Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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