Newspaper Page Text
$S SO P3ESH ANKTTJM,
Invariably in Advanre.
VOLUME XXXVIII. NO. 40.
f*kj.
Chastening.
O, Thou whose sacred feet have trod
The thorny path of woe,
Forbid that I should slight the rod
Or faint beneath the blow.
lly spirit to its chastening stroke
i meekly would resign,
Nor murmur at the heaviest yoke
That tells me I em Thine.
Give me the spirit of Thy trust,
To suffer as a son—
To say, though living in the dust,
My Father’s will be done!
1 know that trial works for ends
Too high for sense to trace—
That oft in dark attire He sends
Borne embassy of grace.
May none depart till I have gained
ne blessing which it beajjs.
And learned, though late, rentertained
An ongei unawares.
So shall I bless the hour that sent
The mercy of the rod,
And build an altar by the tent
Where I have met with God.
—jV. T. Observer.
Contributions,
Valedictory Address to Ladies.
BY REV. L. PIERCE.
Ojoisioned, as these addressee have
been, by the frequent allusions to myself,
as one of the prise movers in the erec
tion of the Wssleyas Female College, at
first called the Georgia Female College,
I feel myself called upon to deflue my re
lations to this noble enterprise.
I think I was the first man that ever
nrged the erection of a female college, on
the gronnd of woman’s equality with man,
in mental eapacity, to learn anything that
was comprehended by mind ; and that,
in all common sense, there was no reason,
if reference to the human race was had,
why sons should be better educated than
daughters, in as much as teaching the
young idea how to shoot, was the first
and surest life insurance office for insnr
iug good capital stock for life’s future
wants. If fathers had nothing else to do
but attend on the nnrsing for the first
seven years of human life, they conld not
lay in its food and furniture half as well
as mothers conld, if their mind was as
well cultivated as theirs. To mothers, it
appertains in the order of divine provi
dence, to set up the types from whioh the
proof Bheet of life is to be read.
I entered, with the first, into this female
college enterprise ; was one of its first
Trustees—am still one ; have never been
absent but onoe from their regular meet
ings ; have been present, on the stage,
at every Commencement, save one, for
thirty-seven years, and have felt more in
ward joy at the development of female
mind, than I ever felt at a male college in
my life. Felt so, because I saw the
daughters of the land being elevated to
the intellectual plane on which educated
meu moved, and to whioh I knew their
wiso creator had of course called them.
My perpetual presence won for me the
sobriquet of “ Nestor ” —an enviable title.
Heuoe, while I will not claim to be the
very founder of this mother of female
colleges, I will claim to be its first open
advocate, on the ground of woman’s equal
capacity to learn letters, languages, phi
losophy, and mathematics. On this, as a
mooted question, I lectured, argued, and
preached, as agent for this Oollege two
years—lß3B-39—contending everywhere
that collegiate education was as much due
to daughters as to sons ; and that in all
general issues, especially moral results,
the oountry and the church would derive
a richer compensation from well educated
women than from educated men. Where
fora, daughters must not be neglected in
favor of sons, and, whether from parental
conviction or providential provision, it is
nevertheless true that within ten years,
I think, there was in Georgia, two female
oolleges for one male college, and at one
tima, while I kept posted on Comparative
numbers, there was fifteen hundred girls
in these female colleges, against five hun
dred boys in the fonr male colleges, as
they then were. And oven now, there are
more girls than young men enjoying what
is considered a simple collegiate educa
tion. This old mother and model Female
Oollege, has sent ont well nigh her thou
sand graduates, every one of them with
her mental lamp well trimmed and burn
ing, and allot them, whether from heaven
or earth, look back upon their alma mater
as the morning star, whose welcome ris
ing ushered in the brightest day of
woman’s mental birthright dowry. ADd
to-day, among all its competitors in this
glorious race of turning ont illustrious
women, none has excelled this queen of
female colleges. lam both proud and
glad of my connection with it, and I ask
for it immediate help in money and large
patronage. It is Georgia’s mint, where
female minds are ooined into a circulating
medium, whioh will never depreciate
whatever may betide the silver and gold
that brought it out. Educate your daugh
ters well. Money will charm misers and
spendthrifts, bat cultivated minds and
well governed hearts will charm princes
among the nobility of common sense.
The graduates of the Wesleyan Female
Oollege have fully verified all I ever plead
in woman’s favor as to original mental
endowments, bnt have utterly failed to
establish the moral evidence of a great
mind, hy the despising of little things,
especially ridiculous fashions, than which
none more so has ever dishonored your
sex than the present pin-back fashion.
Since 1807, at which time I was stationed
in Augusta, and when tight dresses on
young ladies was oarried so far that cov
ering was all they aimed at, concealment
was ignored. This outrage upon womanly
propriety went on until the lacerated
Bense of female modesty left to the sur
viving matrons of the day, and the dis
gust of gentlemen who had a much higher
sense of woman’s place in society than
making herself the amusement of liber
tines, arrested it by unmistakable denun
ciation. These shameful dresses were
made tight witingly. The pattern was as
scant as the dress. But now, after the
advanoe of mental culture for sixty-eight
years, all that the fashion-following women
have gained, is plenty of goods for a full
flowing dress, but pinned back without
any grace, for a graceful pinning back,
every candid woman will acknowledge, is
a natural impossibility. Hence, to make
tight, so as to meet the most redionlons
demand of fashion ever imposed on
Snntfrerti (Ebtisliatt Adtotale.
women, it is by pinning back an otherwise
ample drees, so as to force a oovsred dis
play of close wrapped joints and angles.
So has this mania sained upon oar women,
that even elderly ladies, that eonld not
brook so glaring an exposure, will, never
theless, pin back a little. How is this ?
Why it this ? There is not s lady in
Georgia in whom the normal has not been
sacrificed as an Giftring to the abnormal,
bnt what will admit that this pinning-baok
of dresses op to the tight point, is the
meet supremely ridiculous and ugly
fashion ever taken on by our oalUvated
ladies.
In this, I am despairingly disappointed,
for I had supposed that enlargement in
mind would lead to the despising of truck
ling to fashion ; bnt, to my surprise and
mortification, I have seen that even our
own graduates come out of Ooliege en
slaved to fashion. And I confess myself
confounded, for I cannot see how it is
that great minds can revel on little things.
That there mast be mental debility, in
some way, in women, so long as they will
truckle to fashions, jnst to be In fashion,
as odious as their late ohignons, and pro
sent pin-back dresses are, and were, I am
anable to deny. There is no evidence of
red greatness in man or wnmn’s mind,
so long as it finds its soßce in things that
requires morel dammttatien te gtve them
play gronnd. lam now forced to see the
reason why Boiemon asked that startling
question: " Who can find a vtrtnons
woman ? For her price is far above
rubies.” Ha does not mean a pure
woman, for they were always abundant,
bat a woman with moral courage enough
to do right for herself and by herself.
The valne of anoh a woman is indeed far
above rabies. Suppose all onr graduates
had gone ont from ns patterns of true
womanly taste. In dress and manners,
abhorring all innovations upon the sacred
precincts of female modesty and trne
womanly dignity. The oonseqnonoe would
have been, that long before this day, the
praise of your honored alma matrn- would
have been its living, nadispnted eulogy.
Bnt as it is, female edaaation has done
nothing in correcting female enslavement
to fashions, however unseemly, if they
are the fashion of fashionable women.
of Georgia, tell me, I pray yon,
do yon believe tbst devotees to fashion
among yonr sex, are the spsolmens of the
noblest womanhood t I know yon do not.
Why, then, will yon be led off after them ?
Let me asaurc yon, that jaet la as far aa
yon magnify silly aad distasteful fashions
In othtrs, you minify yonmalves, and that
exactly where ft means most—among wise
men.
There are mawy sins stated fn tha word
of God, in whioh women maybe Involved,
but it is only in Isaiah iff : 16, 24, inclu
sive, that women's follies, as a aax, ws
catalogued, and these all relate to manner
isms, fuhtous, or ornamental jewels.
Ladies wifi please look and aee. And
then remambar that what God set down
then as the fruits of female depravity, is in
the same category still. We will, however,
only pay our disrespect te the ear-ring* of
these Jewish ohiroh members, as they
are the most definable of the vulgar or
naments which have some down to nsfrom
perverted Jewish women. How a women
of high self respect can wear ear rings, Is
beyond my comprehension, for no women
of good sense will ever say she wears ear
rings to beautify her ear—a delicate mem
ber of her rqalslte architecture, made up
to the perfection of her Creator's taste,
in fine finish ; and ff not, then why wear
them at all ? Ah, ms ! here is the rub
where guilt chafes the face of a good con
science. They belong to what ths Spirit
oalls the-prfde of life—one of tha daments
of the world—God Himself having so de
clared it. Bee 1 John, fl : 15, 16.
I appeal to your oonscisnce, and leave
yon to the sensa of ths pride of life. It
can have no sense, but fn fts foolish dis
play in dress. You wear yonr car-rings
without any reference to your ears, save
only as a tug to support and display what
you Intend as life’s pride. God says it is
of the world, and not of Him ; and, so
every ear ringed lady In tha Ohnruh will
agree If she will deal trnly with herself.
She will say : “ My ear-rtngs are of the
world; I never put them on, nor wore them
a moment in my life, in any reference to
my God; neither have I, nor ean I, pin
back my dress in any reference to my God.
I see now, to my sonls great damage, that
all this catering to fashion is of the
i world—oannot be of the Father, but is of
the world. It is what ties me on to the
world ; yea, worse still, to tie me on to
the world is my motive ; is so, beoanse I
■ee now that I never did have, neither
can I ever hava, any religions motive in
any such conform fly te the world. It is
only the prido of life that prompts it.
Take away its worldly attractions, and it
has none. I hava jast seen that I should
never have troablsd myself with my ear
rings, if it had not beea fer my pride of
life. It was really for others tc see ; it
was my pride of life. It was, oh, shock
ing to say, my advertisemant to the world,
of my friendship with it. Sol now see,
for aithongh I am a nominal member of
the Ohnrob, I see that in all my fashion
following spirit, the will of the Lord and
the good of tha Ohnreh, never entered
into my motive reason. I was after the
world, and therefore I minded the thlngß
of the world.” If yon die In this state,
yon will bs lost.
And now, in conclusion, let me say my
love of ladies, as entitled to high literary
cultivation, Is a demonstrated fact, and
full credit for it has often been given, and
is hereby gratefnlly acknowledged. In
yon, ladies, is deposited the grand moral
conservatism of the world and the Church.
And it is the grief of my heart when I see
it thrown awny in this pandering to world
ly fashions and follies. Lst me tell yon,
yon can never send forth any moral and
religious influence on others by being in
the Church and displaying life in the
world. In this seeking to save your life,
Christ tells you you will lose it. It is
trne, there is a sense in which you will
gain favor, but It will not be because you
are a consistent Christian, bnt beoanse
you are a carnal professor, your religion
being no reproof to the world. You buy
favor by selling religion to get It. Bat
Solomon says, “ The woman that feareth
the Lord, she shall be praised.” In this
way, yon can oompel it. Therefore, sanc
tify the Lord of hosts Himself, and let j
Him be yonr fear, and let Him be yonr
PUBLISHED BY J. W. BURKE & COMPANY, FOR THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH!
dread. This yon oannot do, while yon
worship at fashion’s fickle, reckless altar.
There yon will never dare to say, “ Sanc
tify to me my devotion to fashionable
prideand what yon cannot ask God’s
blessing npon from its want of congeni
ality with His holy Spirit, will destroy yon
if yon hold on to it. Shall I ever see the
day when the gradnates of the Wesleyan
Female College will prove, by their lives,
that great minds oannot seek solace in
each little pleasures as fashionable servi
tude ean afford ? I hope I may. Then
the glory of the College will be its life.
Sanctification—lts Profession.
Dear Brother Kenneny: I am no more
in favor of an inconsistent profession of
senotifleation than brother Mood. There
is no donbt bnt that inconsistency on the
part of some who profess it has hindered
its progress aa has been and still is
oase with conversion. We ate conticC )f
ally finding persons who exouse them
selves for neglecting to embrace religion,
because so many professors of religion
walk unworthy of their vooation; bnt this
is no argument against religion, nor its
profession; nor is it aoy argument against
sanctification as an attainment, nor the
propriety of professing it when experi
enced, no more than the fact that spnri
ons coin being in circulation would beau
argument that we should not have, and
ofnulate that whioh is genuine. There
would be none spurious in circulation if
there were none gennine.
I wish brother Mood to state whether
he thinks that it is important for one who
has experienced conversion to make a pro
fession of it, or does he suppose it suffi
cient for him to live it ? Does he give
the same advice to babes in Christ as he
does to yonng men and fathers : live it,
bnt be very careful about professing it ?
If he advises them to profess it, I would
like for him to show why it is important
for one to profess conversion as well as
live it; and not important for one having
experienced sanctification to profess it as
well as live it. If he says the latter may
not adorn his profession, and thereby
hindtx the progress of sauctifioatioD, does
not the same ot jee'ion lie against the pro
faction of conversion ? The conversion
of the heart can and will exhibit itself in
the life, and one should not be retarded
from making a profession of it through
fear of a failure to adorn his profession
by a consistent life, but should rather fear
not to make a profession of it lest it
should so hinder him from adorning it by
leading to its loss. Bo with regard to
mnotifioation, it can and will oxhibit it
self in the life. “ Make the tree good,
and the fruit will be good.” “ A good
tree oannot bring forth evil fruit.” One
Who has experienced sanctification should
not be retarded from professing it through
fear of not adorniDg it, bnt should rather
fear not to profess it, lost the non profes
sion may hinder him Lorn adorning it,
lsadiug to its loss. Brother M. says that
I have somewhat amusingly exerted my
ingenuity in presenting David and Panl
as examples of Bible professors of holi
ness He does not charge me with per
verting the Boriptures in so doing. Then
he admits that they did profess holiness;
bnt he sayn I have “ utterly failed to fur
nish any example of a profession of sanc
tification distinct from justification and
regeneration.” Is not this implied in
thefr profession? Surely their profession
of it was in harmony with their teachings
relative to it. They taught that sanctifi
cation is a work of grace substquent to
jastifleation and regeneration. David
says.'T will run the way of thy oommand
ments when Thon shalt enlarge my heart ”
Thera was au enlargement of heart not
yet experienced which he anticipated and
an obedience to be rendered as a conse
quence thereof. Paul exhorts the Corin
thians, whom he regarded as babes, and
yet carnal, to cleanse themselves from all
filthiness of the flesh and spirit. He
prays for the Thessaloniaus that the very
God of peace would sanctify them wholly.
If they tangbt that sanctification was a
blessing experienced subsequently to just
ifleation and regeneration, in professing
it they are to be understood as professing
it as such.
Brother M. insists that Paul and Peter
aad John were silent as to the profession
of holiness; that their silenee wan signifi
cant. Was Panl silent when he said, “Ye
are witnesses, and God also, how liolily t
Justly, and unblamably we behaved our
selves among you that believe ? ’ Was
Pater silent when he said, and put no
difference between ua and them purifying
their hearts by faith. He was not silent
in returnee to his brethren when he says,
seeing ys have purified your souls in obey
ing the trnth. John was not silent when
he said, Herein is our love made perfect
that we may have boldness in the day of
judgment. Brother M. insists that Mr.
Wesley never experienced and professed
sanctification. Suppose he did not; does
it fellow that sanctification is uuattaina
bla? and when attained, should not be
prof eased? Certainly not. It only proves
I hat Mr. Weefty was inconsistent in urg
ing an attainment constantly and earnest
ly npon others, whilst he neglected to at
tain it himself. If he experienced it and
refnsed to profess it, he was inconsistent
in not doing what he advised and encour
aged others to do. Brother M. says that
onf Saviour in the only example which
the Bible affords of snoh a profession.
“ He possessed, practiced and professed,”
Well, is He not a worthy example for ns?
Should we refase to imitate Him beoanse
there are none others like Him ? Should
we not imitate Him in the profession of
holiness? “Let this mind be in yon
whioh was also in Christ Jesus.” Should
we not imitate Him in the practice of
holiness? “Hethatsaith he abideth in
Him ought himself also to walk even as
He walked.” Shonld we not imitate Him
also in the profession of holiness? “We
have the mind of Christ.” Was the apos
tle indiscreet in making sneh a profes
sion? Brother M. repeats the assertion
that Bishop Asbnry did not made a profes
sion of holiness. What mean these words
of his: “I live in patience, in purity, and
in the perfect love of God." Brother M.
eays “a large majority of the Bishops,dead
and living, indeed, the bone and sinew of
Methodism from Mr. Wesley’s time to the
present, with a few exceptions, did not
profess this second blessing.” In this he
admits that some of the Bishops, and
some of the bone and sinew of Method-
MACON, GEORGIA, WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1875.
ism, have professed it. In this he is oor
rect; and though they may be in the min
ority, yet the minority is quite respeota
ble as to numbers and ability. Bisbop
Asbury, Whatooat, and Hamline, Dr.
Adam Clarke, John Fletcher, William
Bramweil, Dr. Olin, Joseph Benson, Wil
bur Fish, and others too numerous to
mention, besides honorable women not a
few ; and though they may be in the mi
nority, it shonld be borne in mind that
minorities are frequently better example
than majorities.
Brother M. assures me that my concep
tion that one possessing and practicing
holiness, bnt not professing it, might re
tard the progress of holiness in others, is
vain. Why did he not take np the illus
tration and reasons I gave for the concep
tion, and show their fallacy ? Was it not
becanse it was easier to make the assertion
than to show their fallacy ? He says, “ a
life and character like this might retard a
mere technicality, a conop* on whiffi
makes sanctification so distinot from re
generation that one antagonizes the
other.” Such a view of sanctification I
do not hold; and never heard of any one
else holding such a view. I have yet to
learn that a work of grace distinot from,
and subsequent to, another antagonizes
a previous work of grace. Are justifica
tion and regeneration antagonistic to re
ropentanee beoanse they are distinot from
and snbseqaent to repentance ?
Brother M. says, holiness in heart de
veloped in life, withoat a vetbal profes
sion, has been the means used by the
heroes of the Bible and Methodism to
spread Scriptural holiness over all lands.
According to his first artiele, Methodism
has succeeded to a very limited extent in
this work; for he says “the doctrine has
been well nigh driven from the Ohuroh by
the indiscreet profession of many.” A
Church with the doctrine of Christian
holiness well nigh driven from it, cannot
be very successful in spreading Scriptural
holiness. There is great need of its res
toration to onr pulpit and press, that we
may more efficiently accomplish the work
for which, as a people, we have been
raised up: to spread Scriptural holiness
over these and other lauds.
Brother M. alludes to the fluctuations of
holiness in Mr. Wesley’s day. Many
ceased to mofess it, many lost it; and he
wrote to his brother Charles, saying, I
am at my wit's end about two things: the
Chnrch aud Christian perfection,and that,
he says, I fiud that nearly all the preach
ers in every circuit have done with Chris
tian poffection. What of all this? Does
it prove that sanctification is unattaina
ble, aud that its profession is improper ?
By no means. It only proves that per
sons may fall away from sanctification, as
well as justification ; thit persons may
abandon the profession of holiness as
well as justification ; that the work of
sanctification may decline, as well as jus
tification, and needs to be revived as well.
Is it any wonder that sanctification de
clined when “ nearly all the preaohers had
done with the doctrine ?’’ Let . the
preachers treat the dootrine of justifica
tion in the same way, and we will see a
similar declension in justification; and let
the people and preaohers cease to profess
justification,as they have well nigh ceased
to profess sanctification, and you will see
a similar decline in justification. Mr.Wes
ley,in seeking'for the reason why sanctifi
cation did not spread in a certain section,
says, “ I constantly reoeived one and the
same answer. *We see now we sought it
by works. We thought it was to come
gradually; we never expected it to come
in a moment, by simple faith, in the same
manner as we reoeived justification.’ ”
Want of instruction, want of proper in
fraction on the subject of sanotifioation
is the principle reason of the decline of
sanotifioation among ns.
Brother Mood is a strong advocate of
temperance; is at the head of the order of
Good Templars in South Carolina, and
with commendable zeal, in addition to his
ministerial work, is with tongue and pen
striving to advance the temperance cause.
Suppose one should say to him, the his
tory of the temperance cause is a very
humiliating one; it has been subject to so
many fluctuations. At times it spreads
over the land so that it seems kingaleohoi
and his hosts will be obliged to surrender
or flee. Then it declines, one organization
after another passes away, or dwindles ;
many of its votaries desert the ranks and
go over to the enemy. So many have lost
faith in the tfficieney of temperanoe or
ganizations tffjotiog a permanent refor
mation ; and some even dare to say they
have been injurious. Wonld we consider
this a valid objection to temperance soci
eties—a reason why persons shonld not
profess themselves to be temperance men
in principle and practice ? Suppose one
were to say to him: It is needless for you
to profess yourself to be a temperanoe
man—it’s enough for you to practioe it
in your life. Commend temperanoe in
your life. You might not have the pro
per “cquipoisd”—be silent as to yonr
temperance principles. Lit your life
show what you are, lest you might not
walk worthy of your temperance profes
sion, and hinder the cause in its progress.
And in your lectures and communications
to the press on the subject of temperanoe,
give the same advica you do upon the sub
ject of sanctification. Say to them :be
temperance men in principle and practioe
—be careful about joining temperance
societies and professing yourselves to be
temperanoe men—very few have the
“ equipoise ” for such a step—the incon
sistency of temperance men has well nigh
driven temperance from the land. Say
to those who are temperance men in prin
ciple and practice, and stand aloof from
temperance societies, yon are rightly the
bone and sinew of temperanoe. Men
have done so. It has been by temperance
principles in heart, developed in the life,
withoat verbal professions, that the heroes
of the temperance cause have spread
temperance over all lands. Would not
snoh teachings do more to drive temper
ance from the land than the inconsistency
of temperance men ? So with his teach
ings concerning sanotifioation.
There are two plans proposed for the
promotion of holiness. One the experi
ence and practioe of ft, without a verbal
profession, the other the experience
and practioe, with a verbal profession.
Now which is the better plan? Brother
Mood objects to the latter, saying that
the profession is useless, and may become
injurious by inconsistency of life—to
which I reply, that the profession of it is
useful, and need not be injurious. It is
nseful becanse it does not binder, bat
tends to promote parity of life, and thus
gives efficiency to the life-promoting plan.
Here are two men who have experienced
sanotifWtion; one professes it, the other
does not. Which of them will be most
likely to exhibit it in his life ? Surely
the one who professes it. The additional
sense of responsibility imposed by a pro
fession of holiness will tend to its exem
plification in life. He has all the motives
to a holy life whioh the other has,and this
additional one that he has made a profes
sion of it. If he does not walk worthy
of it, he knows that he will injure the
cause whioh he has espoused, and seeks to
promote both by practice and profession.
The other lacking this motive, will not be
so liketfy to be steadfast. Besides, it is
useful because by professing it he will af
for J protraction to inquiring souls, whioh
the s,her will not. One witnessing the
puril *, of life exhibited by the one who
does not profess holiness inquires of him
bow it is that he has attained to such
puriiy of life. He replies: I cannot tell;
that wonld involve a profession of holi
ness- Ido not profess holiness. Ido not
believe in that method of promoting holi
ness. Many have injured the cause of
holiness by inconsistent professions. He
goeo te tko other with the same inquiry.
He tells him: I discovered after my con
version corruption remaining in my
heart. The flesh lusted against the Spirit.
They were oontrary the one to the other;
so that I oonld not do the things that I
wonld. I learned from Jesus that to have
the good the tree mnet be made good
—from John,that the blood of JesusGhrist
the Son of God oleanseth from allsin—
from Panl, that sanctification was through
the (Spirit, and belief of the trnth—from
David, who prayed, “ create in me a
clean heart, O God,” that it was
by prayer. Jesns tanght mo what
things soever ye desire when ye pray,
believe that ye noeive them, and ye
shall have them. I desired a clean heart
—I prayed for it—and while praying
for it I expected it; and according to the
word of God, and my faith in that word
through Jesns Christ, He sprinkled me
with olean water, and I was olean from all
my filthiness and all my idols; He cleansed
me, anew heart He gave me, anew spirit
He pnt within me ; He took the 6tony
heart out of my flesh, and gave me a heart
of flesh; He put His Spirit in me, which
eanses me to walk in His statutes, and to
keep his judgments, and to do them. It
is thus that my life has become exempla
ry. Is it not evident that the plan that
joins the profession with the experience
and practice is a batter one than that
whioh relies only upon the experience
and praotioo of holiness withoat the pro
fession ? Truly yours in Christ,
O. H. Pritchard.
“Forgiveness.”
Mr. Editor: Being one of the original
parties in the discussion of the above sub
ject, and having never signed articles of
“Peace,” or oapitnlated, I feel at liberty
—with your permission—to answer yonr
two last correspondents, “Peace” and W.
P. Harrison.
And first, in reply to “I’eaoe,” I remark
that he says that “the snbjeot is an im
portant one,” and then says, “let it pass,
brethren, let it pass;” now, sir, I ask if it
is just and right to let an “important’’
matter pass nntil it is settled according to
the law in the ease; it has not been so
settled according to my understanding.
Again, “Peace” says, the views of L. P.
might be corroot “if we were to bo judges,
but happily we are not.”
Now, sir, while we are not to be the final
judge in any case, nor are we to ever
judge motives, yet “by their fruits ye shall
know them;” and “know ye not that we
shall judge angels,” that is justify the
acts of the righteous, and condemn those
of the unrighteous; the truth is, that we
are to pass sentence upon every moral act
that comes within the range of our con
sciousness, either of approval or disap
proval, according as those acts may be
righteous or unrighteous. If they conflict
with the law of the Lord, we must con
demn them.
And now, sir, I address m3 self to the
article of Dr. Harrison in the Advocate of
the Bth inst. After stating the different
views of tho partits in controversy, and
saying that all parties are agreed as to
those who repent, he asks, “Shall I forgive
my enemy if he utterly refuse to express
his regret, or acknowledge the wrong
against met” and says, “I answer yes, I
must forgive him; my own soul’s relation
to my judge necessitates this action on
my part.”
Now, sir, the dootor did not tell ns
whether ho based that “necessity” upon
“the law of the Lord,” or upon his opin
ion in the matter; if the former, and it
can be so proven, I for one, bow in
reverend submission to said Law; but if
the latter, of course I can have my own
opinion, and that opinion is based npon
the fifth petition of the Lord’s prayer, and
Matt, xviii. 15, 16, 17, and Lake xvii.
3,4, and the matter being thns forever
settled, wherever else forgiveness of ene
mies is alluded to in the sacred Scriptures,
and required as a eondition of acceptance
with onr Father, the condition is always
to be implied; otherwise we make scrip
tore oonfiiot with scripture; just as we
understand those to do, who make immer
sion the only mode of baptism; or as
those who believe in the doctrine of
eternal election. The truth is that there
are isolated passages whioh may prove any
or all of the above theories; bat when we
come to take iu the whole scope and
design of the Soriptnres—as we believe it—
neither eternal eleotion or reprobation, or
exolnsive immersion can be established;
nor can the doctrine of the unconditional
forgiveness of offences bo established.
A to doctor H’s “fifteen renderings” of
the “original word,” I suppose, Mr.
Editor, you and yonr readers have dis
covered,ere this, that lam not competent
to judge; for “the little knowledge I have
gained—in aeventy-flve years—was all
(mostly) from simple nature drained,” so
I will accept of his definition of “sending
away.” He says, “I send away the oflence,
the sin, from him, when he repents;”
snbseqaently he tells ns, “I forgive my
brother, when I send away, ont of my
heart, and ont ol my memory, the offence
he has committed. This lam bonnd to
do, whether he repents or not,” and furth
er on, “He who does not forget, does not
truly forgive, his brother’s trespasses.”
Now, sir, if he had forgiven and forgot
ten, how did he know that he had anght
against his brother? My understanding
has always been that when a matter is for
gotten, it is no more remembered.
But the doctor says, “Pardon is the act
of a superior.” . . . “If my brother tres
pass against me, he beoomes, to that ex
tent, my inferior, in morals.” All of
which I accept of—and when he sincerely
repents, he comes back and is his equal
again; bnt when he will not repent, and
is forgiven withoat repentance, and the
whole matter forgotten (of course the.
offender will never oome back to the
offended till he repents,) does it not fol
low that having forgiven and forgotten>
the offended goes down to the offender
“reoeiving him and bidding him God
speed, and thereby becoming partaker of
his evil deeds?” Bat lam told that he is
not pardoned. I answer that if he is for
given and the sin forgotten, what reason
is there for not reoeiving him?
Mr. Editor: I humbly conceive the
above views to be oontrary to the teach
ings of the divine word, and destructive
to the best interest of banian sooiety.
That there is to be an everlasting distinc
tion between the righteous and the wick
ed, both in this world and that whfoh is
to oome, the word of God fully establishes,
see Jer. xv. 19th: “It thon take forth
the precious from the vile, thon shalt be
as my month; let them return to thee; bnt
return not thou nnto them;” and 2d Cor.
vi. 17th: “Wherefore oome ont from
among them, and be ye separate, saith the
Lord, and touoh not the nnolean thing,
aud I will reoeive yon. And will be a
Father nnto yon, and ye shall be my sons
and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.”
Now, suppose this idea of forgiving and
forgettiDg, established, what wonld be the
condition of society?
Mr. Editor, yon know that there are
crimes enacted throngh the length and
breadth of the land, that oanse the ears
to tingle, and a life long wail of agony to
ascend from the victim; and yet these
crimes are to be forgiven and forgotten,
without repentanoe, and when so forgiven
and forgotten, the offender must neces
sarily be reatorod to all the privileges of
the upright.
Mr. Editor, I appeal to the conscious
ness of yourself, and of the Methodist
Episcopal Chnrch—of whioh I have been
a member for fifty years—to know if this
idea of forgetting is a Bible doctrine.
Is not memory an atribnte of the mind,
and can it be obliterated withoat destroy
ing the mind itself ? I remember distinct
ly an event that occurred seventy-one
years ago.
But lam told that “This blessed tem
per—to forgive and forget without repent
anoe—is the fruit of Divine Grace.” Mr.
Editor, my humble faith has always been
that Divine Grace, while it did not affeot
the memory, nevertheless enabled “the
child of God,” to overcome, or “send
away,” if yon prefer—all malevolent feel
ings; not to take vengeance on an enemy,
even if yon have it in yonr power to do
so; to pray for him, that God would give
him repentance to feed and clothe him if
need be, that he might have spaoe for
repentance, and when,by “Divine Grace,”
he comes back to yon by repentance, then
forgive him—pardon if jrpn prefer—and
ho becomes yonr equal again; and is not
the overcoming of “the clamor for re
venge, the sweet fire that burns in the
boul,” a greater display of “Divine
Grace,” than the destruction of the mem*
orj?
And now, Mr. Editor, I have gone
throngh Dr. Harrison’s article, not, how
ever, to my satisfaction; bnt believing the
views presented by me are in accordance
with the word of God, that wonld pro
mote His glory, and the good of human
society, I subscribe myself,
Local Preacher.
Beware of Little Sins.
One sin never goes alone. Cain’s anger
is seconded with murder ; Ahab’s covet
ousness is attended with bloody ornelty ;
and Jeroboam's rebellion with idolatry ;
and Judas’ thievery with treason. I
might give instances of this in Adam and
Eve, and in Lot, Abraham, Noah, Jacob,
Joseph, Job, David, Solomon, and Peter,
etc., but a touch on this string is enough.
Oae sin commonly disposes the heart to
another sin. A small sin many times
draws the heart to a greater, and one great
tin draws the heart to another great sin,
and that to a greater, till at last the soul
comes to be drowned in all excess. Au
gestine relates the story of Maniohens,
who being tormented with flies, was of
opinion that the devil made them and not
God. Why theD, said one that stood by,
if the devil made flit s, then the devil
made worms, and not God, for they are
living creatnres as well as flies. True,
said he, the dev.l did make worms Bat,
said tho other, if the devil did moke
worms, then he did make birds, beasts,
and man. He granted all. And thus,
saith that old father, by denying God in
the fly, he came to deny God in man, and
so consequently the whole creation. The
seed is bat a small inconsiderable thing in
itself, yet let it be bnt cast into the
ground, and there rest quietly for a time,
and it will take root, and grow up to a
great stock, and bring forth many flour
ishing branches ; like the grain of mus
tard seed, (Mat. xiii:3l, 32.) whioh,
thongh it be the least of seeds, yet being
cast into the ground, grows up to be the
greatest among herbs, and becometh a
tree, so that the birds of the air oome
and lodge in the branches thereof. Satan
will be sure to lodge himself, in the least
of sins, as birds nest themselves in the
smallest branches of a tree, and there he
will hatch all manner of wickedness. A
sinful motion, if it be not rejeoted, will
proenre consent, and consent will break
forth into act, and one aot will procure
anotlitr act, until the multiplying of acts
have begot a habit, and that habit hath
choked and stilled conscience ; and when
once conscience is stifled and bennmed,
it will be ready upon all occasions to lay
the soul open, and to proßtrate it to the
basest and worst of sins. Oh, there is a
prodigious evil in the least of sins ; it
will quickly multiply itself into all man
ner of evils. Unless sin be out off in the
first motion, it will proceed to action, and
from action to delectation, and from de
light to costom, and from custom to a
habit; and so the soul will be in immi
nent danger of being undone for ever. A
little thief put in at the window, may open
the doors for stronger and greater to oome
in, that may take away both life and
treasure at onoe. A little wedge makes
way for a greater, and so do little sins
make way for greater. Satan and onr
own hearts will be modest at first, and
therefore they are often in a combination,
first to draw ns to lesser sins and then to
greater, and so from sins less obnoxions
to sins more scandalons, till we come to
be abominable to God, hateful to others,
and a terror to onrselves. Bach as live in
one sin, God will in justice give over to
other sinfl. The Gentiles gave np them
selves to idolatry, Rom i: 23 ; “And God
gave them np to uncleanness,” ver. 24.
It is impossible for any man to take one
sin into his bosom, and to shat all others
ont. He who allows himself in one sin,
will find it shat the door of heaven against
him, and therefore the trno penitent tnrns
from sin universally.— lhomas Brooks.
Why He Takes Them.
Among shepherds it Is customary, when a
flock will not cross a river, to carry one o£ the
lambs to the opposite side, when, attracted by
its bleating, the mother will at once cross, fol
lowed by the whole flock.
The flock stood welting by the rapid river.
And would not cross,
Although the shepherd kindly called them
thither,
And hanks of moss,
And fields of green, and verdant hills surround
ed
The further shore:
The danger all their narrow vision hounded
Of crossing o’er.
He stretched his kindly arms, and gently called
them;
They wonld not hoed:
The deep, broad river’s rapid stream appalled
them,
Though pleasant mead
And mountain fair, beyond the darking river,
Rose to their view,
And in the distance, bright, unfading ever,
Were pastures new.
The shepherd took a lamb, and safely bore It
Within his arms
To whore the pastures brightly gleamed be
fore It,
And all alarms
Were bushed. The mother heard Its voice of
pleading,
And, crossing o’er,
The flock behind her followed in her leading,
Unto the shoro.
O stricken hearts, all torn with grief, and
bleeding,
A Bavionr’s voice
Ye would not hear, nor follow in his leading
Of your own choice!
And so He takes your lambs unto his keeping,
That eyes all dim
And dark with sorrow’s clouds, and sad with
weeping,
May look to Him,
And sec, beyond the darkly rolling river,
Those gone before,
And to the fields with vendure green for ever
Cross safely o’er. — Selected.
Family Worship.
One of the ohief employments of heavon
is worship. Men on earth worship alone
or collectively. One kind of worship
partakes of the nature both of the lone
and the collective. It is that of the fam
ily. To any one filled with the spirit of
devotion, the propriety of family worship
is most apparent, Anjr one tanght of the
divine Spirit will doubtless be impelled
toward it. The experience of thousands
on this subject might constitute quit e a
ohapter, were it written. Many a hus
band, many a wife, many a son or daugh
ter have deep feelings on this subject.
Many have felt scarce less deeply this duty
than Panl did the duty to labor in the
ministry, whioh he expresses by saying,
“ Woe is nnto me if I preach not the gos
pel.”
That any one shonld long for the wor
ship of the closet and the public assembly,
and feel no inolination to worship in the
family, in the midst of those most loved,
is too prepcsterons to controvert. The
instruction to bring np “ ohildren in the
nurture and admonition of the Lord,”
too clearly involves reading the Scriptures
to them, and worshiping with them, to
need disonssion. That the familp worship
of Jyk is better than the godless example
of many who have no family altar, is most
evident. It is best that every parent
should resolve, like Joshua, that “ as for
me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”
If the privilege of family instruction and
worship were universally understood and
exercised, there wonld be more who, like
Timothy, would from their childhood
know the Soripture, whioh are able to
make any one appreciating them “ wise
nnto salvation.”
It wonld save many parents from going
down with gray haira in sorrow to their
graves if they shonld gather their ohildren
around them, morning and evening, in
worship, instead of sending them without
prayer into the occupations and tempta
tions of the day, and to a prayerless bed
at night. Parents should beware how they
send their children into vioe and irreli
gion, and finally into eternal woe, by the
neglect of this blessed privilege and evi
dent dnty. The remembrance of duty
neglected may have pangs for old age, for
a dying hour, or for the day of judgment.
Shall any one standing on the left hand
say, “I never heard my parents pray ?”
There is a blessedness in the thonght
that by means of the worship of the fam
ily altar many have been oonverted, many
fed, many made shining lights in the
oirole of their association, and many have
been the better qualified as watchmen on
the wallß of Zion. Bnt the very blessed
ness of family worship itself is a sufficient
recommendation of it. Who love each
other as do the hnsband and the_ wife,
parents and children, brothers and sisters?
What a pleasure it is to ali fervent Chris
tians to worship with those whom they
most love, and in whom they most oon
flde 1 There can be little excuse for dis
inclination to family worship that is not
really founded on want of any love of
worship at all. Those with the form of
godliness and devoid of its power,, whose
worship is mere form or lip-servioe in
stead of being in spirit and in truth, will
find reason for aversion to family worship.
To them, snoh worship seems like hypoc
risy abashed or oonvioted before the faces
of those who best know how hollow it is.
It sometimes turns ont that a wife,
though professing religion, proves most
successful in destroying the regularity of
family worship. Especially is this trne
if she is miserably backslidden.. Instead
of arranging for family worship in the
first part of the evening, she allows the
ohildren, one by one, to go to bed prayer
lees as well as sleepy; and finally, she finds
slnmber more inviting than worship, and
joins them in their dreams. We have
known more than one family-—even more
than one minister’s family—where wives
were disposed to persaade their husbands
that frequent worship was not essential;
that morning worship was altogether suffi
cient. And if the hnsband, like her, is
considerably backslidden, it is not strange
that family devotions are much curtailed.
Bnt the value of family worship is
greatly dependent on the manner and
spirit of its observance. That done care
lessly and spiritlessly, beoomes insipid
and distasteful. A spiritless manner of
reading or of prayer is reflex in its influ
ence on the sonl. It tends to make the
soul of him who practices it, and of those
who join in the service, still more spirit
less. On the other hand, animated,
solemn reading and fervent style of prayer,
assist the souls ot worshipers toward in
creased warmth and vitality. It is well
that the Scripture to be used should have
been previously read, meditated upon,
and its spirit fully imbibed by the parent
previous to its being read in family wor
ship. It is also very important that a
good degree of spirituality should be
maintained by him who is to be as a priest
in bis own bouse. Otherwise the souls of
others may fail of that degree of profit
whioh should be expected from tbeservioe.
Bnt it must be remembered also that as
cold pews induce coldness in the pnlpit,
so coldness in the hearts of a family group
tends to ooldness in the heart and service
of him who leads in devotion. Family
worship, when kept np in its true spirit,-
tends to the making of a paradise of
home ; it is the life of the ohuroh to
whioh praying families belong; and it
sends ont an influence and secures results
which tell on time and are harvested in
eternity. —Religious lelescope. 1
F. W. KENNEDY, D. D., Editor
J. W UtJKKE, Assistant Editor
WHOLE NUMBER 1964
May God be Known.
If there be a personal God, the ques
tion naturally arises whether Ho may be
known by man, and if known, how and to
what extent? This is a problem with
whioh Philosophy has toyed and trifled
much, and is trifling still. We mean no
dif respect; bn iris it not trifling to bandy
philosophic dogma back and forth in the
dim region of metaphysical disputation
while we have clear and unmistakable
statements that solve the question, in the
revealed Word of God. “Be still and
know that lam God. I will be exalted
among the heathen. I will be exalted in
the earth. 1 ’ Ps xlvi. 10. My hearers, it
is true 'that God can be known. Not that
man can frame any distinct idea of imsge
of God in his mind, as he can of his fellow
man; not that be can mentally exhaust
the knowledge of God aud nnderstaud the
Almighty to perfection; but that we may
possess snch an apprehension of the
Divine Being and nature, through His
works and Word, and man’s own nature,
as will reveal God sufficiently to become
the object of worship, the Father we may
love, the Spirit we may obey, and the Son
to whom we may entrust onr sonls.
Though this knowledge be imperfect and
partial, it is still sufficient for onr imper
fect and partial natures, adequate to lead
ns unto Jehovah; as a single ray of light
streaming from the distant castle, may
serve to guide the lest and benighted
traveler unto its portals, where he may
find seourity and rest.
This idea of Deity we attain by remov
ing all limitations from His nature, ascrib
ing toffim the superlative degree of every
known excellence, and of the attributes
revealed in His creation and creatures.
Thus regarding Him bb the First Great
Oanse, we assign to this cause the origin
of all those pure and moral qualities the
traces of which we discover in nature.
Weoonceiveof them in the Uncaused One
as absolute, perfeot and infinite, and so,
rising from Nature up to nature’s God,
we find in Deity, not merely an abstract
principle of order or law, not merely a
blind, impersonal force —no incomprehen
sible notion of being, no inscrutable canee;
but a conscious, a thinking, loving, will
ing, aoting personality; One who is in all
and over all, and who livoth forever and
ever, blessed be His name!
Need we add that such a knowledge of
God is reasonable, is necessary to any
aconrate apprehension of ourselves and of
the world, and essential to any true life
on earth, any eternal life beyond. The
law of onr being drives us to the forma
tion of such a conception. It is required
by our moral nature; it is demanded by
every religious instinct written by the
Creative hand upon the human soul. To
escape it, we must surrender onr con
sciousness to the guidance of mystical
speculation and follow implicitly where it
leads, as the fool follows the will-o’-the
wisp throngh tangled thickets and miry
swamps, in a starless night.
While it is not popular to-day to give
attention to the formal proof of the exist
ence of God, while the great body of tran
ticendental philosophers, with Kant and
G'oleridge, deuy the validity of such argu
ments, there is a school cf modern think
ers, among whom are found some noble
names we are accustomed to honor, that
questions, whether, if there boa God, he
may be known by man? They leave us
this much, and only this, to become the
basis of eternal hope, the possibility of a
God bnt the impossibility of knowing
Him, if'He do exist. Oh! blind and un
certain guides, straining at the gnat of
Intuition, and swallowing the camel of
Annihilation; casting ont the mote of
Faith from the eyes of others, while in
flaming their own eyes with the beam of
Infinite Credulity I Oh I destroyers of our
only aspirations toward immortality and
eternal life, ean you leave us no greater
heritage than a lifeless skepticism, no
suiter assurance than everlasting darkness
in donbt I What comfcrt is this to the
soni yearning for higher existence, to
grope a little while and then to expire, as
a spark goes out forever; not knowing a
God in the present, never to know or to
be known of God. Not the snowy brow
of Hermon, frozen in perpetual winter,
stands so frigid and dreary, as that modern
system of Positivism, whose sole religions
peak is the one vast uncertainty—-“wheth
er if there be a God He may be known or
not.” How sweet beneath its smiles the
gently undulating vale of Esdraelon, the
plain of Bevelation, on whose green and
fertile meads we read the Master’s blessed
words, “If any man will do His will, he
shall know of the dootrine whether it be
of God, or whether I speak of myself.”—
From President 2 ay tor's Baccalaureate at
Wooster University.
“What I Have Written, I Hare
Written.”
So Pilate can be firm, though vacilla
tion is his characteristic. Some people
waver long who, once decided, are stead
fast even to obstinacy and to irrelevant
particulars. Alas, that his decision re
specting Jesus should be wicked as well
as tardy, and his stand against the chief
priest taken on a mere epitaph for his
murdered victim!
“ What I have written, I have written.”
The sentiment is worthy of adoption on
the other side. It is a good thing for
those to say who have decided for Ohrht
and Christianity.
These othor theories, later revelations,
new religions, whioh, on the plea of liber
ality and fairness, from time to time so
licit my attention, what are they to me ?
Mere items of general information, like
the ways of comets, the customs of the
Tartars, the processes of mining aud the
news of the day. To bo unsettled by
them, to set myself at even seriously con
sidering them, never ! I have no time to
spend in experiments. Liberality is well,
bnt my great want is concentration, stead
fastness, that the beliefs I now hold may
mature an<l bear fruit. Thought devoted
to these things wonlu bnt distract. No.
Snoh examinations are for the undecided.
lam not one. I have enrolled myself as
a Christian. I meant it. I stand by it.
“ What I have written, I have written.”
My name is subscribed to the New Testa
ment code of morals. Love to my neigh
bor as to mjself is printed, at least in
sympathetic ink, over the door of my
oflioe, counting room, or shop. Commer
cial practice greatly differing from this
prevails about me ; nav, it is well nigh
universal, aud it seems to succeed, that is,
it brings wealth, sometimes great wealth.
Bnt snoh snccess neither surprises nor
moves me. I knew of it when I enlisted
as a Christian and adopted my principles
I understood the step to be a sacrifice. I
supposed I was choosing between snch
prosperity and a noble good, between the
satisfaction which wealth so gotten affords,
and the sweets of a clear conscience and
sonship in God’s family. My decision is
unchanged. I stand by my profession
and my Master.
“ What I have written, I have written.”
The law of lovs covers my play as well as
my work. It holds in pleasure and iu
duty alike. Certain amusements, certain
indulgences, not to excess nor iu them
selves harmful, I fiud so related to the
passions and prejudices of men that I can
not follow my own wishes respecting them
without doing harm to somebody. In
other oiroumstanoes, I should not hesitate
to assert my freedom and exercise my
right, as indeed many do, situated as I
now am. But as the oase stands, it wonld
be violating principles that are far more
to me than my own pleasure ; until I re
pudiate them, my place is beside the weak
and the tempted as a helper, and not op
posite them as a tempter and adversary.
Ido not repndiate them. I reaffirm and
stand by them. “What I have written,
I have written.”— Christian Weekly.
He who gives a trifle meanly W far
meaner than the trifle,