Newspaper Page Text
ESTABLISHED 18‘ji.
The GhuSiari Index
Fubliihel Every Thursday
By HELL Jt VAN NESS
Christian Isi>kx, Atlanta,|U a
Organ of the Bnptist Denomination In
Georgia.
Bcbsoription Prick:
One copy, one year SB.OO
One copy, six months I.OS
'about Ous Advertisers.—We propose
hereafter to verv carefully investigate our
advertisers. We shall exercise every care to
allow only reliable parties to use our col
ainns.
obituaries.—One hundred words free of
aharge. 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 achange give
the old as well as the new add reas. The date
of label Indicates the time your subscription
sxplres. If vou do not wish It continued, or
4er It stopped a week before. We consider
tach 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.
The Baptists of England In the Sev
enteenth Century.
BY A. B. VAUGHAN, JR.
Os the early settlers in New
England Benedict wrote: “The
first settlers of New England
knew, by what they had seen at
home, the danger of Puritans
running into Anabaptism; or to
speak correctly, their disposition
to revive in its apostolic purity
the ordinance of baptism: they
therefore continually made use
of every precaution to hush all
inquiries, and to close every
avenue of light upon the subject.”
—Hist, of Baptists, page 355.
“At home” here means Eng
land, whence these settlers came.
They had then in England seen
the Anabaptists “revive” among
Puritans “the ordinance of bap
tism to its apostolic purity. No
one will hardly have the temerity
to say that David Benedict would
consider the ordinance of bap
tism restored to its apostolic
purity with the immersion of be
lievers left out.
In the year 1882 Bryan, Tay
lor & Co., publishers, called
upon Dr. Thomas Armitage to
undertake the task of preparing
a history of the Baptists more
comprehensive than any at that
time extant in this country. The
learned author at first declined,
but was finally pre'-ailed upon to
undertake the woik, which was
duly issued from the press.
Os his fitness for writing a Bap
tist history, Dr. J. L. M. Curry
says in his introduction to the
work: “Hisbirth, education, re
ligious experience, connection
with England and the United
States, habits of investigation,
scholarly tastes and attainments
and mental independence, fit him
peculiarly for ascertaining hid
den facts and pushing principles
to their logical conclusion. ”
Dr. Cathcart in the Baptist Ed
cyclopedia says of him: “Dr.
Armitage is a scholarly man,
full of information, with a pow
erful intellect; one of the greatest
preachers in the United States;
regarded by many as the fore
most man in the American pul
pit.”
The testimony of these emi
nent men is here inserted that
no one may be tempted to con
sider Dr. Armitage as an unen
lightened historian. We shall
be glad then to know what he
says of the Baptists of England
in the seventeenth century.
arguments answered.
The argument has b.een made
that prior to 1641 the Baptist
people of England were not in
the practice of immersion, based
on the fact that their enemies ap
plied to it such names as a “new
crochet,” a “novelty,” a “new
leaven,” etc., etc. Dr. Whitsitt
himself makes this argument.
In his second article to the New
York Independent he quotes
Baillie as saying: “The press
ing of dipping and exploding of
sprinkling is but an yesterday
conceit of the English Baptists.”
After quoting Baillie at some
length to the effect that the Ana
baptists both in England and on
the Continent practiced sprink
ling for baptism, Dr. Whitsitt
remarks: “Were these pointed
and distinct statements denied or
questioned by the Baptists of
England in the year 1646? Not
at all. That labor was reserved
for their descendants, who had
fallen into ignorance with regard
to Baptist history.” Italics mine.
The doctor next introduces
Daniel Featley who calls immer
sion among the Anabaptists, “a
new leaven;” and then Ephraim
Pagitt, who, in speaking of the
ordinance of the “plunged Ana
baptists,” calls it a “new crochet.”
In his article to the Religious
Herald, written sixteen years
afterwards, Dr. Whitsittextracts
from Dexter’s book, what pur
ports to be the sentiments of
Praise God Barebones, another
enemy of the Baptists, who
writes of them and the ordi
nances administered by them.in
THE CHRIST LAN INDEX.
the same strain as Baillie, Feat
ley and Pagitt. After giving
several paragraphs of Barebones’
writing, Dr. Whitsitt remarks:
“The above citation shows that
in 1642 immersion had just now
been revived’’—that is in Eng
land. Italics mine.
To this argument Dr. Armitage
makes this telling reply: “The
Baptists were assailed for at
tempting to restore the ancient
state of things as if they had
committed an unheard of crime;
and but for the history and liter
ature of many centuries, the clam
or might lead to the supposition
that izninersiore had never been
heard of until they sought to re
store the normal English bap
tism. They were called a ‘new
washed company,’ were charged
with bringing in a ‘new dipping,’
a ‘novelty,’ and ‘an invention,’
with ‘being led away of the
devil,’with ‘murdering the souls
of babes,’ and a few other things
of the same gracious sort. Bigot
ry and hate could not have raised
a greater howl if immersion had
then been practiced on English
soil for the jirst time. And yet even
Dr Featley is compelled to say in
his ‘Claris Mystica,’ 1636: ‘Our
font is always open, or ready to
be opened, and the minister at
tends to receive the children of
the faithful, and to dip them in
the sacred laver.’ ” Italics mine.
Continuing Dr. Armitage says:
“Even in our day an attempt
has been made to leave the onus
of invention upon the English
Baptists in the matter of immer
sion, because the simple-hearted
Barbour happened to say in 1642,
‘that the Lord had raised him up
to divulge the doctrine of dip
ping.’ Yet his entire treatise
discusses the question: ‘What is
the true ordinance of thedipping
of Christ, and wherein does it
differ from children’s dipping?’
In the very sentence which
speaks of divulging the doctrine,
he says, that it ‘was received by
the apostles and primitive
churches, and for a longtime un
avoidably kept and practiced by
the ministry of the Gospel in the
planting of the first churches.’
The word ‘divulge’ was not con
fined at that time to the sense of
disclosing or discovering a thing as
now, but meant primarily to pub
lish. Page 142. Italics mine.
Had Dr. Armitage read the
articles in the New York Inde
pegdent? If so, little did he think
that the attempt was made by so
trusted a brother as Dr. Whitsitt.
Manifestly he had read Henry
Martyn Dexter’s book, and it is
quite evident that the learned
Armitage did hot rely on him so
implicitly as the learned presi
dent of our Theological Seminary.
After quoting “the Kiflin man
uscript,” mentioned by Crosby,
Dr. Whitsitt says: “Here is
Baptist evidence of incontestible
truthfulness which asserts that
our fathers had not revived the
practice of immersion before
1641, and that, so far as they
knew, no other people had re
vived it.” With reference to the
argument based on this manu
script Dr. Armitage says: “A
feeble but strained attempt has
been made to show that none of
the English Baptists practiced
immersion prior to 1641, from the
document mentioned by Crosby
in 1738, of which he remarks that
it was 'said to be written by Mr.
William Kiffin.’ Although this
manuscript was signed by fifty
three persons, it is evident that
its authorship was only guessed
at from the beginning-, it may or
may not have been written by
Kiffin.” Page 143. Italics mine.
When this discussion was first
sprung, many of us verily
thought that Dr. Whitsitt’s argu
ments were absolutely new, origi
nal; but a little reading has
served to show to some of us, at
least, that he has been following
in the beaten path of pedobaptist
authors, whose arguments have
been completely answered.
In his second article to the
New York Independent sixteen
years ago, a few years before
Armitage began the task of writ
ing his history of the Baptists,
Dr. Whitsitt, quoting Dr. Feat
ley, says; “Again, Dr. Daniel
Featley, in the ‘Dippers Dipt,
which was published on the
tenth of January 1645, has a re
view of the Baptist confession of
1644, wherein remarking upon
article 40, which requires ‘dip
ping or plunging the body under
water,’ asserts distinctly that
this was a ‘new leaven.’” Where
upon Dr. Whitsitt proceeds as if
he w’erenota Baptist (and indeed
no one suspected the author of
the article to be a Baptist): “It
has been the custom of Baptist
historians” —who was Dr. Whit
sitt then pray?—“to break the
force of this testimony by affirm
ing that Featley was a prejudiced
witness. That charge may be
just; but nobody affirms that he
told falsehoods with regard to
well known contemporary events
in which it would be easy for the
most careless observer to convict
him of error.”
(SUBSCRIPTION, I
ITO MINISTERS, 1-00. I
How happens it that Dr. Whit
sitt, who would not suffer his
brethren to be put at disad
vantage, when quoting Featley’s
“assertion” that “the dipping or
plunging the body under water
was a new leaven,” did not also
quote this same Featley in his
‘Clavis Mystica,’ in which he
says: “Our font is always open
or ready to be opened, and the
minister attends to receive the
children of the faithful, and to
dip them in the sacred laver?”
You w’ill observe this was
written in 1636; but his “Review
of the Baptist Confession” was
in 1645, nine years later. In the
first he says “the minister,” that
is of the English church, “at
tends to receive the children of
the faithful; and to dip them in
the sacred laver;” in the second
he calls the immersion practiced
by the Anabaptists a “new 7
leaven.” Andlbecause, forsooth,
Dr. Daniel Featley said that “the
dipping or plunging the body
underwater ’ was a “newleaven,”
Dr. Whitsitt would have us on
this ground believe that “the
Baptist people of England were
not in the practice of immersion
prior to 1641.” Moreover Dr.
Whitsitt at least implies that
Baptist authors, unable to meet
Featley’s argument with facts,
have attempted to break its force
by an appeal to prejudice. And
this he does too under the edito
rial “we” of the New York bide
pendent.
Had the learned and honored
president of our Theological
Seminary, like the equally
learned and honored Armitage,
given to his readers this bit of
information, they had been more
competentjudges of Dr. Featley’s
fitt ess as an instructor with re
gard to the faith and practice of
the hated Anabaptists. Had Dr.
Whitsitt taken the time and
pains to put before his readers
the distinct assertions of Dr.
Daniel Featley, as found here
and there in his works, his Bap
tist brethren need not rely so
much on the appeal to prejudice
“to break the force” of Featley’s
logic when seeking to heap con
tempt on the ordinance of the
Lord’s house, when administered
by the Anabaptists.
In 1644, he said that for more
than twenty years he had observed
near his own residence immersion
practiced by these despised peo
ple. And yet the man who had
witnessed before li>24, immersion
as performed in England by the
Baptists,is made to bear witness,
and that too by a Baptist histo
rian, against such practice; and
the evidence with telling force is
wrapt up in the never forgotten
words, it is a “new leaven,” and
the Baptists of England did not
attempt to deny or question
“these pointed and distinct state
ments.”
A carefut study of what the
enemies of the Baptists said in
regard to this ordinance as admin
istered by them, I am thorough
ly convinced, shows that the terms
of derision used by these enemies
refer not to the act of baptism;
but both Churchman-and Puritan,
scorning the idea of such poor,
despised, unlearned folks as
were the Anabaptists, presuming
to perform in creek and river, in
pool and lake, what had already
been performed (in many in
stances on the same subjects) in
the “sacred laver” and by sacer
dotal hands, called such baptism
a “new leaven,” etc.
Baptism, as administered by
the Anabaptists, was, indeed,
“new” to the blinded priest and
prelate, who vainly considered
themselves the specially favored
of the Lord, and who by divine
right, having a monopoly
of the Lord’s house and ordi
nance, could exclude others from
such privileges.
Since writing the above I see
from the able article of Dr.
Christian in last week’s Western
Recorder,that my view is entirely
correct. He has clearly shown
from original sources that it was
the “rebaptism,” and not the act
of baptism which was “new.”
He has also demonstrated with
great clearness and abundant
proof that Dr. Whitsitt has all
too unsuspectingly and implicitly
followed Dr. Dexter. That Dex
ter has misstated and misrepre
sented the author by whom he
seeks to prove that immersion is
of comparatively recent origin
among the Baptists, Dr. Chris
tian has proven beyond question.
Praise God Barebones, a bitter
enemy of the Baptists in the
seventeenth century, fails Dex
ter’s purpose, until his words are
garbled.
That the act of baptism was no
point in dispute between the
Anabaptists and Pedobaptists at
that time, Dr. Armitage, as well
as Dr.iSchaff, shows. Says Armi
tage: “There was no sharp con
troversy in the earliest literature
of the Anabaptists on the method
of baptism, although we have
some clear definitions of baptism
and some cases of immersion.
But as a rule, in the maintenance
ATLANTA, GA., THURSDAY. AUGUST 13. 1896.
of baptism on a personal trust in
Christ, they said little of immer
sion, until they saw it vanishing
away before human authority,
even in England, where it had
maintained itself so long. Step
by step the reformation in Eng
land was feeling its way first to
the naked and radical question:
Who shall compose the church of
Christ? The Roman yoke was
broken, but in their efforts to rid
the nation of superstition, the
Protestants were divided.
“The Puritans were still in
the State church and many of
them wished to stay there;but the
Baptists took the ground that the
pale of the Gospel church could
never be measured by the bounda
ries of a nation. The church
must be made up only of Chris
tians, and the settlement of that
question must radically change
the British constitution. The
consequence was that they threw
themselves first into the recov
ery of a purely spiritual church,
and then into the restoration of
apostolic immersion.” Again Dr.
Armitage says: “In the absence
of definition, the inference would
be warranted, that their adminis
tration of the rite of baptism cor
responded to that which they
saw in the State church; for
their chief controversy with their
brethren at that time did not re
late to the mode; but to the subject
of baptism. Their important
word was not how; but to whom
shou’d baptism be administered.”
Italics mine.
This question having been
thrust upon the Baptists, nothing
short of a full and untrammelled
discussion of the subject will be
at all satisfactory. All the
knowledge of Baptist history is
not confined to one city, or one
State, much less to one man.
And Dr. Carter Helm Jones may
with propriety publicly declare
himself a convert io Dr. Whit
sitt’s views; Baptist associations
may, if they choose, with equal
propriety declare on which side
the question they stand, from
having read or heard Baptist his
tory, written, not by Featley and
Pagitt,Baillie and Barebones; but
by Irency and Jones and Backus,
and Benedict, and Underhill and
Cramp and Armitage. And no
amount of fun-making of Asso
ciations in Arkansas, or else
where, by the Religious Herald
for so declaring, will help the
matter at all
A thorough discussion of this
question will soon begin in the
columns of the Index, and for
that discussion many are anx
iously waiting.
For the interest that I have
felt and manifested concerning
it, I have no apologies to make.
To my mind Dr. Whitsitt will
have to produce evidence from
sources as yet unnoticed by him,
evidence unimpeached and unim
peachable, else I shall always
believe him to be in error no less
in regard to the facts themselves,
than in the manner of his dis
closing them.
Uncertainties in Choosing; a Pastor.
BY D. W. GWIN.
Dr. Jeter once reverently but
facetiously remarl ed: “No one
but God could tell who would be
the choice of a church for pas •
tor.” The primary question is,
“ Do our churches daily place
their pastorates in God’s hands?
Do they make it a habit to ask
his counsel, not only in choosing,
but in supporting the pastor? ”
It is not to the gush of a casual
petition, but it is to the habit, the
state of prayerfulness, that God
promises his answer. Daily
bearing your pastor on the wings
of prayer fits you for praying
God to aid you in selecting an
other pastor when a vacancy has
occurred.
Another question is, “Do the
church and the pastor mutually
suit each other? ” This is a hard
question. Experience only can
give the right answer. Show
how a church looks upon and
deals with its pastor—bow the
stronger treats the weaker in any
relation, for instance, how the
husband treats his wife—and you
have the key which unlocks the
situation. A gallant, generous,
gentlemanly husband, controlled
by wisdom and grace, can make
the sweetest union with his wife
—she cannot but prove herself
loving and faithful.
A final question: “Is the su
preme motive in this union the
glory of God through conscious
obedience to his will?” Conse
crated lives fix the history of a
church. The few, cl ear-sounding
vowels frame into words the con
sonants. The celebrated organ
at Strasburg has a “stop” called
“the Wolfe stop,” which makes
no note, but by itself is discor
dant. “Strange that the Master
maker put such a stop in such a
magnificent instrument?” No;
when the note stops are doing
their full work, then the Wolfe
stop adds volume and power to the
whole. Our Divine Master so
orders that every note of discord,
every wolf(e) stop, shall in some
way be held in check and even
made to contribute to his praise.
I do not wish to dwell on the un
pleasant factors entering into
the choice of a pastor —these are
well known and everywhere
talked over. On the human
side, how many very little things,
unfair things, sometimes untrue
things caprices, criticisms,
rumors, prejudicesand the like—
go to decide the fate of ministers
when this pastoral question is
under consideration. Preachers
who ha v e no idea of going to a
given place are discussed, often
injured,bysuch whims and preju
dices as are but the reflection of
some diseased minds with whom
the church and the pastor-elect are
to be hopelessly afflicted. Irre
sponsible busybodies at home
and abroad in this way often hold
the balance of power.
The partners in any relation,
above all in the pastorate, should
be as nearly equal in moral worth
as possible. Should the pastor
be consecrated, social in Chris
tian visitation, faithful in every
good work, “no brawler,” back
biter or grumbler? So also
should the members of the
church. Devotion must be re
ciprocal, and helpfulness as well.
If the husband demands a spot
less character of the wife, should
not he present her with like char
acter? When each is sincerely
struggling for the “best gifts,”
then will the sympathy of pa
tience and forbearance protect
the foibles, confirm the strength,
and seek the success of the
parties to this sacred union.
Neither will suffer the infirmities
of the other to come under the
asp tongue of the envious or
thoughtless. Let each work as
“under the eye of the Great Task
master.” Let each ceaselessly
strengthen, by true and tried
character, that confidence which
leaps into a “love that thinketh
no evil, imputeth not iniquity,”
and which love coins itself into
an unsuspecting, sincere, hallow
ing union in the service of our
“Lord Christ.”
The writer blesses God for the
uniform “fellowship of saints”
which has been his pastoral heri
tage.
The Falling Off in Missions.
BY C. W. PRUITT.
This falling off in interest, or
at least in contributions, has
been going on for some years and
contrasts strongly with the state
of affairs some ten to fifteen
years ago. Then we naturally
looked for and realized a steady
growth in the number of mission
aries and a steady enlargement
of the territory occupied. Let
no one imagine that more than
the merest outskirts of any
heathen field have been occupied
by Southern Baptists. In the
face of this expected enlarge
ment and this fearfully realized
need, there came a time when our
appeals for reinforcements must
be neglected in Richmond, for the
very good reason that the en
largement of contributions had
practically ceased. Later still
it has been necessary for the
Board to deny most pressing ap
plications from us for money for
work on the field. I know this
last has been very hard for them
to do —as hard for them as for
us. But they have been compell
ed to take seriously the falling
off in contributions.
What does it all mean? Have
we reached the limits of the com
mission? With a world still in
heathenism, are we ready to say
that we have done all our Lord
commanded? Dr. Pierson speaks
of two universals in missions—the
duty of a/Z Christians to go (or
send), and the duty to go to all of
earth’s lost ones. We need to
read our Bibles afresh and try
to realize in our hearts the com
prehensiveness of the plans of
that most loving heart that earth
has ever known. If we could
always remember that the com
mission includes in its ample em
brace every believer and every
unbeliever, our hearts would re
spond with larger gifts.
This commission has not lost
its force, its conditions have not
been fulfilled. This fact is ap
parent and ought to be motive
enough. You and I, my brother,
may still have the glorious priv
ilege of taking part in the fulfill
ment.
The question recurs again,
What is the matter? It has been
suggested that possibly certain
adverse criticisms in the secular
and religious press may be the
cause of the loss of interest. It
would be folly to deny truth to
these criticisms in some particu
lars. There are tremendous dif
ficulties connected with missions,
which would not be wholly re
moved were our critics them
selves engaged in the work. I
never expect to see the day when
we will not be vulnerable. But
is it reasonable to stop the work,
or even the very least part of it,
because missions are imperfect,
or because plans may not be felt
to be the very wisest? What
family would suspend operations
for a season because,forsooth, the
children were a little naughty or
because the parents failed to see
exactly alike on every point of
family economy? Our Lord ex
pects us to do the work,
and the whole work, and to
do it continually until he comes.
We are to go on with the work
even while we are attending to
the readjustment of little details
that may have gone wrong.
With all her mistakes, I love my
church. With all her ineffec
tiveness, I love this cause.
But are missions ineffective?
I am sure that if I had Georgia
Baptists, a few at a time, here io
my home, I could convince them
that our work has been glorious
ly effective. Only ninety years
ago this empire was closed to
the gospel, the first missionary
who came hardly being allowed
to even live in the country.
Since then the changes have been
enormous. The whole temper
of this great nation has been so
changed that now there are few
places in all the land where the
missionary may not live, and in
many he is positively welcomed.
This is a stupendous effect
of missions. This is an effect
which our critics might easily
fail to realize. War correspond
ents are not supposed to go into
matters of history to any very
great extent. It is notorious
that our severest critics out here
are the men who know 7 least
about us. If the echo of these
criticisms should reach the
American shores, I beg our
brethren not to be moved by
them.
Another effect which our crit
ics are not likely to take into con
sideration, is the amount of
knowledge of Christianity actual
ly communicated by the mission
aries to the Chinese race. This
is a factor that will make itself
felt some day. There is no com
plete knowledge anyw’here, but
there are the rudiments of knowl
edge everywhere. Paul and the
other apostles found this rudi
mentary knowledge already ex
istent wherever they went. Here
in lies a great di Here nee between
our work and theirs.
The Bible has been translated.
Christian hymns and other
works of devotion and instruc
tion have been translated and
Written’ by the thousands. The
best results of science have been
rendered into the Chinese lan
guage largely by the agency of
missionaries. Missionaries have
been widely helpful to merchants
and travelers. They have given,
at great pains, a knowledge of
other countries, thus preparing
the way for international rela
tions. These are all useful and
brotherly, but not the direct
work of the messenger of the
gospel. In his direct work, I
mean the appeal to human hearts
to believe on the Savior, the mis
sionaries in this land, to say
nothing of other countries, have
been very successful. The Lord
has blessed our labors and we re
joice. We greatly desire that
the saved should be far more nu
merous, but no one can say we
have not had success,if he knows
anything about it.
In a fast age we get impatient
for results. Or else we fail to
realize the tremendous odds the
missionary to a heathen land
must contend with.
Brethren of Georgia, I left you
to buckle on the armor and gird
on the sword for another cam
paign against sin and against
heathenism. Our glorious Chris
tianity is priceless and demands
the most arduous labor and the
most costly sacrifices. Let us fill
the world with the light of his
coming.
Hwanghien, June 10, 1896.
We heard a man the other day
decline to subscribe fifty dollars
to a deserving charity because
he must meet his debts first,
debts amounting to fifteen or
twenty thousand dollars. But
knowing, as we did, that he bad
just incurred that debt by the
purchase of bank stocks, paying
double the rate his loan cost him,
we knew that he mistook hypoc
risy for honesty. The richest
men nowadays are always “in
debt,” for the simple reason they
are the largest users of capital
and can make more out of money
than the real owners. But when
a man pleads such investments
as an excuse from alms, he is
making himself loathed instead
of admired. The fellow claims
to be paying his debts while he
is simply making investments.
He can hardly deceive himself;
certainly he deceives nobody else.
“It is hard,” said Mr. Beecher,
“to be a saint in a golden niche.”
But Jesus said that the man who
could not use this world’s treas
ures with honor and a good con
science, w 7 ould never be trusted
with the “true riches” of
heaven’s greater possibilities. —
The Interior.
VOL 76-NO. 33
For the Ind
Reminiscences of Georgia Baptists.
BY S. G. HILLYER.
In compliance with .the re
quest of our respected edi
tors of the Index, I have
agreed to suspend for a short
time my weekly notices of
the Sunday-school lessons, and
to furnish in their stead some
reminiscences of the earlier
years of the present century.
The people of Georgia were
from their first settlement en
gaged for the most part in agri
culture, and forthat reason the
great majority of them made
their homes in the country.
The population of the State in
1820 was estimated at about 300,-
DOO, exclusive of the Creek and
Cherokee Indians, who at that
time occupied a large portion of
the territory within the limits of
Georgia.
In the midst of these country
homes, scattered here and there,
were Baptist churches. The
ministers who supplied them
were generally farmers, like
lheir neighbors. They relied
chiefly upon the produce of their
farms for the support of their
families. Let us glance briefly
at the status of our people at
that early day.
THEIR CULTURE.
In the rural settlements there
was very little opportunity for
education. Outside of the small
towns that were built up around
the court houses in the several
counties, the “old field school”
was almost the only seminary of
learning to which the boys and
girls of the neighborhood bad
access. The curriculum of those
schools was often no more than
Webster’s blue spelling book,
Pike’s arithmetic or the Federal
calculator, and daily exercises in
penmanship. Such was the edu
cation to which the masses of the
country people of that day were,
for the most part, limited. And
of course the members of the
churches were no better pro
vided for than the people gen
erally. But they learned to read,
to write and to “cipher.” And
so far as church members were
concerned, many of them became
close readers of the Bible.
The Bible was to those earnest
souls a life-time text-book. They
had no better sense, in their per
fect exemption from any in
fluence of the so-called “ higher
criticism,” than to accept its
teachings as divine truth; and it
made them wise unto salvation.
They loved the Bible.
THEIR ORTHODOXY.
The early Baptists of Geor
gia were sound in the faith. I
can remember how clearly many
of those plain people seemed to
understand the doctrines of grace.
They believed that Jesus had a
people, secured to him by the gift
of the Father, whose salvation is
assured. They believed in the final
preservation of the saints, in the
necessity of the new birth ac
companied with repentance and
faith.as essential prerequisites of
baptism and of church member
ship. And they were content
with no other baptism than im
mersion.
I do not mean to say that there
were no errors among them. It is
true, some did pervert the truth.
They endeavored, ivithout know
ing how to do it, to push some of
the truths which they held, to
their logical extent. The result
was the development, here and
there, of the spirit of antinomi
anism. And it is true this error
did for a time much harm. But
considering the disadvantages
under which the people lived in
the early decades of this century,
it is truly wonderful how Scrip
tural was the faith of the church
es. They may well be regarded
as, in a very great degree, a
homogeneous people.
THEIR FELLOWSHIP.
In those days church fellow
ship had a meaning. And be
cause it had a meaning it exerted
a visible influence upon the so
cial life of the churches. They
gave public expression of their
fellowship by calling one another
brother and sister. This sweet
token of fellowship has, in these
latter days, almost fallen into
disuse. It still lingers in gath
erings that are strictly religious,
and it is heard also among our
preachers; but it seems to have
become unfashionable in the
walks of social life. Os course
this is a small matter as a mere
mode of address; but its omission
may, nevertheless, indicate a de
cay of fellowship.
Another mode of expressing
their fellowship, 70 years ago,
was found in their fondness for
each other's company, and for
religious conversation. When
Christians met at each other’s
houses they talked about the Bi
ble —its precious promises and
its great salvation—and, then, of
their own experiences. 1 can re
call many a scene in early life