Newspaper Page Text
ESTABLISHED 1821.
TheGhristiarHndex
Fubllabei Every Thursday
By BELL At VAIN
Address Christian Index, Atlanta, Ua
•rgau of the Baptist Denomination in
Georgia.
Subscription Price:
One oopy, one year W.OO
One oopy, six months l.Ot
ABOUT OUR advertisers.—We propose
hereafter to very carefully Investigate our
advertisers. We shall exercise every care to
allow only reliable parties to use our col
umns.
"Obituaries.—One hundred words free of
iharge. 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
•Sees distinctly. In ordering a change give
the old as well as the new address. The date
Os label Indicates the time your subscription
expires If you do not wish it continued, or
der It stopped a week before. We consider
each subscriber permanent until he orders
his paper discontinued. When you order It
stopped pay up to date.
Remittances by registered letter, money
order, postal note.
Grieving the Holy Spirit.
With this understanding of the
office work of the Holy Spirit of
God in his relations to the believ
er —in clarifying the intellect,
quickening the sensibilities, help
ing in prayer, comforting, sancti
fying, guiding, imbuing with
power, and sealing unto the day
of redemption—we are prepared
to inquire how he may be grieved.
In general, it may be proper to
say that any form of sinful indul
gence which tends to stupefy the
intellect, or obscure the appre
hension of religious truth; or any
thing that deadens the sensibili
ties, defiles the conscience, or
corrupts the heart; or anything
that hinders prayer, or obstructs
the entrance into the soul of
spiritual comfort; or anything
that retards the sanctifying,
guiding, imbuing, sealing work
of the Spirit, must necessarily
grieve him.
But in detail:
1. It must be, that every open
and gross indulgence such as are
enumerated in the context:
“theft, lying, bitterness, wrath,
malice, clamor, evil speaking,”
and the like, grieve him.
L 2. It must also be, that he is
grieved by any and every -iiurt
ful personal habit- indulged after
its injurious character is clearly
disclosed.
It may be assumed that many
persons are truly regenerate,
though they continue for a time
under the dominion of such a hab
it. As yet, they have had no
clear conviction of its sinfulness.
They are not resisting the light
which others, perchance, have
on the subject, and so there may
ba nothing to separate between
them and God.
But after they have become
somewhat established in religion,
the Spirit, in carrying forward
the work of sanctification —a
work that must needs include the
body as well as the soul, and the
soul as well as the spirit (Thess.
5:23), encounters this pernicious
habit and requires its instant and
utter abandonment. The fact
that it has long been indulged
without rebuke, and has hitherto
seemed innocent, does not justi
fy its further indulgence, now
that its injurious character has
been disclosed.
So a fearful struggle ensues
“The law in the members” and
“the law of the mind” war against
each other. The question prac
tically is: Shall I, in obedience to
my convictions, abandon this
habit, or shall I resist my con
victions and have my accustomed
indulgence?
Meanwhile, the path of duty
remains sharply defined, while a
voice from out the most excellent
glory says: “This—this is the
way, walk ye in it.”
If this voice goes unheeded, or,
if it is obeyed only so far as to
bring about a temporary reform
ation, it is certain the point has
been reached beyond which the
Divine Reprover has an irritable
subject. And such an one will
now complain of darkness, hard
ness of heart, lack of unction in
prayer, and distance from God.
He wonders why it is not with
him as it once was, when the can
dle of the Lord shone round about
him. He need not wonder. It is
as plain as noonday that he has
grieved the Holy Spirit of God
oy resisting the clear impres
sions he has produced.
3. He is grieved whenever any
of his admonitions, impulses,
suggestions, are<disregarded.
There may be no Sinai thun
derings, and no voice of majesty
to startle us, and yet the impres
sion made upon our mind may be
perfectly clear, even as a whis
per may be clear. The path of
duty is made exceedingly plain.
There is no mistaking the mind
of God. The question again is:
Will we suffer ourselves to bs led
unresistingly by the Spirit, or
will we follow our own perverse
inclinations, in some trivial mat-
THE CHRISTIAN INDEX.
/>. -
ter, It may be, i. e. , trivial in our
estimation? Then, in so doing,
we are grieving him.
Possibly, we grieved him ante
cedent to the revelation of his
will, by not fully committing our
selves to obedience. We mock
ed him in seeking a guidance to
which we did not propose to sub
mit.
Morover, if we do not continue
in the doing of the things he has
prompted us to do, if we turn
back because the way is beset
with difficulties and dangers, the
Spirit is grieved. We can find
no excuse for not walking in the
way where God has once set us.
That which is duty once, is, under
the same circumstances, duty al
ways.
4. “I suppose,” writes an ar my
officer of highest rank, “that
nothing could grieve the blessed
Spirit more than to think lightly,
or speak disparagingly, of God’s
only begotten Son. I remember
once, many years ago, when I was
but a babe in Christ, being in the
society of some worldly men,
who, apparently to mock me,
spoke lightly of my Lord and
Master; and I, coward as I was,
instead up boldly in
defense of him who is my life,
quietly smiled a smile, by which
they might think that I was one
with them; but for days after I
suffered shame and humiliation,
I had grieved the blessed Spirit
by a smile."
5. The Spirit is grieved by al
lowing ourselves in such states of
mind as imply guilt. Such, for
example, is:
(a) An unkind and unforgiving
stat eof mind We have conceived
a dislike for some person, perhaps
in consequence of some real or im -
agined injury. The injury rank
les in our bosom until the very
sight of the man is unendurable.
We pass him without recognition.
The feeling of dislike grows until
it becomes a hate. We can see
that we do not “from the heart
forgive him.” (Matt. xviii:3s.)
Perhaps a wicked prejudice is
at the foundation of the dislike,
and we feed it with every morsel
that comes to us on the wings of
scandal. It is utterly preposter
ous to suppose that the Holy
Spirit of God can have any com
placency in those who are in a
state of mind so utterly at vari
ance with the law of love.
(&) A .self complaeent'<ffWw
mind is equally an offense to the
Spirit. If, Pharisee-like, we
pride ourselves on our own good
ness, “trusting in ourselves that
we are righteous, and despising
others;” if we are forever finding
fault with our brethren, but can
see no faultiness in ourselves, we
are doubtless self-complacent.
(c) An untruthful state of
mind is likewise a grief to the
Spirit. Many profess to be very
anxious to lead a consistent Chris
tian life, and to feel an absorbing
interest in spiritual things, and a
willingness to make sacrifices
commensurate with the demands
of the Gospel; who yet bring
forth no fruits corresponding to
such professions They are, to
all intents and purposes, the ex
act counterpart of the son who
said: “I go, sir,” and went not.
Others, professedly and with
frequency, consecrate them
selves, in a formal manner, to
the service of Christ, and yet do
nothing to attest their devoted
ness to him. They give their af
fections and service to the world
all the same.
(d) A presumptuous state o
mind is a grief to the Spirit.
The Psalmist prayed (Ps. xix:-
13): “Keep back thy servant
from presumptuous sins, let them
not have dominion over me”—a
prayer than which none could be
more fitting for those who would,
inourday.be “upright and in
nocent” of any offense against the
Holy Spirit of God; presuming
upon the genuineness of their
past experience of pardon, and of
the reality of their conversion,
they content themselves with the
bare hope of entering heaven, in
stead of going on unto perfection;
presuming that the advance they
have made in religious knowledge
and experience entitles them to
a larger license, and that they can
do now, without condemnation,
what they could not have done at
the beginning of their Christian
life; presuming that after every
sinful lapse, space will surely be
given them for repentance, and
that, in their case, no sin can
prove fatal; presuming that
others will supply their lack of
service at any given juncture, and
conveniently forgetting that, in
the very nature of things, the
body, which is the church, is
“compacted by that which every
joint supplieth ’; presuming that
they may in any manner, or to
any extent, interfere with the
processes of the Spirit—a pre
sumption like that of Uzzah,
whose experience might easily
suggest that the Holy Spirit
brooks no interference with his
processes, even from well-mean
ing people. — The Holy Spirit in the
New Testament. —Scofield.
(SUBSCRIPTION, P«» YIAB.---.52.00. I
ITO MINISTERS, 100. I
For the Index.
Reminiscences of Georgia Baptists.
BY S. G. HILLYER
No. 10.
REV. B. M. SANDERS.
tv hen it was determined by the
Georgia Baptist Convention to
found a school in which young
men desiring to become ministers
of the Gospel might be educated,
the first necessity was to find the
right man to place at the head
of it. The school was to be a
manual labor school. It was
thought that such a school would
afford to the students an oppor
tunity to defray at least a part of
their expenses by working a por
tion of each day on the farm.
This scheme made it almost
necessary that the principal
should be, not only a good
scholar with adequate experience
as a teacher, but also a good,
practical farmer. Just such a
man was found in the person of
Rev. Billington M. Sanders. He
had graduated at the University
of South Carolina. After leaving
college he was for several years
a practical teacher. He then en
gaged in farming, and so sue
cessfully that he soon had a
comfortable estate. These two
essential qualities were supple
mented by his being a use
ful Baptist minister. When,
therefore, he was placed at
the head of Mercer Institute,
he was qualified to be at once the
principal in the schoolroom, the
manager on the farm, and the
leader in the house of worship.
So he was emphatically the right
man in the right place.
I do .not propose to follow
brother Sanders through the
history of Mercer Institute. Suf
fice it to say that his administra
tion, with the aid of competent
assistants, was so successful that
in less than seven years Mercer
Institute was developed into
Mercer University, and brother
Sanders was made its first Presi
dent.
In his administration, both in
the Institute and in the Univer
sity, his discipline was watchful
and rigid, but at the same time
he was as a father to the students,
and I think the great majority of
them so regarded him. But
passing by .his official
me rather devote * this
cence to the
MORAL OF HIS LIFE.
Brother Sanders was a man of
deep and earnest piety, not only
in forms of worship, but in prac
tical godliness that threw the
light of his example over all
within the reach of his influence.
The breadth of his benevolence
was sufficient to embrace all the
nations of the earth. I recall an
incident which will illustrate the
wide benevolence of his heart.
About forty five years ago,
Ireland was visited with a dread
ful famine by a total failure of
her potato crop. The case was
so serious that appeals for help
came across the Atlantic to the
people of our country, and nobly
did they respond. In the little
village of Penfield the cry was
heard. Under the leadership of
brother Sanders a public meeting
was held in the college chapel.
The question was, What shall we
do for Ireland? Brother San
ders answered the question in an
able, earnest, and effective
speech. I sat in front of him. I
have never forgotten his tall and
manly figure as he pleaded with
the audience in behalf of the
starving poor in distant Ireland.
I said his speech was effective.
In that small community, three
hundred dollars were collected
and invested in grain, which in
due time was sent across the sea
upon its mission of love and
mercy.
Another illustration of brother
Sanders’ broad philanthropy and
also of his devoted zeal in the
cause of our great Redeemer,
has come to my knowledge with
in the last few days. Ina recent
letter from a correspondent, who
is himself an earnest worker in
his Master’s vineyard, and whose
authority is reliable, I learn that
brother Sanders for some years
devoted a tenth of his income to
works of benevolence. In those
years he was prosperous to such
a degree that he raised his con
tribution to twelve per cent., and
for a like reason he increased it,
a few years later, to fifteen per
cent, of his income. And but for
the weight of his large family, we
have reason to believe he would
have continued to increase it as
the Lord prospered him.
Os course brother Sanders was
not the only brother in Georgia
who set apart a definite percent
age of his income for benevolent
purposes. The letter above re
ferred to gives me another case
which 1 hope to notice farther on
in these reminiscences.
The moral or lesson taught
by such a life as that of brother
Sanders is one which we all
should study. Consider his wide
ATLANTA, GA., THURSDAY. OCTOBER 15. 1898.
benevolence, and his systematic
and generous liberality. Sup
pose, for a moment, that we could
find jin Georgia 5,000 Baptists
whose incomes are over 1,000
dollars, and vho would give an
average of U n per cent, to the
cause of Christy That five thou
sand would iaise half a million
of dollars, j Such men as
B. M. Sandprs set us an ex
ample which 1 deserves to be fol
lowed.
But brother Sanders’ benevo
lence was r>>v to the
more con spici of is objects of pub
lic charity; itrwas manifested in
a remarkably degree along the
walks of social life. He was
everybody’s Miend who needed
help. And yet his kindness was
never officious or ostentatious.
It seemed to flow naturally, as if
it were a matter-of course thing,
for which he expected no return
or thanks. A little incident in my
own experience will illustrate this
feature in his social benevolence.
On one occasion I had gone from
Penfield up the Georgia R. R.,for
some purpose not now remem
bered. When I left home I did
not know exactly the time I
would return, and therefore my
family did hot know when to
send my buggy to meet me at
the depot, in Greensboro, seven
miles from Penfield. Now it
happened that on my excur
sion I met brother Sanders, who,
I learned, expected to return to
Penfield before I could. So I
asked him to let my wife know at
what time to send for me. I was
to reach Greensboro by ihe night
train. For some reason, which
I have forgotten, brother San
ders failed to deliver my message
till night had come. Then,
rather than trouble my family,
he sent conveyance to
meet me at Greensboro. I found
the carriage at the depot await
ing me.
This act of kindness was by no
means singular. For lam sure
he often conferred similar favors
upon others as well as myself.
It was such acts of unselfish
kindness that made B. M. San
ders everybody’s brother in the
community where he lived. If
all people would follow him in
his broad the mil
lennial day .would soon illuminate
this ben world with its
close nfflJPlßrwlh a few rem
iniscences of his devoted com
panion. Mrs. Sanders was a
“Georgia Baptist,” and though a
woman limited to a domestic
sphere, she became an important
factor in the great work which
Georgia Baptists had undertaken
at Penfield During the period
of the “Institute,” while her hus
band was principal of the school
and manager of the farm,
Mrs Sanders was presiding over
the domestic comfort of the
whole establishment. Every day
from sixty to a hundred boys sat
at her table. Though she labored,
as it were, out of sight, may we
not say that she was the big
wheel whose unseen revolutions
kept in motion all the machinery
of the institution? Had she
stood still, wreck and ruin might
have been the consequence.
She was not toiling for money,
for her husband was well able to
take care of his family without
the trifling compensation he
might perchance receive. No,
he was working for the Great
Master, and she was faithfully
trying to help him, and nobly
did she till the place that fell to
her lot.
Her social kindness was as
conspicuous as her husband’s.
She was a sister of mercy in
every household within her
reach where there was heard the
cry of distress.
There is no need to multiply
words. I will only repeat here,
what I said in a public address
years ago: “When the roll of
honor is made up that shall bear
the names of those who built
Mercer University, that roll will
be incomplete without the name
of
MRS. CYNTHIA SANDERS.”
563 S. Prior St., Atlanta.
For the Index.
Joseph and the Moralizers.
BY P. S. WHITMAN, D.D.
I do not know that any exposi
tor has intimated that Cain was
probably noble and high-minded,
though at times impetuous; or
that any one has ever insinuated
that Abel very possibly made,
himself unnecessarily offensive
to his less fortunate brother in
that matter of an appropriate
sacrifice. But certain it is, this
would not be much more incon
sistent than the reflections which
have been virtually cast upon the
doings of Joseph and his father,
byway of accounting for the
cruelty of his brothers. A noted
interpreter of the Bible tells of
the father’s mistake in making
for the lad that variegated coat;
for this, he says, instigated
hatred, and he moralizes in these
words: “It is extremely danger
ous, indeed actually criminal, for
parents to show partiality to any
of their children.” And what
next? Joseph incurred the
hatred of his brothers by carry
ing to his father a report of their
evil doings. And the moral iz
ingcontinues: “Thistale bearing
is to be severely condemned.”
Then there were those dreams.
“Why tell such dreams to his
brothers?” “How lacking in
modesty, how injudicious it was.”
Now these references to what
Jacob did and what Joseph had
done are only what we would ex
pect from an advocate employed to
clear the guilty brothers, an advo
cate who sees the necessity of
hunting up some provocation or
otbu where absolutely there is
none. It is no place here for acom
mentator to moralize on the sin of
favoritism. The scripture is,
“Now Israel loved Joseph more
than all his children because he
was the son of his old age”—born
at last, too, of Rachel, his real
wife. But she had died, and,
unlike those older brothers, the
tender Joseph had no mother.
Now the truth is, those older
brothers, if they possessed only
a spark of virtue, should have
rejoiced to see what happiness
had come to their father in
Joseph. But, taken as a whole,
they were without virtue. Under
the baneful influence of Simeon
and Levi they had become ap
parently consolidated in wicked
ness, so that the father could
have no pleasure in them. The
very thought of them must have
been painful, filling his breast
with mortification and shame
There was left to him no encour
agement for hope, save in Joseph.
And what a mercy it was that
Joseph, born into the worst con
tact, those older brothers, his
natural companions, already in
uring themselves to vice and
conspiring in courses of cruelty,
what a mercy he was not beguiled
by their arts, how wonderful that
he gave no countenance to the
wrongs they perpetrated. What
a child he was—firm he stood for
virtue and truth—and when he
saw wrong doing he regarded it
as his business to make it known
to his father. Right here is
seen the distinctive trait of char
acter which gave renown to his
after ILt'e. He appears to have
been the one the father
could trust. And was it wrong
for the father to love Joseph?
There was no concealment in
these matters. Joseph was
above concealing his fidelity to
his father, nor was it anything
to be concealed that, under the
circumstances, the father loved
Joseph more than the rest of his
sons. So far as the coat denoted
the father’s love and testified to
Joseph’s fidelity, it should be
regarded as a needed reproof to
the older brothers, a standing
testimony, applauding virtue and
condemning vice; a sermon stere
otyped and ever ready to admon
ish the recreant brothers of their
sins. Why, then, should an emi
nent Hebiew scholar make this
an occasion to say, “Telling evil
reports, unless in the interest of
friendship, is to be severely con
demned” —a poor maxim thus
worded. If he means, “unless
for the family good, or the good
of society, or the protection of
an innocent party,” we should
call it correct. And on what
other ground than this, we ask,
had the innocent Joseph acted?
What expositor has any reason
to doubt that it was for the good
of the family and the purity of
shepherd life around them, that
Joseph made known to his father
what the cider sons were doing?
And further. Another general
truth is here in place. For one
to be a witness of criminal wrong
and not expose it, makes him
virtually a participator in the
wrong. It is at least siding with
the guilty. Thus, to talk about
the “sin of favoritism” in the
matter of that coat made for Jo
seph or of his report of vile do
ings, is to put virtue and vice,
patriotism and treason, on the
same moral footing.
But the expositors complain
more of Joseph’s tongue than of
his coat. They see, indeed, no
harm in his dreams; but that
tongue, which has been hard on
evil deeds of others, must tell al
so what dreams he has had.
Here we do not ask for Joseph
any such extenuation as the ex
positor chooses to make, that,
“however lacking in modesty and
discretion, it was the work of a
child, innocent and with no mal
ice. ’ The course pursued by
Joseph was consistent with a
sound mind in the full under
standing of moral law and the
knowledge of God. Such |was
the nature of the dreams that
they were obliged to be regarded
as a communication from heaven.
Such their nature that they could
be understood in no other light
than a revelation of what was to
follow in the family of Jacob.
The revelation concerned the
whole family. As the revelation
was made to Joseph, it followed
as plainly as if commanded, that
it was for him to make known
the revelation to the family. In
this way alone could they be ex
pected to fall in with God’s pur
pose, cease from their hatred to
Joseph and enjoy God’s favor.
Now what remains is for the com
mentator to see, not only that
the act of Joseph in making
known his dreams to the family
was thoroughly discreet and
righteous, but that his so doing
was a grand success. It did
break up the enmity of those
brothers against Joseph, it did
make them honest and truthful,
it did make them a happy family,
loving Joseph and submitting to
his rule—all this just twenty two
years after he related to them
his dreams.
For the Index.
One Day at a Time.
BY MRS LAURA RICHARDS.
“Take no thought for the mor
row, for the morrow shall take
thought for the things of itself.”
Matt. 6: 34 Thus spake our
Lord in the Sermon on the
Mount. It is a lesson of
trust in God. “Seek ye
first the kingdom of God and his
righteousness, and all these
things shall be added unto you.”
It does not imply that we shall
not look forward, but we are to
do it trustingly. He who takes
care of us to day will do it to
morrow. We are not to worry
about to morrow to the neglect
of to day.
To-day, only, is ours. We
have no promise of to morrow.
Every day should be lived as
though it was the last, for it may
be the last; we know not, nor
can know; but one thing is cer
tain, we can never live that day
over again. It is gone, never to
return. If we could fasten this
thought upon the mind it would
help us to be careful how the
time was spent. If we knew this
was the last day we had on earth,
would we spend it differently? If
so, we are not living as our Lord
would have us. The wise virgins
had their lamps trimmed and
burning, and were ready for the
bridegroom. .“Watch, therefore,
fpr you know not what hour
your Lord slAllcome.”
One day at a time. To-day has
its opportunities—opportunities
that belong to that day alone. If
we seize them they are ours; if
we wait until to morrow they
may be gone. Oh, what a fear
ful thought! “We pass this way
but once.” We will never live
this day again. If we neglect to
do the good deed we cm do to
day, and think to morrow will do
as well, we forget we have no
promise of to morrow.
He who can realize that he is
living ‘ one day at a time,” has
made a happy discovery. He
will better seethe value of time;
he will better acknowledge his
responsibility—to God; he will
better improve his opportunities.
One day at a time. Yesterday
is gone,to morrow has not comes.
‘ ‘Act, act, in the living present,
Heart within, and God o’er head.”
We are very much the creature
of circumstances and environ
ments, and often must do as we
can, not as we would; still it is
what we can do that is required
of us, not impossibilities. Great
things cannot be done at the ex
pense and neglect of little things,
without loss in the end. One day
may seem little and insignificant
compared to a lifetime, but it is a
link in an unbroken chain—an
important part of the whole.
A physician had set a broken
limb and was leaving the room of
his patient, when the sufferer
asked the sad question, “How
long will I have to lay here?”
“Only one day at a time," was
his kind, cheerful reply. And
so our heavenly Father answers
our question, “How long?”
“Only one day at a time."
Israel was given manna only
by the day. “Give us this day
our daily bread.” We are taught
to pray for oui’ bread only for to
day.
The wise and experienced
Christian takes his bearings day
by day, beginning the opening
day with the thought: “This day
is, in mercy, granted me; and be
fore God, lam held accountable
for the way in which I spend it.”
He who gives opportunity, gives
wisdom and grace to those who
trust his guidance.
Satan says, “Wait.” God says,
“Now.” To-day is the day of sal
vation. “To-day if you hear his
voice, harden not your hearts.”
Time is limited. It is a fearful
thought to saint and sinner. My
time is limited, reader; your time
is limited. God only knows the
extent of the limit. “Watch,
therefore, for ye know neither
the day nor the hour wherein the
Son of man cometh.”
VOL. 76-NO. 42
For the Index.
Baptist Position Stated and Contrast
ed—ln General Organization—Ad
visory and Benevolent.
BY G. A. LOFTON, D.D.
AL
The stupendous organizations
of the Roman Catholics, of the
Episcopalians, Methodists, Pres
byterians and others are general
compact ecclesiasticisms. As
seen heretofore, the local
churches, or societies, which
form their constituency, have no
independent existence, and not
one of them could withdraw from
the general body and be consid
ered a church of that denomina
tion, although it might still main
tain its doctrinal creed. Os
course, in this day and in this
country, there is no physical
power by which to force an inde
pendent church into any of these
organic unions, and no power to
keep it within such a communion,
if it choose to withdraw. Indeed,
a bull of excommunication for se
cession would have only a moral
effect with some people; and for
the most part, but few would re
gard such a procedure.
As hinted at before, these seve
ral organic bodies are legislative
and judicial. They undertake in
their councils, conventions, con
ferences, synods, assemblies and
the like, to frame confessions of
faith which interpret the doctrine
and practices of God’s Word and
bind them upon the consciences
of their constituencies; and then
they frame modes of ecclesiasti
cal government, forms of service,
schemes of disciplineand methods
of operation, which are likewise
binding upon the conscience of
their people. If a member or a
church dissents or varies from
the general constitution of these
bodies, he or it must appear, if
the difficulty is not settled sooner,
before some final and general tri
bunal, in which the case is adjud
icated. Under the milder forms
of these general organizations,
the idea of republicanism is
claimed under the theory of a
representative form of govern
ment; but the effect of legislative
and judicial action is the same as
it reverts back upon the constitu
ent body, or member of that body,
which has no autonomy outside
of the general eccZem. Among
the Catholics, everythingeenters,
for religious authority and
power, in the infallible Pope; and
even a council, however ecumen
ical, whether in matters of faith
or discipline, can make no deci
sion independent of the sanction
and authority of the master at
Rome.
Among the Methodists, the
College of Bishops is the su
preme court which has the right
to revise the decision of confer
ences; and the inferior clergy are
under the control and direction
of these bishops, as to their loca
tion and work in the ministry.
Presbyterians and Episcopalians
have more liberty, and yet the
call and location of a preacher
depends, for final choice, upon
the superior powers that be.
It is useless to say, as we have
said before, that these forms of
ecclesiasticism are wholly extra
scriptural, and in many respects
wholly unscriptural. The New
Testament presents a wholly new
and unique plan of organization
and operation in the develop
ment and extension of God’s
kingdom in the earth. There
never was anything like it in his
tory —the ideal kingdom of inde
pendent churches, with no other
bond than that of comity and
love, and with no other
head than Christ. Christ
and the apostles, by any
thing they ever said or wrote,
never dreamed of a universally
organized church, nor of a gene
ral church officer; and however
contemptible or impracticable to
worldly conceptions of power
and efficiency the plan of the
New Testament ecclesiasticism
has always seemed, yet it proved
all-powerful in the first centuries
and has proven perfectly suscept
ible of unity in faith, practice and
progression, in spite of all oppo
sition. More than this, with
such an organization and with
the New Testament doctrine and
spirit of liberty, it has not only
abstained from all union with
the State as necessary to its
genius, but it has never raised
its hand to persecute for con
sciencesake. With its principles
and policy it was impossible to
do so, because planted upon the
maxims of Christ who said : “My
kingdom is not of this world;”
“My kingdom cometh not with
observation;” “Render unto Caes
ar that which is Caesar’s, and
unto God that which is God’s;”
“Put up thy sword; they that
take the sword shall perish by
the sword;” “If my kingdom
were of this world my servants
would fight,” He who could
have called down “twelve legions
of angels” against the powers of
Pontius Pilate and the Jews