Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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