Newspaper Page Text
2
THE WHITSITT CONTROVERSY.
PROF. ALBERT H. NEWMAN, D.D., LL.B.
NO. 6.
EIGHT MONUMENTS.
Most of Dr. Whitsitt’s “ Eight
Monuments of the Introduction
of Immersion into England in
the year 1641" secin to me to
furnish confirmation, more or
less important, of the correct
ness of the account given in the
so called Kiflin manuscript. The
expression “ introduction of im
mersion into England in the year
1641,” must of course be limited
to English anti-pedobaptists, and
we must beware of asserting that
up to 1641 immersion was never
practised by any English anti
pedobaptists. This, as I have
heretofore insisted, would be go
ing beyond what it is possible
for any man to know. The most
that can be safely said, on the
basis of materials at present
available, is that sprinkling or
pouring appears to have been the
ordinary practice and the omy
practice known by the South
wark (London,) anti-pedobaptists
who came out of the Jacob
Lathrop Jessey Independent
church, 1633 onward.
Dr. Whiisitt is correct, so far
as I know, in making 1644 the
date of the earliest occurrence
of the term “ Baptist.” The cor
responding German term (Tauf
er) was in common use in the
early Reformation time.
The inferer.ee to be drawn
from the title page of Edward
Barber's book will be considered
in another section. The quota
tion from “The Anabaptists’
Groundwork for Reformation,”
1644 : “ I ask T. L and the rest
of those Baptists, or Dippers,
that will not be called Anabap
tists (though they baptize some
that have been baptized twice be
fore), what rule they have by
word or example in Scripture for
their going men and women to
gether into the water and for their
manner of dipping,” bears testi
mony to the fact that some who
had long since repudiated infant
baptism and submitted to what
they supposed to be believers’
baptism had received a further
baptism by immersion. Tne same
testimony is borne by N. Holmes
in his “ Vindication of Baptizing
Believers'lnfants,” 1645: “One
congregation at first adding to
their Infant Baptisme the adult
baptismeof sprinkling : then not
resting therein, endeavoring to
adde to that a dipping, even to
the breaking to pieces of their
congregation.” These two quo
tations are due to Dr. Dextor and
we should be glad to have them
verified; but this learned writer,
while he sometimes garbled and
misrepresented, has not been
- convicted of forgery, and these
statements could hardly be so
modified by the context as to
mean anything else than that
shortly before 1641 45 some
sprinkling anti-pedobaptists had
adopted immersion. In an earlier
article I have referred to the re
markable passage from “Mercu
rius Rusticus,’ 1646, in which
two classes of Anabaptists, “ the
Old Men, or Aspersi,” and the
“New Men, or the Immersi," are
distinguished.
PRAISEGOD BAREBONE.
The testimony of Praisegod
Barebone, 1642, as given in the
Western Recorder for July 30, is as
follows : “ But now very lately
some are mightily taken, as hav
ing found out a new defect in the
Baptisme, under the defection,
which maketh such a nullitie of
Baptisme, in their conceit, that it
is none at all, and it is concern
ing the manner of Baptizing,
wherein they have espied such
default, as it maketh an absolute
nullity of all persons Baptisme,
but such as have been so Baptized,
according to their new discovery,
and so pai tly as before, in regard
as the subject, and partly in re
gard of so great default in the
manner. They not only c onclude,
as is before sayd, a nullity of
their present Baptisme. And so,
but addressing themselves to be
Baptized a third time, after the
true way and manner they have
found out, which they account a
precious truth. The particular
of their opinion and practice is
to Dip ; and that persons are to
be dipped, all and every part to
be under the water.” What fol
lows in no way weakens the force
of what has been quoted. There
is, so far as I can see, no essen
tial difference between the teach
ing of the full extract as made
for the Western Recorder, and the
somewhat inaccurate and abbre
viated quotations made by Dr.
Whitsitt. It is true that Bare
bone’s main object is “to prove
the baptism in, or under the de
fection of Antichrist to be the
ordinance of Jesus Christ,” and
his arguments are aimed ap
parently against Spilsbury, who
contended that the baptism re
ceived under the defection of
Antichrist, that is in the Roman
Catholic and Protestant State
churches, is invalid, and that it
is the privilege of any body of
believers coming to a knowledge
of the truth to organize them
selves according to the Apostolic
standard and to introduce believ
ers’ baptism anew. (See quotation
from Spilsbury in No. 1 of the
present series.) In the passage
before us, however, he shows
that these aati-pedobaptists have
not only repudiated the baptism
that they had received in infancy
mediately or immediately from
an apostate church, and for this
reason invalid ; but they repudi
ate it all the more energetically
because of default regarding the
subjects (infant baptism), and
default regarding the manner
(sprinkling or pouring). They
are declared, as in documents al
ready quoted, to have been “ bap
tizid a third time,” having first
rejected infant baptism in favor
of believers’ baptism (sprinkling
or pouring), and then repudiated
the manner of baptism and in
sisted on dipping. The author
expressly says that “ the particu
lar of their opinion and practice
is to dip.” It seems to me that
nothing could be more explicit
than Barebone’s statement. He
admits that in warm climates a
partial dipping may answer very
well, but thinks immersion incon
sistent with due modesty and un
suitable to England. He seeks
to make dipping seem contempt
ible by reminding his readers
that “the Romanists some of
them, and some of the poor igno
norant Wel«/i do use dipping.”
“ I think ” he adds, “ these [ Bap
tists) will not say they learned
this new truth of them, neither
do I think they will hold their
|that of the Catholics and the
Welsh) Baptisme ever the truer
for their dipping.” What Bare
bone teaches is that immersion
had recently been introduced
anew in the dissenting circle re
ferred to, with which he himself
had been connected. It is sig
nificant, that he does not suggest
that his anti-pedobaptist friends
have derived this “new truth”
from the Anabaptists of the ear
lier time.
EDWARD BARBER'S TESTIMONY.
Dr. Whitsitt’s use of Edward
Barber's “ A Small Treatise of
Baptisme, or Dipping,” is open
to criticism. From beginning to
end the treatise is occupied with
proving that “Christ ordained
dipping for those only that pro
fessrepentance and faith.” When
he speaks of “that glorious prin
ciple, True Baptisme or Dip
ping,” he has reference to be
lievers’ baptism as opposed to
infant baptism and not (as Dr.
Whitsitt seems to suppose) to
immersion as contrasted with
sprinkling or pouring. From
beginning to end he assumes the
identity of baptism and dipping.
The purport of the book Dr. Whit
sitt seems thus to have misap
prehended. His opponents have
certainly scored a point against
him.in this instance. The little
book, as carefully reprinted in
the Western Recorder and from the
same type in pamphlet form,
speaks for itself and is within the
reach of all who would examine
it.
It has been maintained by Dr.
Whitsitt’s critics that this writ
ing, so far from supporting the
position that immersion was in
troduced among English anti
pedobaptists in 1641, has a strong
adverse bearing. It is claim
ed that the confident assump
tion on the part of the author
that baptism and dipping
are equivalent terms presuppos
ed that dipping was at that
time the commonly recognized
usage and presumably a usage of
long standing This use of the
writing is, in my opinion, un
warranted. There is nothing in
this confident identification of
baptism and dipping that is in
any way inconsistent with the
supposition that immersion had
just been introduced. No doubt
the question of apostolic baptism
had been under discussion for
some time before the church of
which Jessey was pastor di
vided on it in 1640. The agita
tion of the question in this circle
of believers might easily have
spread to the successors of Hel
wys and Murton, who resided in
the neighborhood. When Barber
became thoroughly convinced
that immersion and immersion
only is true apostolic baptism
he would not need to see the
newly acquired truth tested by
many years of practice before
beginning to use the terms dip
ping and baptism as full equiva
lent. In fact, the somewhat os
tentatious use of the term dipping
for baptism is more favorable to
the supposition that the identi
fication of the two was a fresh
conviction than that it was a
matter of immemorial usage.
New converts are ever the most
zealous in emphasizing the prin
ciples for which they stand.
THE TESTIMONY OF “ A. R.”
The quotation from “A. R.,”
copied by Dr. Whitsitt from Dex
ter, and attributed by the latter
to the “Second Part” of “The
Childish Vanity of Infant Bap
tism ” is taken, according to Dr.
Christian, who seems to have
used the original work, from the
First Part. Dr. Dexter inserted
in brackets a sentence that seems
to me to give an unwarranted in
terpretation of the author’s words.
Dr. Whitsitt has copied the ex
tract, bracketed sentence and all,
as follows:
“If any shall thinke it strange
and unlikely that all the godliest
Divines and best churches should
be thus deceived on this point of
baptisme for so many yeares to
gether [i. e., as never before to
THE CHRISTIAN INDEjI: THURSDAY. DECEMBER 24. 1896.
know that true baptism is dip
ping and dipping alone true bap
tism); let them consider that all
Christiandome (except here and
there one, or some few, or no
considerable number) was swal
lowed up* in grosse Popery for
many hundred yeares before
Luther’s time, which was not un
til about 100 yeares agone.”
Either Dr. Whitsitt did not no
tice that the bracketed clause
was inserted by Dexter, or he
was muled into accepting Dex
ter’s unwarranted interpretation
as his own. It seems probable
that “ the point of baptism ” re
ferred to is believers’ baptism
as contrasted with infant baptism
rather than dipping as contrasted
with sprinkling or pouring.
A number of other quotations
taken by Dr. Whitsitt from Dr.
Dexter have been shown to be
defective and misleading to a
greater or less extent; but none
of the criticism that I have met
can be said to affect Dr. Whitsitt’s
contention that, so far as the
documentary evidence goes, im
mersion was first introduced
among English anti-pedobaptists
in 1641. This proposition rests
primarily on the old church rec
ords that have been so frequently
referred to. It is strongly sup
ported by a number of witnesses,
whose testimony has not been
successfully impeached. That a
number of documents have been
misquoted or misconstrued does
not invalidate the main eonten
tion, which, in my opinion, is
abundantly sustained.
SOME QUESTIONS ANSWERED.
An honored correspondent re
quests me to answer the follow
ing questions: “1. Whether there
is any record of a Baptist church
in England changing their initi
atory ordinance from sprinkling
to immersion? 2 Whether there
is any proof that Baptists in Eng
land practiced sprinkling before
1641? 3. Whether any Baptists
soon after 1641 admitted that
they introduced immersion at
that time? ”
The first of these questions
seems sufficiently answered by
the records considered at length
in article No. 5 and by the quota
tions from “The Anabaptists’
Groundwork for Reformation,”
and from “The Vindication of
Baptizing Believers’ Infants,”
given in the present article. Tne
same documents seem to me to
afford a sufficient answer to the
second question. In answer to
the third, it may be said that the
so-called Kiflin manuscript re
ferred to was doubtless prepared
by a Baptist. There was no oc
casion to admit what must have
been a somewhat notorious fact.
The failure of any Baptist, so
far as
the
Home, and others, implying that
dipping was a newly introduced
manner of baptism may be taken
as tantamount to an admission of
the fact. The interesting quota
tion from Spilsbury’s “ A Trea
tise Concerning the Lawful Sub
jects of Baptism,” imparted by
Dr. W. H. King, of London, in
the Western Recorder for Decern ■
ber 3d, involves, I think, a virtual
admission that immersion had
recently been introduced in the
anti pedobaptist community that
he represented: “And yet not
holding any baptizing, for he
that is once baptized with the
Lord’s true baptism, he needs no
more. Nor yet a new way of
baptizing, as some to please
themselves so call it, but only
the good old way which John the
Baptist, Christ and his apostles
walked in before us and left the
same as a rule under command in
the Holy Scriptures for such as
be followers of thorn to walk by.
And as it is recorded by the Holy
Ghost in the Scriptures of God,
even so it is the judgment of the
most and best learned in the land,
so far as I have seen, or can
come by any of their writings.
As in all the common dictionaries
which, with one consent, affirm
that the word baptism, or bap
tizo, signifies to dip, wash, or
plunge into the water, though
some please to mock and deride
by calling it a new found way
and what they please.”
Spilsbury repudiates the charge
of rebaptizing, on the ground
that immersion alone is true bap
tism, any other so called baptism
whether it be practiced on infants
or adults being regarded as of no
consequence. He denies -that
immersion is “a new way of bap
tizing, as some please to call it.”
It is “the good old way which
John the Baptist, Christ, and his
apostles walked in.” He does
not say that it has been practiced
for generations by his anti pedo
baptist predecessors, as he would
probably have said if he had
thought so. He speaks of some
who “please to mock and deride
by calling it a new found way.”
He does not deny that it was a
“new found way,” so far as him
self and his party were con
cerned.
AS TO ROGER WILLIAMS’ BAP
TISM.
Little need be said on this
question. The materials for and
against immersion as the manner
of his baptism are exceedingly
meager. The strictly contempo
rary notices (Winthrop and Pe
ters) simply refer to the intro
duction of a new baptism, or ana-
baptism, without giving any in
timation that there was anything
unusual in its form. The only
contemporary who has given us
a hint as to the manner of the
new oaptism is William Codding
ton, who more than thirty years
after the event charged Williams
with having been “ one time for
water baptism, men and women
must be plunged into the water;
and then throw it all down again. ”
There was no time after 1639
when Williams was inclined to
insist upon the practice of im
mersion ; though he continued
from 1645 to the end of his life
to regard immersion as the apos
tolic form. His opinion was that
true baptism had been lost in the
apostasy and could be restored
only by direct divine interposi
tion. From the notices of bap
tism contained in Williams’
works we can draw no assured
conclusion regarding his practice
in 1639. Immersion of infants
was being insisted on at this time
by one of the leading New Eng
land pastors (Chauncey), but this
has no important bearing on the
question. Williams cannot be
supposed to have been ignorant
of the fact that primitive baptism
was immersion, and in all prob
ability he was familiar with the
practice of the Rhynsburgers,
from whom a few years later the
English .Calvinistic anti-pedo
baptists were to derivetheir sup
posed succession in the matter of
immersion
The fact that the introduction
of a new baptism at Providence
was two years in advance of the
introduction of immersion among
the anti-pedobaptist members <of
the Jacob Jessey church and its
derivatives has little weight,
when we consider the fact that
Williams was a learned man and
must have known of immersion
as a form of baptism and the
primitive form, and the fact that
when he reached conviction on
any matter he was not in the
habit of tarrying for any. More
over, there is no record of any
change in the form of baptism
among the Providence Baptists
after Williams’ withdrawal.
Dr. Whitsitt shows a decided
inclination towards the theory of
sprinkling or pouring. I am in
clined to follow the one clear
statement of Coddington until
further material comes to light
Yet I am not prepared to assert
categoricallyjhat the initial rite
in connection with the new or -
ganization was immersion, or to
deny categorically that it may
have been some other act. The
known facts are few and simple
and each student of the question
has a right, after weighing the
for himself a
si . Dr.
i■ > i
IN CONCLUSION.
How stands the case with Dr.
Whitsitt and his critics? Has
the learned and eloquent and
genial successor of Boyce and
Broadus forfeited his right to
the confidence and support of
the •denomination? Let us see.
1 The Independent editorial
ought never to have been written
and having been written should
have been relegated to oblivion.
It was unduly dogmatic and was
unfriendly in tone to his own
denomination. It is my humble
opinion that he owes the denomi
nation an explicit apology for
this performance.
2. He has shown an excessive
desire for the reputation of being
an original discoverer. It was
apparently in this interest that
he fathered the offensive editor
ial. He supposed himself to
have been the discoverer of what
was clearly set forth in a not
very scarce book published as
recently as 1860 (Gould’s “Open
Communion and the Baptists of
Norwich ”). It is true that with
out the help of the documents
contained in this book he reached
the probable conclusion that im
mersion-was introduced at about
the time indicated by a document
contained therein, and for this
he deserves credit. In his pub
lished volume he speaks of hav
ing recently undertaken “some
researches in this field which
were rewarded by finding a still
earlier manuscript on the same
subject.” One expects to hear
that he has unearthed some im
portant material hitherto unused.
Yet all that he claims is to have
reached certain conclusions with
reference to the documents de
scribed and copied from by
Gould, and in this he has, in my
judgment attributed the really
important passages to the wrong
document. His mistake consists
in his crediting the notices that
are derived from the manuscript
Gould regarded as identical with
the so called “Kiflin manuscript”
used by Crosby to the “Jessey
Church Records.” This in no
way affects the credibility of the
documents. We are all liable to
errors of judgment and to inad
vertencies, and he would be a
rash man who would cast a stone
of reproach for a mistake of this
kind. I believe that Dr. Whitsitt
still considers himself in the
right in this matter of the manu
scripts, and he will no doubt
seek at an early date to show
that he alone has rightly appre
hended the situation.
3. In seeking to multiply
documentary attestations to a
conclusion sufficiently supported
by unimpeachable witnesses, Dr
Whitsitt has followed Dr. Dexter
in citing a number of notices of
doubtful applicability, Dr. Dex
tor’s reputation for painstaking
accuracy has been so great that
one might well be excused for
relying on his quotations from
rare books. He has long been
known to have been intensely
partisian, however, and the com
parison of some of his quotations
with original works by oppon
ents of Dr. Whitsitt has not re
dounded to the credit of the great
Congregational historian. We
are all liable to be misled by
depending too much upon the
researches of others, and Dr.
Whitsitt’s fault in this respect
cannot be regarded as other than
venial.
4 Dr. Whitsitt’s services to
the denomination have been too
long continued and too distin
guished, and his loyalty to the
principles and practices of the
denomination too thoroughly
tested, to admit of his being
deposed and dishonored for here
sy or disloyalty. The conclusions
that he has reached are, in the
main, such as have long been ac
cepted by the great majority of
those who have made a specialty
of Baptist history. If Dr. Whit
sitt’s opponents should seek to
secure his condemnation by the
Southern Baptist Convention, I
have not the slightest doubt but
that he would be enthusiastically
sustained by an overwhelming
majority.
5. I would urge upon those
brethren who are convinced that
Dr. Whitsitt’s historical conclus
ions are wrong, and who believe
that regular Baptist churches
have existed from the beginning,
to be content to rest upon these
convictions and to impress them
upon others with word and pen,
and to avoid even the appear
ance of intolerance in their deal
ings with others who with equal
sincerity take a different view of
the facts. Church history is so
large a subject, its materials are
so immense, its obscurities at
many points are so great, the
difficulties of ascertaining or
grasping all the facts and rela
tions of any particular event or
series of events are so insuper
able, that the utmost modesty
and reserve are becoming in the
true student of history, and the
utmost charity should be exer
cised toward those who may
reach conclusions different from
our own.
6 I would urge upon Dr.
Whitsitt and his friends, on the
one hand, and his opponents, on
the other, that a truly concilia
tory attitude be at once assumed
Leiiteither side claim to
be absolutely blameless and in
sist that all overtures of peace
be made by the other; but let
each in a spirit of Christian char
ity resolve that strife shall come
to an end. It is an unseemly
and a damaging thing that a
great Christian body that makes
high claims as regards devotion
to Christ and that has a truly
heroic history, should be ex
hausting its energies in contro
versies on obscure historical
facts to the neglect, in some
measure, of the great interests
of the Kingdom of Christ. There
must be either a division of the
denomination into “Succession
ists” and “Anti-successionists,”
with separate Conventions, Theo
logical Seminaries, etc., or “Sue
cessionists” and “Anti Succes
sionists” must recognize each the
right of the other to a name and
a place in the denomination.
Neither can by any possibility
coerce or suppress the other.
Toleration or disunion: which
shall it be? I have not the
slightest doubt but that tolera
tion will prevail. For this let
all who love the Lord Jesus
Christ and who appreciate the
importance of the great Baptist
denomination as an agency for
the extension of His Kingdom
labor and pray.
In article No. 4, first para
graph, the dates 1686 and 1638
should be 1586 and 1588.
McMaster University, Toronto.
More Curative Power
Is contained in a bottle of Hood’s
Sarsaparilla than in any other
similar preparation. It costs the
proprietor and manufacturer
more. It costs the jobber more
and it is worth more to the con
sumer. It has a record of cures
unknown to any other prepara
tion. It is the best to buy because
it is the One True Blood Purifier.
Hood’s Pills are the best fami -
ly cathartic and liver medicine.
Gentle, reliable, sure.
Hoods
Are much in little; always ■ ■ ■
ready, efficient, satisfac- I I a
tory prevent a cold or fever, 111
cure all liver ills, sick head- ■ ■ ■ ■
ache, jaundice, constipation, etc. Price 25 cents.
The only Pills to take with Hood's Sarsaparilla.
Guarantee Position. Accept notoG tor tuition, or can depoefi
money in bank till position is secured. For Catalogui address
Nashvil’e.Tenn. Indorsed by Bankers, Merchants, and others
Bookkeeping, Penmanship, Shorthand, Typewriting,
Telegraphy, etc.; J 2 teachers. 4 weeks in Bookkeeping
with us equals 12 elsewhere. 600 students past year. No
vacation. Enter any time. Cheap board. Car fare paid.
To order our books tor home study is next best thing te
•uieriflg our school. Write ns. (Mention this papers
the iJootib.
Any publication mentioned in this de
partment may be obtained of the
American Baptist Publication So
ciety. 93 Whitehall St., Atlanta, Ga.
When prices are named they include
postage.
The Editors of the Christian Index
desire to make this column of service
to their readers. They will gladly
ans ver, or have answered, any qnee
tions regarding books. If you desire
books for certain lines of reading, or
desire to And out the worth or pub
lisher of any book, write to them.
The Mystery of Sleep. John Bige
low. Harper Bros., New York. Price.
This volume is from one of America’s
most charming essayists. It is not an
attempt to solve but to suggest that
there is much more of a mystery about
sleep than we are in the habit of think
ing The accepted idea that sleep is
merely the time of recuperation ana re
plenishing is not enough of an explana
tion to the author. To him "the night
time of the body is the day time of the
sou’." He recites the common experi
ence of finding with the morning the
quiet solution of problems that have
vexed us, or the letting go of enmities
or grievances when sleep has intervened.
To him the Scriptures seem to teach a
special -renewal of the soul in sleep.
Then it is possible for the soul to be en
tirely separated from its earthly bonds
and opened to spiritual impulse. The
Scriptures are cited to show that this is
so and certainly the time of sleep was
used many times as the best time for
spiritual communication When he
goes to quoting Swedenborg we
must begin to suspect bis theories.
Whatever we may think of this theory,
we will, however, be impressed with
the blessing and the powers in sleep.
The last chapter is an appeal to put
away the hindrances to sleep, and to be
conscientious in giving nature her op
portunity in sleep. Many quaint and
curious facts are brought out in the
course of the argument. It is a novel
subject and one worthy of thought and
study.
Uncle Tommy Muse. E Z. F. Golden,
D.D., Dr. J. W. Stanford, Cuthbert,
Ga. Price. <I.OO.
Through some failure in delivering
we have been deprived of the pleasure
of reading this book until very recently.
It is of a class of books having local in
terest and yet indispensable. It illus
trates admirably the life of the last
generation and their characteristics.
“ Uncle” Tommy Muse came from Vir
ginia to Georgia, byway of Baltimore.
He was prospered in an unusual way as
a merchant and in that capacity settled
while still a young man at Blakely, Ga.
Having previously been converted and
having joined the Baptists, he became
interested in organizing a church at
Blakely. Through his connection with
this church the ministry was laid upon
him and he sold a prosperous business
to take up the work of preaching His
life was spent in Bethel Association as
a pastor and colporter. In the early
efforts for misdonary work and organ!
zation he was a leader He also advo
cated the cause of education. He was
a strong preacher and a noble man.
By delicate courtesy he was made the
colporter of Bethel Association in his
last days The courtesy of his brethren
was met by his own faithfulness and
z?al. Bro Golden has done his work
remarkably well. The story is always
interesting, and the choice of material
most commendable. It is no little
service to thus preserve to us the strong
men of the past We are glad the book
has had so good a sale. We hope it
will go all over among our people.
Sister Jane. Joel Chandler Harris.
Houghton, Mifflin & Co. Boston,
Mass. Price <1.50,
We had occasion a few weeks ago
to call attention to one of Mr. Harris'
new literary features. His first great
success came to him with the Uncle
Remus tales. What he could do outside
of that was still problematic. But
the problem is being solved He has
shown his ability to write history, and
also to write most admirable children's
stories. His " Aaron ” is unique and
striking. . In the above work he vent
ures on ambitious novel writing. The
scene is in Georgia and only incident
ally does he introduce the negro. His
characters are good strong types and
are well drawn. The plot is well con
structed, but the chief interest is not
in the plot, but the people. An attempt
to hastily skim to find out how the
story would end. was disappointing.
It was so interwoven with the dialogue
that only a thorough reading could un
ravel it. After the plot is all revealed
the story is still interesting for the
quaint characters and entertaining con
versations. Many a bit of wisdom and
beauty is to be found. Some coarse
ne j s creeps in and we wish the expres
sions ‘ Lordy ” and such like might have
been less abundant. It is,however, a book
far beyond the ordinary, and gives
promise that Mr. Harris is to do much
serious work for us. Mrs. Beshears,
Tommy Tmkins and Sister Jane are de
lightful. We bespeak for Mr Harris
the hearty support of his home folks.
He deserves it, for he has great powers
as a writer.
The Point of Contact in Teach
ing. Dußois. John D. Wattles &
Co., Philadelphia. Price3oc.
This little book deserves careful at
tention It is easily within the reach
of every teacher. The special applica
tion is to those teaching small children.
It is urged that teaching shall proceed
from the bases of the child's tangible
experience, rather than from our at
tempting to bring our ideas down into
childish phraseology. It is a most sen
sible book, and is specially adapted to
primary teachers, both Sunday-school
and secular. Examples of both good
and bad teaching are given. We are
sure the book will do good. Our chil
dren need wise teaching. Many are
volunteering instruction along this
line, much of which is immature and
defective. This volume is reverent and
sensible.
The Modern Readers' Bible, Kings
and Judges. MacMillan & Co., New
York. Price 50c.
We have before mentioned this series.
It presents the various books of the Bi
ble in the form of ordinary literature,
and without our cn tomary chapter or
verse divisions. '1 ae historical books
thus run along in a connected narative.
When these books are merely supple
mentary to the Bible as we are accus
tomed to it, there is value in the series.
We could not afford to let them re
place our versions of the entire Bible.
Through such a presentation as is given
here, we do find fresh interest in a
straight along reading of the narrative.
We fancy many could be induced to
read connectedly in this way. who
otherwise would not. The Revised
Version is used for the text, and the
notes are thoroughly reverent.
Communion. Rev. Henry A. Brown.
Winston, N. C.
Bro. Brown is known to our readers
from his correspondence from North
Holes inYourHealth. |!
1 What does that mean ? Sup- I [
)> pose you are taking in money ),
% all day, and drop it into a <[
? pocket with holes; you will ,)•
'' find yourself a loser instead of <i)
a gainer by the day’s business. Si
' Same with your health. You \
r’ eat and drink and sleep, yet ( |'
)i) lose instead of gain strength.
i); There’s a hole in your health.
)u Some blood disease, probably, ),
') sapping your vitality. You i)
can’t begin, too soon, to take S,
the great blood purifier, i)
I; Ayer’s Sarsaparilla.
Carolina in the Index. This little tract
is a sermon preached to his church at
Winston, N. C., and printed by their
request. It is a clear statement of the
Baptist position as to the Lord's Supper.
The spiii pervading it is most frater
nal, but the truth is strongly set forth.
It will be useful to have around for
those troubled along this line. The
author will gladly correspond with any
one regarding it.
Prayer, Its Nature and Scope. A.
T. Pierson, D.D. In Tribulation.
H. Clay Trumbull. D.D. John D.
Wattles, Philadelphia Each 30 eta.
We have previously warmly com
mended these two books That of Dr.
Pierson is one of his best, and one of
the best little books on prayers. Dr.
Trumbull's, In Tribulation, is also of
great value. It deals wisely with the
delicate problems the subject presents.
They can either be safely used for help
ing others. Together they will greatly
comfort sorrowing friends.
The Biblical World December.
The University of Chicago Press,
Chicago, 111. Price <2.00 a year, 20e
a number.
This is devoted to Jesus as a child.
Dr. W. R. Harper treats of the child
prophecies in Isaiah. The other articles,
nearly all illustrated, are: Story of
tne Birth, Jewish Family Life, the
Child Jesus in Painting, Christianity
and Children. These with the usual
departments make up a most helpful
number The magazine from an ar
tistic point of view is a thing of beauty.
How, Whin, and by Whom was the
Bible Written. James Dodd, D.D.
Fleming H. Revell Co., New York.
Price 75c.
Tnis title accurately describes a good,
sound, readable book. The treatment
includes the Old Testament. It dis
cusses fully the manuscripts, the au
thors, the language and the history of
the Bible, Tne last chapters deal with
the scientific, textual, moral and social
objections to the Bible. This last is not
found in most of our books. The whole
work is well done and will be helpful.
To retain an abundant head of hair
of a natural color to a good old age, the
hygiene of the scalp must be observed.
Apply Hall's II air llenewer.
Get V. E. Orr, Atlanta, seat youi
Church.
DIARETES flour
The result of 'f nr to produce a palatable
Bread Flour u
The testimony to itrnralufhoth from this country and
abroad is remark/bmajrd9Bnvincin(j
Vnrlrnmvd twf Am<\h-a or Europe.
PAMPHLET /Ab SAMPLE FREE.
Writ® to A N. Y.,U S.A..
Our Special Offer:
Cittage Dinner Set (white)Sl.oo
6 Silver Plated Knivesl.2s
6 Plated Forkso.7s
6 Plated Tea Spoonso.so
3 Plated Table Spoons 0.2 c
6 Tumblers 0.25
1 Large Glass Pitchero.2s
2 Salts and Pepper Shakerso.lo
1 Syrup Pitchero.ls
6 Jap. Napkins 0.05
1 Spoon Holdero.ls
Worthß7.7o
Special Price on the ftr Aft
First 100 Sets vViuU
A Cottage Dinner Set
Contains:
6 Dinner Plates, 6 Breakfast Plates,
6 Cups and Saucers, 6 Fruit Saucers,
6 Butter Pads, 2 Meat Dishes, 1
Baker, 1 Pickle, 1 Cover Dish, 1
Sugar, 1 Cream, 1 Bowl, 1 Butterdish,
1 Gravy Boat of the celebrated Mod
dock Porcelain, the best wearing ware
on earth. Absolutely warranted not
to glaze-crack from any cause.
To introduce this famous ft f* ft ft
ware we will sell the first Uli
100 setts as above for.. JU
Order at once so you get the benefit
of the low prices.
Carver & Harper
79 Whitehall St., '
ATLANTA, GEORGIA.
Wholesale and Retail Dealers in
Crockery, Lamps Fancy Goods.
••We’ll Dye
For You. ”
Why throw away your clothes when
you can have them Cleaned and Dyed
squal to new 7
We do both ladies’ and men’s clothes
better than any other in the South,
with prices to suit the times.
Southern Dye <£
Cleaning Works,
22 & 24 Walton St., Atlanta, Ga.
W Express paid. Send for price
list. mch26ly