Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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-