Newspaper Page Text
ESTABLISHED IS2I.
The Christian Index
Publisher Every Thursday
By BELL & VAN NESS
address Christian Index. Atlanta, Ga
Organ of the Baptist Denomination in
Georgia.
' SUBSORterroN Prick:
One copy, one year *2.00
One copy, six months LW>
About Our Advertisers.— Wo propose
hereafter to very carefully Investigate our
advertisers. We shall exerclseevery care to
allow only reliable parties to use our col
umns.
Obituaries.—One hundred words free of
charge. Kor 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
ol personalities, condense.
Business—Write all names, and post
Offlcesdistinctly. Inorderlngachange give
the old as well as the new address. The date
of label indicates the time your subscription
expires. If you do not wish It continued, or
der 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
Saved to Serve.
T. r. HOWLETT.
Saved to serve; lift up the cry;
Saved to serve, lest souls should die,
Not to loiter wete we called
But for action in this world;
As forme I’ll serve the Lord.
Leaning on his Holy Word.
Under Christ this scroll unfurled—
Jesus came to save the world
He was here as one that served
Lord of all. whocrowns deserved;
Hts example let us take.
Serving all for Jesus’ sake.
Sweet the service for us all.
Anywhere for Christ to toil.
Ina world where Jesus died.
There shell he be magnified;
Saved to serve, Lord would I be,
Since the Savior died for me
—The Commonwealth.
Faith.
Faith, in its religious sense, is
distinguished not only from
opinion (or belief founded on
reason alone), in that it contains
a spiritual element; it is further
distinguished from belief founded
on the affections, by needing an
active co-operation of the will.
Thus all parts of the human
mind have to be involved in
faith—intellect, emotions, will.
We “believe” in the theory of
evolution on grounds of reason
alone; we “believe” in the affec
tion of our parents, children,
ere., almost (or it may be ex
clusively) on what I have called
spiritual grounds—i. e. on
grounds of spiritual experience;
for this we need no exercise
znther of reason of of- will But
no one can “believe” in God, or a
fortiori in Christ, without also a
severe effort of will. This I hold
to be a matter of fact, whether or
not there be a God or a Christ
Observe, will is to be dis
tinguished from desire. It mat
ters not what psychologists may
have to say upon this subject.
Whether desire differs from will
in kind or only in degree—
whether will is desire in action,
so to speak, and desire but in
cipient will—are questions with
which we need not trouble our
selves. For it is certain that
there are agnostics who would
greatly prefer being theists, and
theists who would give all they
possess to be Christians, if they
could thus secure promotion by
purchase—i. e., by one single act
of will. But yet the desire is
not strong enough to sustain the
will in perpetual action, so as to
make the continual sacrifices
which Christianity entails. Per
haps the hardest of these sacri
flees to an intelligent man is that
to his own intellect. At least I
am certain that this is so in my
own case. I have been so long
accustomed to constitute my
reason my sole judge of truth,
that even while reason itself tells
me it is not unreasonable to ex
pect that the heart and the will
should be required to join with
reason in seeking God (for re
ligion is for the whole man), I am
too jealous of my reason to exer
else my will in the direction of
my most heart felt desires. For
assuredly the strongest desire of
my nature is to find that that na
ture is not deceived in its high
est aspirations. Yet I cannot
bring myself so much as to make
a venture in the direction of
faith. For instance, regarded
from one point of view, it seems
reasonable enough that Chris
tianity should have enjoined the
doing of the doctrine as a neces
sary condition to ascertaining
(i. e. ‘ believing”) its tiuth. But
from another, and my more
habitual point of view, it seems
almost an affront to reason to
make any such “fool’s experi
ment” —just as to some scientific
men it seems absurd and childish
to expect them to investigate the
“superstitious” follies of modern
spiritualism. Even the simplest
act of will in regard to religion
—that of prayer—has not been
performed by me for at least a
quarter of a century, simply bo
cause it has seemed so impossible
to pray, as it were, hypotheti
cally, that much as I have al
ways desired to be able to pray,
I cannot will the attempt. To
justify myself for what my bet
ter judgment has often seen to be
essentially irrational, I have ever
THE CHRISTIAN INDEX.
*
ISUBSCRIPt.% ~ hiYin.-.t2.00. I
ITO MINISTKhA, 1.00.1
made sundry excuses. The
chief of them has run thus:
Even supposing Christianity
true, and even supposing that
after having so far sacrificed my
reason to my desire as to have
satisfied the supposed conditions
toobtaining “grace” or direct il
lumination from God —even then
would not my reason turn round
and revenge herself upon me?
For surely even then my habitual
scepticism would make me say to
myself—“this is all very sublime
and very comforting; but what
evidence have you to give me
that the whole business is any
thing more than self delusion?
The wish was probably father to
the thought, and you might much
better have performed your ‘act
of will’ by going in for a course
of Indian hemp.” Os course a
Christian would answer to this
that the internal light would not
admit of such doubt, any more
than seeing the sun does—that
God knows us well enough to
prevent that, etc,, and also that
it is unreasonable not to try an
experiment lest the result should
prove too good to be credible and
so on. And Ido not dispute that
the Christian would be justified
in so answering, but I only ad
duce the matter as an illustra
tion of the difficulty which is ex
perienced in conforming to all
the conditions of attaining to
Christian faith—even supposing
it to be sound. Others have
doubtless other difficulties, but
mire is chiefly, I think, that of
an undue regard to reason, as
against heart and will —undue, I
mean, if so it be that Christianity
is true, and the conditions to
faith in it have been of divine or
di nation.
This influence of will on belief,
even in matters secular, is the
more pronounced the further re
moved these matters may be
from demonstration (as already
remarked); but this is most of all
the case where our personal in
terests are affected—whether
these be material or intellectual,
such as credit for consistency,
etikj See, for example, how
closely, in the respects we are
considering, political beliefs re
semble religious. Unless the
points of difference are such that
truth is virtually demonstrable
on one side, so that adhesion to
the opposite is due to conscious
sacrifice of integrity to expedi
ency, we always find that party
spectacles so color the view as
to leave reason at the mercy of
will, custom, interest, and all the
other circumstances which simi
larly operate on religious beliefs.
It seems to make buu little differ
ence in either case what level of
general education, mental power,
special training, etc., is brought
to bear upon the question under
judgment. From ihe premier to
the peasant we ti:id the same dif
ference of opinion in politics as
we do in religion. And in each
case the explanation is the same.
Beliefs are so little dependent on
reason alone that in such re
gions of thought—i. e., where
personal interests are affected
and the evidences of truth are
not in their nature demoi strable
—it really seems as if reason
ceases to be a judge of evidence
or guide to truth, and becomes a
mere advocate of opinion already
formed on quite other grounds.
Now these other grounds are, as
we have seen, mainly the acci
dents of habits or custom, wish
being father to the thought, etc.
Now this may be all deplorable
enough in politics, and in all
other beliefs secular; but who
shall say it is not exactly as it
ought to be in the matter of be
liefs religious? For, unless we
beg the question of a future life
in the negative, we must enter
tain at least the possibility of our
being in a state of probation in
respect of an honest use not only
of our reason, but probably still
more of those other ingredients
of human nature which go to de
termine our beliefs touching this
most important of all matters.
It is remarkable how even in
politics it is the moral and
spiritual elements of character
which lead to success in the long
run, even more than intellectual
ability —supposing, of course,
that the latter is not below the
somewhat high level of our par
liamentary assemblies.
As regards the part that is
played by will in the determining
of belief, one can show how un
consciously large this is even in
matters of secular interest.
Reason is very far indeed from
being the sole guide of judgment
that it is usually taken to be—so
far, indeed, that, save in matters
approaching down right demon
stration where (of course there
is no room for any other ingre
dient) it is usually hampered by
custom, prejudice, dislike, etc.,
to a degree that would astonish
the most sober philosopher could
he lay bare to himself all the
mental processes whereby the
complex act of assent or dis
sentjis eventually determined. —
Thoughts on Religion—Romanes.
For the Index.
The Wnltsitt Matter Solved
BY WM. H. YOUNG, OF ATHENS.
I suppose it is mean to do it,
but I must expose this whole
business. And you editors
couldn’t solve it! Where so many
were at sea you couldn’t see!
Well! But then you haven’t been
editors long enough to “know it
all” yet. When you have en-
Georgia-selves longer you will
doubtless have everything In
dened.
It was a puzzle to me. all this
confusion about 1641 Baptists be
ing sprinkled in the British Mu
seum, and Roger Williams be
coming a Yankee inventor! They
didn’t teach it where I went to
school; and when I spent several
weeks in that Museum King
George was said to be dead, and
so I spent most of my time in the
Egyptian room trying to read
those funny-form inscriptions.
Not straws, but papers, show
which way the wind blows now,
so I watched this sigh clone.
Amidst the dust, and pebbles,and
splinters, I kept my eyes open a
bit to see whether it was blowing
great guns.
I failed to notice any acknowl
edged church historians take part
on either side of this discussion;
it seemed to be a scrimmage pe
culiar to the editois, and to pas
tors about my size.
At one time I thought the ex
planation of this condition of the
controversy was revealed—that
it was parallel with the case of a
Catholic girl reported to the
Bishop because she blundered in
her catechism, by defining the
Sacrament of Matrimony with the
answer for Purgatory. The Bish
op, however, said, “Let her
alone, she may be right for all
we know.”
For awhile this satisfied me;
it explained why the learned pro
fessors kept silent; and also ac
counted for the extreme haste of
those who were creating this hot
spell; in both cases they were
afraid Dr. Whitsitt might be
right, and acted accordingly.
Then it seemed to me that this
was an eruption of bad blood in
our overgrown denomination
which needed a keen lance such
as made some other “Christians”
wince y.ears igo
But now it is all clearly solved
There will be no need to send
some ram avis from Texas to Car
roll about Christmas time in the
city of Dickens.
Sometimes what is hidden from
the wise and prudent is revealed
to a young preacher; and this is
not a case either where Vaughan
ted ambition has overleaped it
self and fallen on the other side.
It beats the Yankees—not only
in showing up the wooden nut
meg in old Roger’s baptismal pre
tensions —but this whole scheme
is a master-stroke by a monster
Seminary. Now for the expos
ure.
Our Seminary should have been
satisfied with its unparalleled
success both in scholarship and
scholars. Rival institutions were
compelled to resort to various
patents simply to stop the leaks
in attendance, while ours had to
build a natatorium toaccommo
date the rising tide.
Educators have ambitions far
beyond the class room, and la ely
have been trying various inven
tions for simplifying education.
Perhaps the most popular is the
University Extension patent, by
which “scholars” are turned out
by the thousand.
But Dr. Whitsitt has discovered
the Royal Road to Learning; and
it works. University Extension
demands an experienced lecturer,
some fees, pencil and paper, and
some brains to complete a schol
ar, and after all this he is only a
scbolarette.
Higher criticism, invented by a
brace of rivals, makes scholars,
but it requires a knowledge of
the Hebrew alphabet, which may
take an hour or so, and ones own
alphabet down to the letter “J.”
But Dr. Whitsitt’s invention
makes SCHOLARS without any
study, or brains, the entire cost
being for pens, paper, and
postage, and a big scent.
Was anything in the history of
pedagogics so simple and withal
so effective? Write to some
paper about this “historical
blunder,” especially if you can
create some personalities, and
display the vocabulary of vituper
ation,when, behold, you are all at
once A RECOGNIZED SCHOLAR!
No need now to wear a silk hat
to be a D. D.
Why did I waste years in study
at home and abroad, and now my
box full of diplomas bring me no
reverence! This little cost me a
great sum, but now one can be
free born.
I see it all; and 1 believe many
others have seen it all the time
but would not “give it away.” It
seems to me we ought to stop the
dogs of war when we understand
the marvelous invention in mod-
ATLANTA, GA., THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 3. 1896.
ern educational processes discov
ered and so successfully tested
by Dr. Whitsitt. He is educating
the hundreds who go to the
Seminary and opening the way
to a supreme scholarship to the
thousands of us little youngsters
who would otherwise be doomed
to obscurity. Let him have all
the credit due to this discovery.
So, if there are any vacancies, 1
want a chance to criticise Dr.
Whitsitt and be listed as a
scholar.
The Side Lights on Baptism A
Boid Position.
BY L. S. FOSTER.
In reply to the oft-repeated
question of pedobaptists: “If
baptism is not essential to salva
tion why be so scrupulous about
having it always consist in im
mersion? Why stickle for one
invariable act?” Baptists are
accustomed to reply: “Because
it is commanded ßut in travel
ing over our State I have found
one strenuous Baptist who to
use an inelegant but expressive
phrase —“ takes the bull by the
horns,” and says baptism ises
sential to salvation. Here is his
reasoning reduced to a syllogism:
(1) Baptism is essential to obe
dience, and (2) obedience is es
sential to salvation, therefore (3)
baptism is essential to salvation.
That seems to him to be irresisti
ble logic. But there is a lurking
fallacy which vitiates the con
clusion. The term “obedience”
is ambiguous. If it meins obe
dience to the smaller commands
of Christ, of which he speaks in
Matt 5:19, then it is not essential
to salvation, for many godly and
pious men, because of early ed
ucation and other influences, may
break some of the least of Christ’s
commandments indeed, who
keeps them all?—and still be in
the kingdom of heaven, though
“called least.” But if it means
obedience to the fundamental re
quirements of the Gospel, re
pentance, faith,’ regeneration,
recognition of the inerrancy of
the Scriptures, the divinity of
Christ, and other great doctrines
of grace, then obedience is essen
tial to salvation. “Obedience”
has one of these meanings in the
first premise and the other in the
second premise. The Scriptures
dp not, dlbco as. one, of
these great and vital commands,
and hence it may be essential to
obedience and not essential to
salvation.
THREE INCIDENTS.
1. It was once my privilege to
share the hospitality of a highly
cultured Episcopal school teacher
in this State. He was one of the
most accomplished Greek schol
ars I ever met. He said, in con
versation, knowing that I was a
Baptist preacher: “I unhesitat
ingly and most emphatically af
firm that baptizo means immerse
and nothing else; and that every
scholar who has any regard for
his scholarship or who has any
scholarship to care for, will as
sert the same thing. But the
trouble with me is that I believe
so strongly in apostolic succes
sion that I could not accept bap
tism from any one save an Epis
copal rector, and he would not
give it, as I was sprinkled in in
fancy.” This gentleman was re
strained from duty by a figment
of Rome.
2. I met with a lady once who
is a strong Presbyterian, but
candidly advised her children to
read the New Testament on the
questions of baptism and church
polity. Following her advice,
two of them, both noble young
men who thought out-things for
themselves, bad become Bap
tists. At the time of my ac.
quaintarce with her, the thi'd
son, about fifteen years of age,
had just had a conversation witn
her. He had been reading the
New Testament and said to her
one day : “Mother, I desired to
be a Presbyteiian with you, but
it seems very muchlikethis New
Testament is a Baptist book.”
She groaned and said in dismay:
“Is it possible that all my chil
dren are going to leave me and
become Baptists?” They were
simply following her advice to
read the New Testament. •
3. A prominent pastor now in
this State has a member whose
husband is a Methodist. They
have a bright, thoughtful little
girl about eight years of age,
who reads well and is very fond
of reading. Recently she has
been reading in the New Testa
ment. She has been taught by
her parents the distinction be
tween Baptist and Methodist
views on the subject of baptism.
Not long since she came to her
father and said: “Papa, 1 wish
you would show me in the Bible
where you Methodists get your
doctrine. I can find where mamma
gets her Baptist doctrine, but I
can’t find any Methodist doc
trine.” Who can? Her father
was very much impressed by the
fact that his little girl of eight
could find Baptist but no Metho-
dist doctrine in the New Testa
ment.
A MISTAKEN OPINION.
Once more. An earnest and
devout brother of my acquaint
ance, an old man, profoundly ac
quainted with the Bible, a stren
uous Baptist, never tires of say
ing that Baptist preachers
should never say a word about
any doctrine or practice not in
the Bible. Their business, he
says, is to preach what is in the
Bible and let everything else
alone. “Preach immersion and
let sprinkling and pouring alone;
they are not in the Bible, there
fore never stain your lips with a
mention of them.” I have a pro
found respect for this good
brother, esteem his piety highly,
and love him as a Christian. But
he is wrong. His principle is
right; we should confine our
selves to preaching Bible truth.
But the principle cannot be ad
hered to if we are never to men
tion anything outside of the Bi
ble. Christianity must be an
applied religion in every age if
it is to save souls. The science
of mathematics is useless unless
applied to the problems of every
day life. So Bible truth must be
applied to the state of opinion
rife to day on baptism, especially
as the American Bible Society is
now circulating a certain Greek
text in which baptizo has been
superseded by rantizo. The dif
ference between the Bible and a
large part of Christendom is not
as to whether immersion is bap
tism— all admit that—but it is as
to whether “anything else” is
also baptism. If you confine
yourself simply to preaching
that immersion is baptism you
do not fully bring out Bible truth
before the world. Others will
say: “I admit all that, but
sprinkling and pouring are also
baptism.” So to bring out what
the New Testament teaches as to
baptism it is necessary to show
that nothing else is baptism save
immersion, or, according to the
title of Dr. Broadus’ little tract,
“Immersion Essential to Chris
tian Baptism.”
There is abundant warrant in
the Bible itself for this applica
tion of religion to current prac
tice and opinion. John the Bap
tist applied truth to the adulter
ous conduct of Herod and lost
his head for it. Paul Athens
saw a heathen altar inscribed
to The unknown god, and took
that as a text to preach to the
Athenians the true God. To il
lustrate the truth he quoted in
that sermon from a heathen poet.
Many such instances might be
cited.
Senatobia, Miss.
Rev. W. L. Kilpatrick, D. D.
BY REV. J W. DOMINGOS, PASTOR
FIRST METHODIST CHURCH,
WAYCROSS, GA.
With your permission I would
like to say a word about the good
man whose name heads this pa
per. 1 have just read with in
terest the touching and appro
priate tribute by Col. J. J. Jones,
of Waynesboro, offered at a me
morial service held in the Bap
tist church of that place. rXlso
the resolutions passed by that
church.
While pastor of the Methodist
church in Waynesboro in 1893 4,
I came to know Dr. Kilpatrick
right well, and so admire and
love him much. I regarded him
a good and strong man. He was
large physically, mentally, and
spiritually. Indeed there was
nothing small in him. He had a
splendid education, and his mind
was well disciplined. He was
broad and liberal, but not latilu
dinarian. He was a true Baptist,
in “faith and order.” There was
no shallow water in his doctrine,
and there was nothing slack
twisted in his practice. But he
was catholic and charitable. He
could extend the right hand of
'‘Christian” fellowship to all
God’s children. I think he loved
all good people.
It was not my privilege to hear
him preach many times But my
judgment is that he was a strong
preacher. His style seemed to
be chiefly expository; and he was
a ciear and forceful expounder of
the Word. In the pulpit, he
taught the people the Word of
the Lord.
As a pastor I think you will
rarely find a better success than
he was. While he was a fine
preacher, it was as a pastor that
he seemed to excel. He had a
kind, loving heart, and every
member of his church seemed to
have a -/mansion” in it. He kept
himself well posted about his
churches, and knew what was go
ing on; and sought to keep all
the corners rounded up. He
seemed to keep up with every
member, and to know the state of
each. And if one of his Hock fell
sick, or had any trouble, some
how he found it out at once. And
if he could not reach them very
early in person, he would write
them and c unsel and conso’e
them. Hence he had a place in
the-heartsof all his members; and
he exerted a wonderful influence
over his churches. I think I
have never known a pastor who
could more gently nor more
thoroughly lead his flock than
he. Pastors in his denomination,
and in all denominations, would
do well to study his methodsand
profit by his example.
While always polite, kind, and
gentle—a perfect gentleman—he
had “the courage of his convic
tions;” and hence he had convic
tions. I suppose the cause ‘of
temperance and prohibition in
Georgia had no warmer friend
nor more ardent defender. When
the war between the liquor traffic
and prohibition was wagedin his
native county (Burke), where he
had some interests besides two
churches which he faithfully
served, he went at once to the
front of the battle, and stood
with Col. Jones and others in the
thickest of the fight, for “right
eousness, temperance, and pros
perity.” And they whipped the
fight; and in a second contest
about repealed the victory.
I could say more; but will not
intrude further. I will leave
other things to be better said by
those who knew him longer and
better than I. “Know ye not
that there is a prince and a great
man fallen this day in Israel?”
Your denomination, all de
nominations, and our com
mon country, suffer loss in
his death. And this prov
idence is particularly sad to the
churches which he served. They
have our sympathy. His place
will be hard to fill. But, “though
the workmen die the work goes
on ” The great head of the
church can raise up a successor.
He who made him can make more
like him.
Aug. 26, '96.
Pen Droppings
BY L. L. V.
The career of Dr. S. P. San
ford affords a striking illustra
tion of the fact that one may be
very useful and attain to much
distinction without any of that
pushing, selfish ambition which
some regard as essential to suc
cess. There has never lived a
finer specimen of the Christian
gentleman H a-npearnd ti-sost
him no effort to treat every one
with a kind, respectful courtesy.
To have known such an one de
serves to be ranked among the
most fortunate circumstances of
life.
His gentle kindness of manner
was very soothing to us when, as
an ignorant country boy, very
sore from the oft-repeated re
minding of his ignorance, we
first entered his recitation room
many years ago The love and
admiration which he then won
increased as the years moved on
and cur relations changed. To
us as a boy, all of that old facul
ty of Mercer seemed remarkable
men. Th° judgment of manhood
only strengthened this opinion.
Six men of such refined culture
and of such lofty, moral dignity
are not often gotten together. It
is no d iscou ragement to the others
to say that Dr. Sanford was fully
their equal in native ability and
in the extent of his acquaint
ance.
His life may be set down as
pre-eminently a success. It was,
too, a success that excited no
envy—aroused no antagonism.
Every one was ready to acknowl
edge that the honors that were
awarded him were most richly
merited. Not one of the hun
dreds of his pupils scattered
throughout all of our South but
felt a pleasure at knowing that
his last years were spent in dig
nified ease Everyone who sur
vives him would like to place a
wreath upon his grave and to
contribute some words to the vol
ume of his fame.
A Wide Difference —There
is a difference, and a wide one,
between practicing moral duties
and being a Christian. Chris
tianity is a religion of motives.
It substitutes an eternal motive
for an earthly one; it substitutes
the love of God for the love of
self. There may be, and are,
many persons who practice tem
perance and other virtues which
Christianity inculcates, but who
never think of doing so because
they are inculcated. It would
be as absurd to ascribe a knowl
edge of mechanics to savages be
cause they employ the lever, or
of the principles of astronomy to
brutes because in walking they
preserve the center of gravity,
as it is to call such persons
Christians. A Christian is one
whose motives are Christian
faith and Christian hope, and
who is, moreover, able to give a
reason of the hope that is in him.
—Archbishop Whateley.
God smiles with approval on
that church which enters into
his plans and purposes and de
votes itself to soul-saving.
VOL. 76--NO. 36
ForlheJNDtcx
Reminiscences of Georgia Baptists.
BY S. G. HILLYER, D.D.
In 1829 the Georgia Baptist
Convention met in Milledgeville.
It was my good fortune to be
present on that occasion, not,
however, as a delegate; for I was
not then even a church member.
Nevertheless it has ever been a
source of pleasure to me that I
had the opportunity of being
near that Convention—so signal
ized in the history of Georgia
Baptists.
I was, with many others, the
guest of Dr. Boykin—the father
of Rev. Samuel Boykin and his
bro'her, Rev. Thomas C. Boykin.
In Dr. Boykin’s house I had the
pleasure of meeting some of the
leading men of the Convention
and hearing them talk. Dr.
Sherwood and Dr. Mercer were
there. These I had known be
fore. In their tours of preach
ing through the State they had
sometimes been entertained at
our humble home. Another dis
tinguished man whom I met was
Rev. James Shannon, at that
time pastor of the Baptist church
in Augusta.
With the exception of these
three, I knew personally only
four or five of the delegates pres
ent.
The Convention held its ses
sions in the State Arsenal, while
preaching was provided for every
morning and night. By the
courtesy of the Methodist breth
ren, these services were held in
their meeting house, because it
could accommodate a larger au
dience than the Baptist house.
And it was also convenient to the
place where the Convention had
to meet. The congregations were
very large and the preaching was
excellent. Mr. Shannon and. Mr.
H. O. Wyer, from Savannah, es
pecially, made a profound im
pression upon the people. It
was difficult to say which of
them was the greater.
The matter which most deeply
engaged the attention of the Con
vention was the Penfield legacy.
The history of this legacy is giv
en so fully in our records that it
is hardly necessary to repeat it
here. Nevertheless, for the sake
of many of the readers of the
Index who may uuv have nau ac
cess to our records, it may be
useful to state briefly the facts.
Diacon Josiah Penfield, of Sa
vannah, had recently died. In
his will he had bequeathed twen
ty five hundred ($2 500) dollars to
the Georgia Baptist Convention,
to be devoted to the cause of
ministerial education among our
young men in Georgia, on condi
tion that the Convention would
raise an equal sum to be added
to it for the same purpose.
To meet this condition and thus
to secure the legacy was the
problem that confronted the Con
vention of 1829. And nobly did
they meet it. But there is a
small inaccuracy in the account
of this case, as given in the
“History of Georgia Baptists,”
compiled for the Index in 1881,
which deserves to be noticed.
In that account we are told
how the twenty-five hundred
($2,500) dollars were raised. It
gives twenty-six names with the
amount subscribed by each one.
But when we add up the several
subscriptions, a? given, the ag
gregate is only $2,450, instead of
s2,soo—the sum required to se
cure the legacy. The question
at once occurs: Whence came the
other fifty dollars ? I think
I can answer that question.
Though not a member of the
Convention, yet I was in the
midst of many Baptists, all of
whom were interested in what
was going on at the Arsenal.
Hence I learned some things
about the doings of the Conven
tion from the conversation of
those around me. I think it was
near the close of the Convention
when some one in the parlor, at
Dr. Boykin’s house, announced to
the company that Mr. Mercer had
saved the Penfield legacy, or
words which meant the same
thing. The parties present were
evident'y much pleased.
As I understand the case it was
about this way: The committee
appointed to see what could be
done towards raising the $2,500,
after as thorough a canvass as
they thought it worth while to
make, reported the subscriptions.
When added up, however, it was
found that the aggregate fell be
low the required amount. What
was to be done? There were
perhaps a few moments of disap
pointment. Bro. Mercer, how
ever, relieved the situation by
adding to his subscription the
■whole of the deficit, and thus
completed the required amount.
The above is the version of tl e
story- which I have, all these
years, held to be the correct one.
I have often spoken of it to groups
of brethren, and I have never
heard it disputed. I am per
suaded, therefore, that it is sub-