the distant future—the gio rious day of Pentecost. It was not long after David had taken possession of his new home, that Jerusalem began to be in vested with a religious as well as with a political importance. It held within its walls not only the throne of Israel s king, but also the sanctuary of Israel’s God. In that sanctuary were the holy and the most holy places. There was the altar on which were burned the offerings of the wor shippers There was the golden candle-stick with its seven lamps symbolizing the light of divine truth. And there was behind the mysterious veil, the golden altar and the ark of the covenant and the mercy seat, canopied by the wings of the cherubim and often glorified with a pillar of cloud symbolizing the presence of Je hovah. David loved that sanctuary. Hear his impassioned words: “One thing have I desired of the Lord; that will I seek after: that I may dwell in the house of the Lord forever, to behold the beauty of the Lord and to enquire in his temple.” Yes, David loved the sanctua ry. And yet, that sanctuary,with its splendid ritual, was but a shadow of “better things to come.” Dear brethren, it is your high privilege to live in the full pos session of all those ‘ ‘better things.” You need not travel a day’s journey to reach the house of God. You may find it in your closet, in your garden, in your field,or in your grove—in a word, wherever you feel inclined, you may find a Bethel where you may freely worship the Father in spirit and in truth; and there by faith behold the beauty of the King. 563 S. Pryor st., Atlanta. The Baptists of England in the Six teenth and Seventeenth Centuries. BY A. D. VAUGHAN, JR , D. D. All that we can know of any people as remote from us as the Baptists of these centuries, and of a people of much more recent date, is what we learn from his tory. Nor must we forget in our investigations of historic matter that it is not every book purport ing to be such that is reliable history. When I was a younger man than lam now, a godly man, a first rate preacher, put into my hands a book on church succes sion, written by a Baptist. Tbis book I read and, for a few years, quoted. Bui, as my library in creased, and my reading was of a wider range, and more judi cious, I put that succession book on a shelf in a dark closet, and there I suppose it is until this day. The author is unfair in quoting other authors, even where he bad read them, and there is so much that he ought to have known, but which mani festly he did not know before he wrote the book. How are young men to avoid the danger of rely ing upon unreliable books which claim to be reliable history ? The danger cannot be altogether avoided so long as some of our most excellent pastors recom- A 'SCRIPTION, PcbYi«b.....*S.OO. I NISTERS. 1.00.1 mend everything that is written and everybody who writes. But do all histoi ians who are accredited as being trustworthy agree on all points of vital im portance? By no means. When, therefore, we find such disagree ment, how are we to determine which is correct? If we have not the facilities for investigating the point or points in issue, for ourselves, we cannot determine. And right here parties are formed, not according to a com petent judgment of facts, but ac cording to the circumstances which most inliuence the heart, according to men’s preference of those disagreeing. But if we have the facilities for investi gating the disputed points, we can, with pains, arrive at the truth. Because, in addition to the facts specially noted by the historians, .there are oftentimes incidental 'references to these facts by contemporaneous docu ments, references from different points of view, and made for dif ferent purposes, made not for. the sake of the facts themselves, but because of their relation to other things. Thus the student of history, when he finds* conflicting state ments with reference to the same matter; is enabled by these inci dental references, which, for his purpose a e sufficiently explicit, to reach a correct conclusion. The Baptists of tie South, especially, have been for some little time more or less agitated about the statements of Dr. Whitsitt concerning the practice of the English Baptists prior to 1641. In the Religious Herald of May “th ult., Dr. Whitsitt says: “There was no difficulty in trac ing the succession of the English Baptists up to the year 1641; but. at that point dry land was en countered and some other expe dient must be adopted. The Baptist people of England were not in the practice of immersion prior to the date in question. If a Baptist should now reject immer sion, we would feel constrained to renounce church fellowship with him; if people in England 255 years ago first assumed the practice of immersion, I cannot include them in’my chain of Bap tist succession beyond that date, and must turn elsewhere for re lief.” To Dr. Whitsitt s conclusion every intelligent Baptist gives a hearty amen. Nor should any of us reject the statement on which his conclusion is based by simply bawling, “I do not be lieve it, I will not believe it, I care not if Whitsitt and every other historian says it is true.” Such senliments are unworthy of a Baptist and evince too much weakness for any man, woman or child that has been baptized on profession of personal faith in Christ Jesus, the Lord. If the facts sustain Dr. Whit sitt, no amount of ranting and raving will change the jacts, nor can any honest mind wish, even wish, to change them, and every such effort will only hurt us ad vocates of Bible truth. If the facts do not sustain the doctor, when they are thoroughly known, it will be easy enough to show that they do not. Dr. Whitsitt supports his state ments in the Religious Herald —and it is with that article that I now deal —by the testimony of both Baptists and those who opposed them; and referring to this testi mony he says: “The above is sufficient to show that, first by the witness of the Baptists them selves, and secondly by that of their opponents, immersion was revived among them in England in the year 1641.” A word of criticism before passing. In one statement the doctor says he should “feel con strained to renounce church fel lowship,” and of course he means Baptist church fellowship, with any who should now “reject im mersion,” and yet in immediate connection he calls those who did this 255 years ago “the Bap tist people of England.” It oc curs to me that the doctor is un happy in his use of the term Baptist. But the doctor states the issue between a great number of schol ars and himself clearly and un equivocally, and now let it be met as clearly and unequivocally Were “the Baptist people of England not in the practice* of immersion prior to 1641 ?” From sources that have never been, so far as I know, ques tioned as to their reliability, I have learned something of the Baptist people of England in the sixteenth and seventeenth cen turies, a/id I shall so put what I have found that a child may un derstand it. If this discussion has demon strated any one thing more than another it is that the bulk of Baptists, including the ministry, have not given that attention to their history which the subject demands. And so if springing ATLANTA, GA., THURSDAY, JULY 9, 1896. the discussion will revive an ac tive, earnest painstaking study among the Baptists of their his tory it will be fruitful of great good. From many a Baptist pulpit the subject of baptism will be more intelligently (Jtecussed, in that less attention will be given to the words of men, more to the words of God, and this cannot fail of beneficial results. Statement by Dr. ithltsitt Whether the people in Eng land now called Baptists were in the practice of immersion before the year 1641, is purely a ques tion of history. Being confined to the domain of comparatively modern history, it does not affect a single point of Baptist doctrine or practice. These are all firmly established upon the foundation of the apostlesand tne prophets, Jesus Christ hitaself being the chief corner-stone. The rite of immersion was inaugurated in New Testament times by divine authority and made essential to baptism. It stands or ails with the New Testament. 1 doesnot stand upon the practice of Chris tian people in England before or sir.ee the year 1641. Considering this subject as in teresting mainly to scholarly his torians, I chose to make the first announcement of my re searches regarding it in the New York Independent. That unde nominational journal had long been known as a forum of public resort for scholars of all creeds and confessions. It seemed to me that this topic might be brought forward there with en tire propriety. In view of the misunderstand ing of my purpose and motives on the part of some of my breth ren, I am now of the opinion that I should have acted more wisely had I brought the ques tion forward first rn a journal of my own denomination. None of us can definitely foresee the fu ture; therefore I do not under take to defend my conduct in this particular. If it be pronounced a blunder, I affirm that it was a blunder of the head and not of the heart. Many me i have com mitted blunders of th i{t kind. Objection has bet n taken to the fact that I emrtoyed the word “invention” with it so sion iWriult art in England fronu the year 1509, the accession of Henry VHT, to the year 1641, following the imprisonment of Archbishop Laud. During the earlier part of that period the immersion of children was well nigh univer sal, while during the latter the sprinkling of children became almost universal. The river had shrunk to the pool; the pool had shrunk to the font, and the font was constructed of such dimen sions as to preclude the immer sion of adults. In the rubric of the English church before 1661 there was found no office at all for the baptism of adults. It would be difficult for an archae ologist to produce any well au thenticated instance of the im mersion of adult believers in Eng land duringthisperiod. Even the Anabaptists, who entered Eng land in this period, came from Holland where Anabaptists had then no such custom as immer sion. This last rite had to be found out, invented anew, in the England of 1641, under the light of Gods Word, and of the in creased freedom of thought and action which then was dawning upon the nation. It was in view of the above condition of affairs that I employed the phrase “in vention of immersion.” The ex pression is harmless when under stood in the sense in which I in tended to use it. It is a grief to me that breth ren, beloved and honored, seem to have mistaken my sentiments and misunderstood my opinions. For their sakes, as well as for the furtherance of truth, I pur pose to issue soon in pamphlet form, a fuller statement of my position and some of the grounds on which it rests. If this can be successfully controverted by in disputable fact or valid argu ment, it will give me pleasure to correct my views, and make pub lie acknowledgment of any mis take. If not, as a loyal Baptist, I’must hold to the truth even when it runs athwart__ of some cherished traditions € The fundamental Articles of Faith of our Theological Semi nary constitute one of the sound est creeds now current among Baptists. When I subscribed these Articles twenty-four years ago, I believed from the heart every doctrine set forth in them. I still joyfully hold and teach every word and line of them and if I should ever cease to do so, it would become my plain duty promptly to sever my con nection with the institution. Wm. H. Whitsitt. Co operation of Churches. BY D. W. GWIN, D.D. While our churches are sover eign and independent, it is yet their duty and privilege to aid each other in the furtherance of common interests, in the main tenance of common beliefs and enterprises. As “no man liveth to himself,” so no church liveth to itself, to others are due the benefits of our wisdom and experience and resources. “In the multitude of counselors there is safety;” “in union there is strength.” Baptists certainly should “stand fast in one spirit, with one mind, striving together for [withJ the faith of the Gos pel.” Neighboring churches of the “same faith and order,” should form and maintain a scriptural alliance, “offensive and defen sive,” for their mutual better ment —a moral, not govern mental, union for practical efficiency. Do not Baptist churches need to cultivate more deeply the ties of a divine family? As regards doctrine, this family-loyalty is quick to be aroused; it is sensi tive and conserving; its moral authority cannot be denied or ig nored. No one questions its in fluence and value; no one dare underrate the consensus of Christians who take “the Bible as their only rule of faith,” but our canon adds “rule of practice.” Through the recognition of this helpful oneness in “practice,” we have preserved “the ordi nances as they were delivered to the saints,” and no small factor in this pre serving work has been a certain scriptural “care of all the churches,” without in the least impinging upon their sov ereignty—a living, practical, moral oversight and helpfulness. This has wrought, within the sphere of independency, free from all hierarchical domination or superintendency, a denomina tional unity which has been an amazement, if not a mystery to all others. The inspiration of this basal affinity and oneness, the author ity of the principles of Christ in “the Great Commission” and elsewhere, the assembling of the Christian democracy in conven tion at Jerusalem, and other practices and injunctions of the ■Sk^it- taught, apostles, have war- < ♦Baptist b: ,11,er:::- : associations for the purpose of combining their wisdom and gifts ‘for the fur therance of t e Gospel. This il lustrates, co ordinates, focalizes the aims and energies of God’s people —t/iis, unity of heart, of labor, of instrumentalities. Now, brethren beloved, “mark and inwardly digest” this corol lary: Neighboring churches should form an alliance to help each other in the field which they occupy. This can be done both (1) in city and (2) in country. Suppose, for in stance, the churches of Atlanta should, through their delegates, form a Baptist alliance, co-oper ative union, or church-helping brotherhood, the name is not now under consideration—which, in the recognition of their family responsibility, would come to the aid of weak churches in securing wise locations, in building houses of worship, in fostering mission stations, in short would agree to call forth and combine their en ergies and resources for the strengthening of the churches in the evangelization of the neigh borhood, who can tell the amount of good w’hich would flovfrom this? A resolution to this effect, offered by the writer, has been indorsed by the Baptists of At lanta, and a meeting for organi zation will be held at the First Baptist church the second week in September. How our country churches could make this practical, I can not say in detail, but I am sure much could be done through their efficient pastors. I know a num ber of communities in this State and in other States which illus trate some of the benefits of such co-operation. Whtnbwas profes sor in Hollins Institute, Virginia, and pastor of the Roanoke Bap tist church, I used to hear mem bers of the executive committee of the association of that locality speak of this and that “field” which was explained to mean two or more churches that united to engage the same pastor, and which owned a pastor’s home, and which harmonized as one church for the common welfare of their neighborhood—a har mony once wrought out that is comparative easy to maintain. Let “the strong help the weak;” let the weak combine, “one shall chase a thousand, and two shall put—it is not two thousand, the natural law of pro gression, but—TEN thousand to flight.” O, divinest arithmetic! O, Father, teacher us to unite unite thy children “in every good word and work.” Let our watchword be co-operation. Our Part. J n this faith I Shull not eount'tbe chances—lui'o that nil A prudent foresight asks we shall not want, And all that bold and patient hearts can do We shall not leave undone. The rest la God’s. —Selected. The Cure of Hezekiah. This is but one instance among many reported in Scripture of the efficacy of prayer in the healing of disease; and it illustrates the well-nigh universal faith of Chris tian people upon this subject. In that faith they hold: First, that God hears prayers for healing as for other bless ings. One of his names is Jeho vah Rophi—the Lord our Healer, and the healing is not merely spiritual but includes the body, which is the temple of the Holy Ghost. The Prayer Hearer lis tens to every item in that long catalogue of wants which his peo ple pour continually into his ear. That ear catches the petition for deliverance from pain as quickly as the petition for deliveiance from sin. When the Praying Son taught us to pray “Give us this day our daily bread,” he must have intended us to include the body into which that bread is to be received, for what good would bread do to one whose physical condition was such that he could not eat? We ought therefore to pray, Give us our health day by day. He who gives us the bread gives also the health, each in its own measure and ac cording to his holy will He who has power over the earth that it may bring forth seed to the sower and bread to the eater, has power also over the body and its ail ments and infirmities. Every age of the Church, both before the time of Hezekiah and after, both in the days of Christ and up to the present day, has been full of instances in which God has heard prayer and has raised up his children from the verge of the grave. Thousands are living to day in answer to prayer, and thousands more are full of grati tude to the prayer hearing God w T ho has heard their prayers for the life and health of those dear to them. To all such it is pass ing strange that one can doubt this precious truth, and they are tilled with amazement when they are themselves reproached with unbelief in it. because they re fuse credence to some passing claimant of divine authority and supernatura’ power. Yet for the sake of others it is needful that we confess our faith anew in this fundamental truth and examine soberly in the light of Scripture the claims of these who, from their different standpoints, assail the faith of the Church. Second, that God’s answers to prayers for healing ordinarily come, as Jiis answers for other blessings ordinarily do, through the natural order. He is not bound down to means. He could have healed Hezekiah by a word without the medicinal agency of the lump of figs, even as he has healed many others by the naked exercise of divine power. But what God can do is sometimes a different question from what he does. In the case of Hezekiah, God put his blessing upon the es tablished remedial agency of the time, a lump of figs, which hast ened the rising of the swelling and thus brought the process of mattering to its conclusion. Un der God’s blessing upon this rem edy the royal patient recovered. Tbis remedy, so effective in Hez ekiah’s case, was recognized by medical authorities in the times of Dioscorides, Pliny and Sb Je rome, and it is highly esteemed by medical authorities to-day.’ The divine method in the case of Hezekiah showed not only that God works through means, but also that he uses the means which are at hand in the provisions of nature, and as the result of hu man experiment. Naaman, the Syrian, and the man born blind in the days of Christ are both in stances of God’s blessing upon means Naaman was only healed of hi« leprosy when, at the com mand of Elisha, he washed in the river Jordan seven times. The man born blind only began to see after his eyes had been anointed by Jesus with clay made of spit tle and he had washed in the pool of Siloam. But in neither o these cases was a recognized remedial agency used,so that the cure of Hezekiah stands forth as reflecting the divine blessing upon those medical preparations w’hich experience has shown to be effective. It is not disbelief, therefore, to use these prepara tions. It is rather sinful pre sumption to refuse or to neglect them! One might as well refuse to eat, expecting that God would miraculously sustain his life; or to study, expecting that God would miraculously endow him with learning; or to work and to save, expecting that God would miraculously endow him with wealth, as refuse the means ap pointed for the maintenance and VOL. 76--NO. 28 recovery of health,expecting that God will honor our daring pre sumption in defying that order of nature which his own wisdom has appointed. Third, that Hezekiah s recov ery shows that health is not the highest blessing which man can have. In his case, recovery was most unfortunate; for the moral catastrophe of his life occurred after it and largely in conse quence of it. Had he died when the summons was sent him first, his record as a sincere and con sistent servant of God so far as we have it would have been un blemished; but during the fifteen years which, in answer to prayer, God had added to his life, his heart was lifted up in pride and self glory. He entered into al liance with Merodach-baladan, king of Babylon, and received his presents and rendered not unto God for the benefits which God had done him. His sin brought its doom in the captivity of his people, and there was wrath upon him and upon Judah and upon Jerusalem. Though the captivity was postponed until af ter his death, yet death to him must have been bitter indeed,for it was clouded with the con sciousness that his own pride had brought ruin upon the peo ple whom he loved and whom he sought to serve. Sickness and d c ath in the Christian view are not the great est evils one can undergo. Out of them have come some of God’s richest blessings. The man that was born blind, through no sin of his own nor through any sin of his parents, could look back,after he had been healed, upon his years of darkness with rejoicing, and see wherein by his darkness God had been glorified. The man who had an infirmity for thirty-eight years, and who year after year lay at the pool of Bethesda, hop ing in vain that he might reach the pool, could look back upon thosej thirty-eight weary years without regret after he had been given sight by the Lord Jesus. Lazarus, when dying, doubtless felt grieved,as his sisters certain ly did, that his Friend and Lord had not come to save him from the bitterness of death. And yet when after four days that Lord raised him from the dead, how glad they were that he and not they had ordered the issue of the sickness! They saw then that the glory of God shines even through death. Paul’s thorn in the flesh, which probably was some physical infirmity, called forth from him three earnest prayers for relief, none of which were answered; but that thorn became a blessing, even while it rankled, in that it brought with it the promise, “My grace is suf ficient for thee, for my strength is made perfect in weakness.” And the reverent reply of the sorely-afflicted apostle separates him from the modern claimants to supernatural power in the heal ing of disease, for, instead of making a clamorous demand that, the thorn be removed,he patient ly submitted to the divine will and said, “Most gladly, there fore, will I rather glory in my in firmities,that the power of Christ may rest upon me.” The power of Christ! this was his great de sire and the thorn that brought, it was a blessing in disguise. The Christian life is something more than physical health. Prayer has a higher and nobler purpose than mere freedom from pain. Some of the brightest lights in the kingdom of God have for years been never free from pain. Their prayers for health, like Paul’s have not been answered; but God has given them something better than phys ical health, and they have been willing patiently to submit to his will. Sickness is not a mark of the divine displeasure. Death to the Christian is not a bugbear. The grave has been entered by One who as he lay in it spoiled its victory. He has made it the entrance-way to the heavenly home and the eternal glory. These comforting truths are in marked contrast with the teach ings of some ■who assume to speak by divine authority, and they show how far astray these .teach ers are. To the sick and the dy ing and the bereaved the Scrip ture comes soothingly. The an guish and horror occasioned by these claimants to divine author ity prove that they are not sent by him who does not break the bruised reed nor quench the smoking flax. These features of the cure of Hezekiah illustrate the Christian doctrine of prayer in its relation to health. It expresses the faith of thousands of Christians who act upon it year after year, with out ever questioning it. These are of many names and of various creeds, but they are all at one in their faith in the God who hears prayers for health as for all other blessings.— Prayer and the Heal' ing of Disease.—Bryan.