Newspaper Page Text
$2.50 PER ANNUM,
Invariably in Advance
VOLUME XXXIX. NO. 6.
f/nitj.
The Good Shepherd.
The snow was drifting o’er the bills,
Fierce was the wind and loud,
While the Good Shepherd forward pressed,
His head in sorrow bowed;
“O Shepherd, rest, nor farther go;
The tempest bath begon.”
“1 cannot stay, I must away
• To seek my little one!”
A thorn wreath bound the gentle brow
That beam’d with pity sw-et,
And marks of wounds were in His hands,
And sears upon His feet.
Again I said, • O Shepherd, rest,
The tempest hath begun.”
He murmured, “Nay, 1 must away
To seek My little one.”
“I saw thy flock at peace within
Thine old well-guarded fold;
O Shepherd, pause, for wild the gale
That rages o’er the world!”
“No; one poor lamb hath gone astray,
And soon may be undone;
I cannot Btay, I must away
To seek My little one!”
“But, since Thy flock are all secure,
Why to the height repair!’
If thou hast ninety-nine at home,
Why for a truant care?”
“Dearer to Me than all the rest
Is that poor struggling son!
I cannot stay, I must away
To seek my little one!”
“Good Shepherd, tell me, if his need
Should bring the wanderer home,
Wilt Thou not punish him with stripes,
Lest he again should roam?”
“No; 1 would clasp him to My heart,
As mother clasps her son.
I cannot stay, I must away
To seek My little one?”
Even so, I thought, our gracious Lord
Hath in His heart Divine
A wealth of love for all His saints—
For all the ninety-nine!
But most He loves, and most He seeks
The soul by siu undone;
And still he sighs. “I must away
To seek Mr little one!”
IT. II D. A. in Scottish Guardian.
CrotriijntHmi
l>r. Pierce on Fraternity.
Mr. Editor: In objecting to the policy,
an! Home of the arguments of Dr. Pierce
on the subject of fraternity, I was actaa
by no desire to provoke a controversy
with him. I sincerely believed that barm
was being done to tbe cause by tbe mis
taken zeal of an effort to promote it, and
that injurious interpretations of Scriptnre
were insisted on. Although aware that
others were of tbe same opinion, there
seemed to be some reason for their silence.
Such being tbe case, I thought it both
right and necessary to call attention to
the subject, and desired to do so anony
mously; because, while that conrse met
all the fair demands of responsibility, it
would have left the thoughts themselves
to stand or fall by their intrinsic merit;
deriving no fictitious value by the pres
ence of a great name, nor jet suffering
loss by that of an humble one. I was in
formed, however, by those who had the
right to control, that it was proper my
name should appear to the article. I
yielded, and hence its appearance.
Yielding to no one, in reverence and re
spect for Dr. Pierce, I should not have
called in question, either the wisdom of
his policy, or the soundness of his inter
pretations, but from a solemn conviction
that harm, in each respect, would follow.
If in so thinking, I have fallen into error,
I trust I shall be pardoned; fer I lay no
claim to infallibility, and am very far
from attributing that impossible attain
ment to others. Dr. Pierce has made a
lengthy reply, and I am gratified to find
that I did not overrate his magnanimity
in holding him to be above the weak re
sentments of small men, who take, as a
personal offense, any question of the pro
foundness of their opinions. His reply
is free of offensive personalities, and de
voted, almost wholly, to an elaboration of
the main question which, he thinks
should control the issue involved. I
should be glad to accept his views if I
could; but I cannot, and am left therefore
to stand where I was, aDd reaffirm my
objections.
From what he has has said in his open
ing paragraph, I was led to fear I had
misunderstood, and therefore misrepre
sented him. He says therein as follows:
“I will give ray opinion as it is, and not
os my reviewer represents it.” From this
I feared that I had misrepresented him,
but as he makes no attempt whatever to
show wherein, my mind is relieved and I
am glad to infer that he did not intend to
be so understood.
Allow me, in ihitlication of my opinion
of the folly of the attempt to oonvrrt Bap
tists to Methodist views of communion
by the means adopted, to use the follow
ingillustration: Suppose an eminent Bap
tist should conceive the idea that he was
able, by discussion in the Christian Index ,
to convert the Methodist people to Bap
tist notions of close communion. Sup
pose that the columns of the Index were
cleared of all other matter, affording the
champion writer full sway in accomplish
ing the undertaking, even to the exclu
sion of what might have been useful.
Suppose that, in conducting the assault,
the distinguished writer had fallen on
some new and fanciful idea, deemed by
him a profound discovery, but really im
aginary, and hurtful to the integrity of
Scripture truth; and suppose farther,
the discussion being in a Baptist paper,
not one Methodist in fifty would ever see
it, and only hear of it by some notice
through the Advocate What would be the
prospect of success ? Would it not seem
to be a great folly ? Might not the idea
enter some people’s minds that the under
taker had overtasked, perhaps overesti
mated his powers. Might not others
think it hardly right to be turned off to
room for so hopeless an enterprise,
and others caring more for the truth than
aoy personal considerations, object to the
injurious argument ? Would it seem un
reasonable for ihete things, aud more, to
take place ? If not, what better could be
expected if the champion were a Metho
dist, and the paper the Southern Christian
Advocate ? Can any one see ?
In his reply, Dr Pierce tells us that the
whole question is in a nnt shell, and re
quires no multiplication of words. Un
fortunately, in raising minute and abstruse
points of distinction, words seem to be
necessary in proportion to their obscurity,
and the Doctor’s reply may form an illus
tration of the fact. He says the question
at issne is whether the gospel contains
any law of commandments contained in
an ordinance, and then assumes that
question is to be settled by the reason
which impelled their abolishment. Now
I do not aooept the statement, for it is
Sonthertt Christian -Mtotalr.
not the issue I raised. That issue was
this: Whether ordinances were evil in
themselves, and abolished on that account
—and I do not choose to be drawn away
from it.
Dr. Pierce’s argument necessarily in
volved the idea that the ordinances of the
former dispensation were evil, therefore
an ordinance was inadmissible nnder the
gospel dispensation. That is what I de
nied, and is the point I raised. I argued
it could not be true, because, if true, it
involved the rectitude of the Divine char
acter, for Ho sanctioned them. It seem
ed to me the objection was well taken and
conclusive. I stand by it and re affirm it;
and unless the Doctor can relieve himself
of the objection, he ought to admit his
mistake. It is nobler to do that than to
flounder in the meshes of a hurtful inter
pretation. Ii the Jewish Okureh with its
rites and ordinances was not the ChGrch
of God, and those rules and ordinances
did not receive H ; s sanction, then I jield.
But if that was true, although they might
have been perverted, yet they must have
been wise and good in their day and pur
pose, unless the Divine Being himself was
at fauit. This is so plain as to be s.lf
evideut, and ought not to be obscured by
attempts to prop it up by argument. I
therefore leave it alone to stand on its
own simplicity and strength.
As to the reason why ordinances were
abolished, I am left to repeat the state
ments in my former article, which
appear to me equally clear. I claimed
that all those rales and ordinances,mostly
intended to point out a Christ to come,
expired necessarily at His coming and
death, beiDg fulfilled in Him; that their
moral quality did not fall under the apos
tle’s malediction—as was plainly to be im
plied in the Doctor's theory,—and that
not a word of the kind was to be found
in the writings of St. Paul, cr in the
Scriptures. All that could be fonnd was
a mere mention of their abolishment,with
not the least reflection whatever against
their evil nature or tendency. This view
Dr. Pierce has neither refuted, nor at
tempted to refute. I hold to and re-affirm
it, and leave it also to stand on its sim
plicity and strength, confident that refu
tation is impossible.
I therefore insist that ordinances are
not evil inherently, nor abolished for that
reason; but that the Jewish ordinances
being of a temporary character, expired
with the age for which they were diviDely
intended, and wero declared as abolished
—not for auy immoral or sinful quality,
being followed by others in the present
age, and much fewer—because the former
ones were deficient, in adaptation only.
Dr. Pierce very properly objects to any
form of service or ordinance that would
justify a person in believing that mere
formal compliance would secure the Di
vine favor. I agree with him, but deny
that such an objection lies against ordi
nances in the abstract, or the Jewish ordi
nances. Some, perhaps many, may have
abused them in that way, but the ordi
nances the mselves did not justify them in
so doing. It was the result of perversion,
from the danger of which, neither the
ordinances of that or of the present dis
pensation are, or can be, made free.
When he argues that Baptists attach
too much importance to a mode, I agree
with ttim. When, however, he condemns
it, because it is following a “ law of com
mandments contained in erdinanoes,” I
object, for reasons already stated. There
is no reason why the expression of the
apostle should be overstrained to find con
demnation of such a spirit; for the Scrip
tnres abound in them, and spiritual wor
ship is a pronounced feature of the
Christian dispensation. In fixing his ob
jections on the point of “commandments
contained in ordinances ” the Doctor be
lieves be has discovered the vulnerable
joint in the Baptist harness, and tells me
I will see it. Well, I don’t see it now,and
I don’t believe it is there. lam well sat
isfied he has overrated the deadly effects
of his shaft, and has thrown away his ar
row.
He tells us that I think my “ exegesis ”
of the Scripture in question,mere reliable
than his. That I admit. Bat I beg to
assure him it is not because it is mine,but
because it appears to me m- re Scriptural.
If mine is in want of a great name to
support it, that name is on hand. I quo
ted in my last from Dr, Adam Olsrke to
show that he supported my cons'ruction,
and I am willing for Dr Pierce to consid
er my “ exegesis ” as Dr. Clarke’s, and it
would be some relief if h 9 would. Nev
crtheless, it would be well for the reader
to keep ia mind that truth is not deter
mined by names.great or small,but by its
inherent quality. Among the greatest
evils that afflict the Christian Church is
the deifying of its great men, involving
the idolatry of manworship and the sin
of following “the tradition of the elders.”
He who does this enslaves his mind, and
degrades his understanding.
Dootor Pierce, seeing I will not accept
his “exegesis,” as he terms it, asks me to
tell him “ the divine reason why the
Spirit of revelation chose the peculiar
language, iu question;” remarking that
the Spirit of revelation never uses super
fluous wcrls. It is often difficult to
under.,tand whit the truths themselves
are—but to require me to give the divine
reasons why ptrticnlar words are inspired)
is going very far. Indeed, I should feel
it to be very bold, not to say irreverent,
to endeaver to pry into and declare what
reason for inspiring certain words were in
the Divine Mind, especially when God
had seen fit to keep the se reasons to him
self. I know they were divinely good,
but cannot tell specifically what they are
in any given case, unless He has revealed
it. In this particular case, there is no
revelation of reasons so far as I know,
and until there is, I hope I may be ex
cused. Iu fact, the manner of revelation
has never been settled. Whether it is
done by words or merely by the truths, is
a question ytt in dispute. Hugh Miller,
the great Chaistian geologist, argues that
God, in revealing to Moses the creation
of the world, did so, not by words, but by
causing the scene of creation to pasp be
fore the eyes of his mind. This view he
makes both beautiful and plausible; and
it perhaps receives some strength from
the fact that all the inspired books of the
Bible differ, as to their style, like other
writings; whereas, if inspiration extended
to forms of expression as well as substance
PUBLISHED BY J. W. BURKE & COMPANY, FOR THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH.
MACON, GEORGIA, WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1876.
and truth, there would be uniformity in
its style. I say to Dr. Pierce plainly that
I do not know what the divine reason in
the case is, except that it was one worthy
of the Infinite Being; and I do not know
whether the Holy Spirit inspires by truths
or by words, bat this I can safely claim:
that there is in the words attributed to
the apostle, one which was not inspired,
nor used by him, and that is the word
“ contained.” It so happens that this
word plays a very important part in the
Doctor’s theory; for it is not against com
mand merits establishing ordinances that
he levels his thunderbolts, but only each
commandments as are “ contained " in
ordinances. Receiving his request, how
ever, in the allowable sense of asking me
to say what I think the apostle means by
the phrase,and the p/obable reasons of its
use, I cheerfully comply.
St. Paul was, by eminenoe, the Apostle
of the Gentiles. Ephesus was one of
their important cities. There,a Christian
Church, composed of Jews and Gentiles,
had been established. For their instrao
tion in the great truths of the Gospel the
Apostle penned this epistle, aad in the
coarse of it found it proper to allude to
the fact, that the coming of Christ had
by fulfilling them, abolished “the law of
commandments contained in ordinances.”
The word “contained” is not found in the
original at all. Left out of tbe text, it
would read, “ the law of commandments
in ordinances,” which probably means no
more than the law which established or
dinances. Dr. Clarke says “concerning”
ordinuneee, and thereby intimates that it
is preferable. The great theme, as may
be seen by the context, was not the meta
physical distinction between a command
ment “contained in itself,” and a com
mandment “ contained in an ordinance,”
fur nothing of the kind is spoken of by the
Apostle. That theme, infinitely greater
and mere glorious, w.-.s the Oneness and
peace of Jews and Gentiles in Christ.
Formerly they had been at enmity,
and a “ middle wall of partition ”
divided them. Among tk causes
of division and mutual irritation
was their mutual forms of worship,
as we are informed by commentators.
This the Apostle declares had been taken
away, by Christ’s coming. Hence the
Apostle says: “But now, in Christ Jesus,
ye who sometimes wero far off, are made
nigh by the blood of Christ; for Hi is our
pence who hath made both one, and hath
broken down the middle wall of partition
between ns, having abolished in His flesh
the enmity,even the la w of commandments
contained in ordinances ; for to make
in Himself, of twain, one new man, so
making peace.” As to the reason why the
Apostle alludes to the law of command
ments in ordinances, we are at liberty to
suppose that it was done because it seem
ed helpful to the great ends in view, as
before stated, for it declared the removal
of some of the hindrances which had sep
arated them. The id6a of teaching met
aphysical distinctions seems to have been
as far as possible from the Apostle’s mind;
and the further one, that the Holy Spirit
saw that the time had coma when it was
necessary to “ mark the distinction that
existed between a law of commandment
contained in itself,and a law of command
ment contained in an ordinance,” finds
no support whatever in the phrase em
ployed, nor in tha context, but on the
contrary, appears to fall infinitely below
the grand theme that filled the Apostle's
mind.
The foregoing seems to be a plain and
true explanation of the Scriptures quoted.
It does seem to me if Dr. Pierce had no
pet theory to warp his judgment he would
see it; and if he had not suffered his
hobby to run away with him into the wide
fields of imagination, he never would
have discovered the fanciful distinction
that exists between “ an ordinance abso
lute,” and an “organized institute.” Hav
ing, I trust, made myself clearly under
stood, my wish is to let the matter rest,
and shall say no more unless compelled.
D. R. Adams
P. S.—Dr. Pierce assumes that nothing
is an ordinance because it is commanded.
It must, in order to be such, have “a law
of commandment contained ” therein.
He also says nothing is an ordinance that
can be observed in several ways. Tnis is
all new, aud I see no proof of its truth,
tither in the Soriptnres, in philology, or
in any established work on theology. The
Dootor can hardly expect for us to reoeive
it on his mere ipse dixit. It must be
proven by accepted authority before it is
received. D. R. A.
Eatonton , Oa. , Jan. 25,1876.
Avoid Botli Extremes.
One of the specific complaints brought
against some of the fathers in the minis
try in by-gone days, was, that they were
too solemn, never laughed, nor engaged
in pleasant social conversation, but always
looked, acted, and talked, a3 if they were
attending a funeral service. It was
claimed that the inevitable consequence
of this was to drive off the young, and to
impress them with the idea that there was
some inherent principle in religion that
caused its possessor to be gloomy, mo
rose and, therefore, unhappy. Now, while
we admit there is danger, if we go too far
iu this direction, is there not equal—
aye, more than equal—danger in the other
direction ? And is it not to be feared
that most of ns—preachers as well as peo
ple—have gone to the other extreme? St.
Paul warns us against “ foolish talking ”
and “jesting,” Eph. v. and 4th verse. Let
us beware, lest iu trying to avoid the one,
we go to the other, and more fatal one,
of indulging iu too much levity. There
are particular occasions whau we need to
be specially watchful. Marriage festivals,
I have observed, seem to be peculiarly
adapted to call forth an excessive indul
gence in this direction; and, alas, not nn
freqaently, the offieiatiug minister takes
the lead, not only in the riot and repartee
of the company present, bat goes farther,
and recommends by example if not by
precept, absolute buffoonery. God for
give me if I have ever been led away by
this 6nare of the devil. I heard a young
lady say the other day, that in a meeting
last year, the minister shook hands in a
oovenant with his congregation—herself
among the nnmber—that they would
spend the time between the services in
conversing on religious subjects, avoiding
everything like jesting, eto. She said
the; had hardly got to their stopping
place before he began to jest her on the
subject of marriage, and absolutely spent
the whole evening after th3 same manner.
Much more might be said, but this may
suffice to call attention to this growing
evil, especially among oar ministers, for
there is no principle more true than that
“ Like priest, like people.” Let us ob
serve this rule: “In a medium course
you will go most safely” Vox,
January 2/Ith, 1876.
“Education Abroad.”
I am fully convinced of the correct
ness of Dr. Haygood’s views with regard
to sending American boys abroad to be
educated. For all the reasons which he
quotes from others, and especially the
one which he urges in the latter part of
his article, “Education abroad,” any one
who knows Germany must acknowledge
that it at least is not the place for Ameri
can boys. I infer, however, that he
would not object to yonng men going,
“who have passed through the customary
training of American schools and colleges,
and who have sufficient stability of mid
and character to be entrusted with the
care of their own principles, habits, and
opinions ” None of the authorities quot
ed, except one perhaps, may be supposed
to be opposed to such a course. The
presidents of Harvard, Yale, Princeton,
University of Michigan, and many others
of our best institutions, are so mnoh in
debted for high and thorongh scholarship,
especially in Philology, to those men in
their respective faculties who have pur
sued this oonrse, that they conld not op
pose it. Harvard haß scholarships estab
lished with a view to sending talented and
deserving young men, after finishing the
gular oonrse in that institution, to
Ear ope, for the farther proseoution of
■ aeir studies; so have Princeton and other
<;,lieges. In order to obtain a position in
ihe Philological faculty of any of the
I -rger institutions in the North, it is now
hi most absolutely necessary that one
s lonld have taken a post-graduate coarse
i u Germany. The proper course, it seems,
is for American students to take a
thorough preparatory and collegiate
course in this country, then let as many
as possible of those who propose to beoome
horougli teachers, go to Europe to enjoy
Wantages not offered here.
It cannot be claimed that American
cidemies and colleges are as thorongh as
ue Gutman gymnasium, exoept perhaps
in the teaching of mathematics; but I
would prefer that the boy should learn,
less Latin and Greek here, rather than
that he should forget all religion there.
There is no reason, however, why the
standard of scholarship should be lower
than that in the gymnasium. Our con
stant effort must be to raise our standard
of scholarship, to make all our schools,
academies, and colleges, more thorough;
md we will accomplish this the more
easily, if we send abroad some of onr
yonng men who have been brought up in
Christian familes, and educated in Chris
tian colleges. When we have rendered
these more thorough, we will ate more
clearly how to establish what is much
needed in America, a university system.
Two or three years spent in the German
universities and in examining their very
thorough school system will, it is believed
be of immense benefit to one who pro
poses to be a thorough teacher. Tbe
impetus given to scholarship in America
by suoh men as Whitney, Child, Goodwin,
Gildersleeve, and many others of our most
distinguished educators, who, after a
thorongh course of study in this country
went to Germany to enjoy advantages
there offered, is a sufficient proof of the
benefit that may be derived from snch a
course.
There is some danger that the moral
character of men even at this period of
life may suffer by a sojourn in Germany,
but it is probably not so great as imagined.
Among the American students whom I
knew in Leipzig, only one was sceptical,
and he had been so before going over, had
inherited his scepticism from his father.
Most of the others seemed to cling to their
religion more closely than before. If I
may judge by what I saw in Leipzig, I
think the great majority of students who
go to Europe have an earnest and definite
purpose; and such men are not generally
injured. Sixty American students matri
culated in Leipzig University last year.
They were of all ages from eighteen to
forty. They acknowledged the stimulns
given by an acquaintance with the Ger
man system, and I have never seen in
any other body of young men so muob
zeal in behalf of higher education and
thorough scholarship. Not a few of them
were already professors in American col
leges. Prof. Leighton, author of the
text books in Greek and Latin, had already
won in America considerable reputation
as a clasioal scholar. A large nnmber had
earned for themselves the money which
they were spending; others had borrowed,
intending to pay back afterwards; others
were living on the proceeds of scholar
ships won in American colleges. Few
were wealthy.
The nece sary expense in a German
University is small. I knew a student
who spent two years and a half in Ber
lin and Leipzig on an annnal allowance
of $325 gold. He lived as well as, and
even better than, many stndents in onr
colleges, and at the same time colleoted a
very excellent library of more than 200
volumes. Very good boarding can be had
in Leipzig for $20—325 per month.
Americans often live comfortably on sls
and S2O per month. Most German stu
dents spend nor, more than sls or S2O per
month, beer included. The tnition of a
student seldom amounts to more than $25
or S3O per year. At Harvard, good board
ing costs at least S3O per month; tnition
$l5O per year. In Germany, books cost
probably one third, clothing one half, as
much as in America. Any student with
brains and energy can in two years earn
money enough to keep him in Germany
two years. He will find that two years
teaching in a school with somewhat ad
vanced scholarship will greatly assist him
to appreciate the lectures, which are
meant for thorough men not aimless
schoolboys.
From what has been said, it will be seen
that the advantages of the German Uni
versities are not neoessarily denied to any,
and it is earnestly hoped that more of the
graduates of our colleges may be iuduoed
to go thither. 0. F. S.
Ministerial Support in the North
Georgia Conference for the Years 1874
and 1875.
Mr Editor: I have been looking into the
Minutes of our Conference for the year
1875, with reference to several points of
importance to the Church, and compared
them with the minutes of 1874.
I wish simply to call attention to two
items: First, in the matter of ministerial
support in 1875, as compared with 1874;
embracing the preachers, presiding elders,
and bishops, The actnal failing off in ■
receipts is $5,242 49; distributed as fol
lows: Augusta district, $1,035.27; El
berton, $600.85; Gainesville, $425 65;
Rome, $186.92; LaGrange, $1,477 54; At
lanta, $1,623*41; Griffin, $1,272 30. The
Athens district increased $1,133.70, and
Dalton district increased $244 85. Increase
on thee e two districts, $1,378.55. Decrease
on the other seven districts, $6,621.04
Total decrease as above, $5,242 49. The
average decrease on six of the niue dis
tricts iS**st#?2 52. These figures are
alarming. How is the large increase of
$1,133.70 on the Athens district in min
isterial support to be accounted for, amid
the large decrease on all the other dis
tricts, except. Dalton wiih its small in
crease of $244.85, and a small decrease on
the Rome district of only $lB6 92 Cun
any one answer this important question ?
Let ns hear from Athens.
Second. The actnal increase in the
white membership in the Conference for
1875 is 2,630; distributed as follows: Dal
ton district, 661; Athens, 451; Augusta,
434; Elberton, 398; Gainesville, 377; La-
Grange, 173; Griffin, 191; Atlanta 33.
Rome decreased 88. How is that to be
accounted for amid the almost universal
revival throughout the bounds of the
Conference? And how has it come to
pass that the Atlanta district, the largest
in the Conference, only added 33 to the
large increase of 2 630. Is there no mistake
here? Now, Mr. Editor, in the foregoing
statements, which are made np from the
mirt&tea of our Conference for 1875, I
have given the text for a sermon. Who
will preach the sermon? I hope some
one will who has both the time and the
heart to do so. M.
Dalton, Ga., Jan. 2lst, 1876.
The Old Enoree (Union) Circuit
Conference Journal—No. 1.
Introductory—The Coming Chnrch—The Pres
ervation of Old Records Early Circuit
Boundaries—The Earlier Preachers—A Quar
terly Conference Seventy Years Ako—(jom
plaints— Wearing Suspenders —Casuists
Wanted.
Through the kindness of R v. A. H.
Lester and his official board at Union
Station, I Uavo before un a relic of the
past iu thu s-hapo of the Quarterly Con
ference Journal of the Old Enoree Cir
cuit, posssibly the only one of the kind
as old, extant. This rnns back to March
23, 1805, nearly seventy-one years ago.
The last record in this book bears date
Jenaary 7,1849 I bespeak the favorable
action of the board in presenting it to
the Historical Sooiety of onr Conference
to be held among its archives. The
Chnrch of the Future may look upon it
with delight, in discovering how Metho
dism won its early triumphs, and how,
“not by might nor by power,” but by the
Divine Spirit, it has achieved such glori
ous results. ,
I would set forth soma of its contents,
if for no other purpose, to show some of
the “ metes and bounds ” of the early
preachers of the South Carolina Confer
ence. One cause of its exactness and
consecntiveness may lie in the faot that
from 1805 to 1818 Coleman Carlisle was
secretary of the Quarterly Conference (for
a brief memorial of him see Conference
Minntes of 1874); another reason is that
tn 1832 the following resolntion carried:
Resolved, That the Recording Steward
be requested to purohase a book for the
Cironit, and that be be requested to re
cord in that book all the minntes in the
several old books handed over to him as
Recording Steward.
I have tried to trace out the boundaries
of these two circuits, but cannot be ex
act; but who can give correctly the
boundaries of the Old Saluda District ?
The first mention of it in the General
Minutes is in 1802; George Dougherty,
Presiding Elder. The following appoint
ments were embraced in it Broad River,
Saluda, Bush River and Keowee, Edisto
and Orangeburg, and Charleston. The
only other District in the State being
Camden; James Jenkins, P. E., embrac
ing Union, Santee, Catawba, Little Pee
Dee, Great Pee Dee, Georgetown, and
Bladen. But two Presiding Elder Dis
tricts in all of South Carolina. A line
running from Charleston, or more pro
psrly from the months of the Santee to
.Columbia, thence upward to Union, and
between Union and Spartanburg, to the
State line—may havO been the line of di
vision. In 1803_there was no chaDgesave
in the increase of appointments. In 1806
Union was left out of Camden District—
doubtless transferred to Saluda. In 1802,
1803, and 1804, the eldership was the
same. In 1804 the two circuits, Enoree
and Sandy River, and Bush River and
Keowee, took iu all the country above
Columbia, from the Catawba to the Sa
vannah River. This boundary, of course,
embraced the present counties of Oconee,
Pickens, Greenville, Spartanburg, Union,
York, Chester, Fairfield, Newberry, Abbe
ville, Anderson, Laurens, with parts
doubtless of Edgefield, Lexington, and
Richland.
Two respectable circuits, quite com
passed in six weeks each; the first by Win,
Gassaway, Hannon Donnan, and Daniel
Asbnry ; and the second by Buddy W.
Wheeler,Wm. McKenny, and David Dan
nelly ; the membership in Enoree and
Sandy River being 1,186 whites, 131
colored; and Bush River and Keowee 810
whites and 56 colored. In 1805 Britton
Gapel was Presiding Elder on Saluda Dis
trict, and Eaoree Circuit had for its
preachers James Hill and W. W. Shepard.
James Hill travelled but three years, was
said to possess superior preaching talents i
his person manly, manner dignified, and
address interesting. He remained pious
to the last; but how much did the Church
lose in his early location ? The first ses
sion of the Quarterly Conference for 1805
was held at Salem church, March 2d and
3d, “ Coleman Carlisle choseh clerk.”
Members present —James Hill, W. W.
Shepard, traveling preachers; George
Clarke, Coleman Carlisle, Stephen Shell,
David Owen, Nathan Boyd, Wm. Soott,
looal preachers; Johq Glymph, B.Smith,
Wm. Seymore, David Groomer, Lemon
SDell, stewards and leaders. For brief
memorials of Hill,Clark, and Carlisle, see
Conference Minutes of 1874.
The second session was held at“Horrell’s
Church Honse,” Jane 22J, 23d. Present
—presiding elder and preachers. John
Wallace, Jeremiah Lewis, Wm. Horrell,
John Palmer, Coleman Fowler, Jas. Dil
lard, Wm. Whitby, Wm. Scott, Thomas
Humphries, John Briggs, Nathan Boyd.
The usual business transacted. “ The
preacher in charge was censured by Bro.
P. for wearing suspenders.” We are
greatly relieved by finding “he was clear
ed of immoral conduct.”
It is easy to understand how the rotund
and burly kept np their inexpressibles, but
how did the lean and lank manage in
those days?
Another question: Was Wm. Capers
right in pulling off his to satisfy the con
science of a weak brother? And yet an
other: Might it not have been better to
instruct than simply to yield to ignorance?
And still another, and the last: Is it ell of
a piece with eating meat in an idol’s tem
ple? Will auy skilled in casuistry answer?
A. M. Chrietzberg.
The Northern General Confer
ence and Bishops.
Mr. Editor: The season for the holding
of the eighteenth session of the General
Conference of the Methodist Episcopal
Church is fast approaching. It promises
to be one of great interest, ranking along
side with those of 1808, 1824, and 1844.
The Presiding Eldership will probably be
modified. That Chnrch has beoome so
large, and the Methodistio itinerancy has
been co greatly modified, that the offioe of
Presiding Elder has lost mnch of its im
portance and nearly all of its influence
with the laity—consequently, we see
memorials going up from Annual Confer
ences, from lay electoral colleges, and
from Quarterly Conferences, touching the
subject. There has been developing ever
since 1844, two parties among them on
the nature of the prerogatives of the Bish- ’
ops. Judge E. L. Fancher, one of their
most accomplished laymen, has recently
contributed several able artioles on the
polity of the Church in that department,
which have excited a good deal of interest
and discussion. He presents the orthodox
view ofthe question, that held by Bishop
Soule, and advocated by the Southern
delegates of 1844. But this is not at all
pleasing to Dr. Carry, Dr. Pierce, and
others of their ilk Though this question
has not yet reached its climax in that lati
tude, we may, nevertheless, look for some
aot from the approaching Conference
which will show the tendency of the
Church. We may expect a great deal to
be said on the negro question. There
will be some effort made to modify their
present polioy in the management of their
Sonthern Conferences, though there is
little hope that a change will be effected.
It is possible that more attention will be
paid to the management of the newspaper,
department of the Ghuroh than has
hitherto been shown. Many opinions
have been expressed among them both as
to the business and editorial management
of their papers. Some are in favor of
doing away with all official papers, save
one or two central organs. Plausible
arguments have been made on the sub
ject, and quite an array of newspaper cot*
respondents have favored the plan, bnt if
the question should come to vote it would
be lost. The orthodoxy of some of their
editors will, very likely, be reviewed and
aD expression of opinion as to the length
to which the editor of an official organ
may go in ventilating his private opin
ions, when they conflict with the stand
ards of the Church.
Prominent among the items of interest
will be the reception of onr fraternal dele
gates and commission. This is not a fav
orable field, for the exercise of prophetic
skill, and as the theme has been discussed
ad nauseam, I will pass the subject with
out remark.
There is one subjeot, however, which
stndents of consistency are beginning to
look into a little which is
What will onr Northern brethren do with
the irrepressible Haven? The power of
their General Conference is quite elastic—
it stretched itself and suspended the noble
Andrew, is it possible for it to rebound
and cloak the evident short-comings of
Bishop Haven? It seems to me that con
sistency with the logic of 1844, demands
that something be done with the wide
hearted Haven. An argument for the
suspension of Bishop Andrew was that
his conduct in beiDg a slave-owner render
ed him unacceptable to a large portion of
the Chnrch; if this be valid, the holding
and promulgating the doctrine of mis
cegenation has rendered Bishop Haven
unacceptable to a large portion of his
Churefi, North, South, East, and West,
as the’expressed opinions of many of them
show. If the accidental ownership of a
few slaves was offensive to the Chnrch
while the bearing of the officer was always
dignified and exemplary, his Christian
character untarnished, and his mind well
balanced, snrely clownishness in a public
religions meeting, (the mildest interpreta
tion to be put on his Boston freak), the
prostitution of his sacred and dignified
office to forward partizan politics, the
placing of his Chnrch and one of her most
usefnl societies in a conspicuous and un
enviable light before the pnblie, mnst be
offensive, nay, even odions to that Chnrch
and to all who respect dignity and the
Christian ministry. Bnt will they do it?
Pat the two cases in a balance before the
public and the future Chnrch, and let
them consider consistency as it presents
itself in the Nineteenth Century of the
Christian Era: Bishop Andrew: Noble,
high-toned, sober, consecrated to God;
respected by the world, and loved by the
Chnrch; never by act, word or deed,lower
ing the ideal of Christian manhood, gen
tlemanly deportment, or the ministerial
office, owner of a few slaves in mercy to
those slaves, arraigned without a trial
and deposed without a hearing, from his
office—Bishop Haven using the name of
God profanely, and abusing the privilege
of prayer; devoted to the advancement of
the interest of a man and party; fanatical
ly advocating dootrines which are revolt
ing to decency itself; detested by a large
element of the pnblie,and disapproved by
a highly respectable class of his own
Church—passed by, and honored by the
body, in its official character. The differs
F. HI. KENNEDY, D. D., Editor;
J. W BURKE, Assistant Editor.
A. G. HAYGOOD, D. D., Editorial Correspondent
ence can be accounted for on no other
ground than that people will act and reason
differently, when their passions lead them
differently. A.
To the Stewards, Dublin District
South Georgia Annual Conference.
Dear Brethren: The oircaits in this dis
trict being generally weak, financially, are
considered by the preachers “hardplaces,”
and it is with much relnctanoe that preach
ers from other districts enter upon a work
in this.
The cause is not so much on account of
the small assessments made for their sup
port, as because these assessments are
rarely ever paid in fall. This district lies
altogether in what is known as the “wire
grass” region. The people in this region
depend largely on beef, cattle, hides,
wool, and timber, to raise money to buy
those necessaries they cannot raise at
home, and to pay their pastors, etc. All
these articles find a ready sale at fair
prices, and some of them are on the market
at all seasons of the year; consequently,
there is not such scarcity of money at
any partionlar season, or on account of
the low prioe of cotton and high prioe of
provisions, here as in other places. But,
by reference to the Minntes of 1875, we
see that this (Altamaha) district falls fear
fully behind their assessments for the
pastors and Presiding Elder, and will not
compare favorably with other districts in
the Conference, The average amount
paid by each member in the South Geor
gia Conference for the support of the pas
tors and Presiding Elders in 1875, is two
dollars, and the total amount paid by each
member in this district for all purposes is
only one dollar and seven cents.
Supposing the assessments in 1876, to
be the same as in 1875, it will require only
one dollar and twenty five cents from eaoh
member in the Dnblin district to pay the
full amount. These estimates are very
small for the amount of work required,
and would, if fully met, afford only a
meager support for the pastors and their
families. Therefore the stewards should
endeavor to raise the full amount assessed.
The people are willing and able to meet
these claims, if properly presented.
Now, dear stewards, oonsider these
things; remember that the comfort, and
even efficiency of your pastor dnring this
year depends on your efforts to discharge
yonr duty as stewards.
If yon will begin now, with the deter
mination to get something from each
member in your Ohuroh, see them pri
vately, and urge them to the discharge
of their duty, there will be but few deficits
to report this year.
There is too much truth in the saying
of preachers when they fail to get their
pay, that it is because the stewards will do
nothing.
Many plans might be suggested by
which to work in this difficult field, bnt
many would object to any plan, and I
think the best plan is to go to work in
earnest, and raise the money as oppor
tunity presents itself. When yon find a
brother has money, go for him, and if it
seems he is not likely to get into that con
dition, see him and urge him to get a lit
tle tor the purpose. The Lord who gives
ns all we possess, demands a portion for
his ministers.
Some will no donbt say, all this is easy
enough on paper, but difficult to reduce
to practice. Well, I admit that it will
require some effort on the part of the
stewards, bnt this is yonr dnty, and as
mnoh your imperative duty as it is the
duty of yonr pastor to preach the Gos
pel.
Where yonr pastors have families, and
are keeping house, they are glad to get
quarterage in kind, and it is very impor
tant that you should get in all the provi
sions yon can at once, as this will be an
unusually bad year to get supplies with
ont plenty of money. Hoping that the
God of all wisdom and mercy will guide
us safely through this year, and bless the
labors of onr ministers and stewards with
abundant success,
I am yonr Brother Steward.
Dublin, Oa., January 25<ft, 1876.
Our Pastor.
We love him, because
1 He comes regularly to see us. Let
him come when and as often as he may,
we have a good-natured quarrel with him
for not coming oftener. And yet about
the same time every quarter he comes to
us. He lays off his work like a wise mas
ter builder, and works np to his plan. He
don’t come in a hurry, as though he had
but little time to give ns; and rush off at
a rnn, as though he begrudged ns that
little. He don’t come as though onr visit
were one in a complicated and extended
plan; bnt as though it were a dnty and a
pleasure nnconnected with any other. We
feel while he is with ns that we have him
all to ourselves.
2. He comes in the simplicity and trne
dignity of a Christian gentleman. While
we try to make him feel at home in onr
house, he, without trying, makes us feel at
home in his company. No awkward jest
nor stupid trifling; and yet no stilted for
malism nor patronizing condescension.
We feel easy and natural and happy to
gether.
3 He comes in the spirit and for the
glory of his Master. We feel that he is
looking after onr souls as one who mnst
give an account. He is not stiff and pro
fessional in his pastoral intercourse, bnt
gentle and sweet and hnman. He may
ask ns about onr spiritual condition, o r
he may not; he may pray with ns, or he
may not; yet as he goes from ns, we re
alize to onr comfort and help that a man
of God has been with ns. S. A. W.
WtlUamston, S. G.
“ All Hail the Power of Jesus’
Name!’’ —This grand hymn was written by
Edward Perronet, the son of a clergyman
of the Established Chnrch of England.
He was for a short time associated in the
ministry with Wesley, bnt becoming o*l
- in his theological views, he with
drew from that connection and labored
for awhile under the patronage of the
Countess of Hnntingdon. His opposition
to the Church of England, whioh he keen
ly satirized in a poem called “The Mitre,”
so grieved Lady Hnntingdon that she
withdrew her support, and he preached to
a small body of dissenters until his death,
in 1792. The tune, “Coronation,” with
whioh this hymn has been so long identi
fied, a worthy setting for this precions
gem, was composed by Mr. Sbrnbeole, an
intimate friend of Perronet, and the
organist at that time of a chapel in Lon
don.
WHOLE NUMBER 1981
Wake Up!
Dr. Talmage speaks very plainly about
church-members. H sa;s: “Tbe ohurch
needs a change in quality as well as quan
tity of membership. One-half of the
professed Christians amount to nothing.
They go to ohurch. They pay pew rents.
They have a kind regard for all religious
institutions. But as to any firm grip of
the trnth, any enthnsiastio service of
Christ, any oheerfnl self-denial, any over
mastering prayer, any capacity to strike
hard blows for God, they are a failure.
One of two things these half and half
professors ought to do, either withdraw
their names from the ohnroh roll, or else
go so near t’v as to get warm. Do
you not kc~ „ .... yonr present position
is an absurdity? You profess to be living
tor God and heaven, but all the world
knows yon are lying. Wake np! Do
something before yon are dead. Either
help pull the Lord’s chariot, or get out of
the way. We want more old style holi
ness, the kind they had before railroads,
steamboats, and telegraphs. A consecrated
heart is momentum for all Christian work.
Yonr gun is well enough, bat the gnn
oarriage is rickety, and so unfit for the
Lord’s battery. The Lord give ns all a
higher life, a deeper life, a broader life.
We oannot do mnoh toward saving others
till we onrselves are more surely saved.
We oannot pnll others ont of the surf
when onr own feet are slipping on the
rook. More parity, more faith, more
oonsecration, will be more momentum.”
Miscellanea.
Men soanning the surface oount the
wicked happy; they see not the frightful
dreams that hannt a bad man’s pillow.
There are now seventeen periodicals
pnblicihed in the interest of Yonng
Men’s Christian Associations, The num
ber of Association buildings is fifty-six,
valued, with building fnnds, at $300,000.
Last year’s circulation of tbe Bible in
Spain amounted to over 50,000 oopies.
In Portugal, too, the sales amonnted to
over 8 000 copies. In Lisbon there are
several congregations of Bible-reading
Romanists.
I have known vast qnantities of non
sense talked about bad men looking you
in the face. Don’t trust that conversa
tional idea. Dishonesty will stare hon
esty out of oonntenanee any day in the
week, if there is anything to be got by it.
Argue not with a man whom yon know
to be of an obstinate temperament, for
when he is once contradicted his mind is
barred against all light and information:
argument, though ever so well grounded,
provokes him, and makes him even afraid
to be convinced of the truth.
A ohurch, American and Methodist in
origin, and the first chnroh ih Rome for
Italian Protestants, was dedioated on
Ohrisimas day. Its oommunioants num
ber ninety. Abont three hnndred per
sons were presrnt on the occasion referred
to. Hearty support is aooorded to the
church by evangelicals of all denomina
tions.
In Union Theological Seminary, in New
York city, are six sons of foreign mission
aries, all born on foreign soil, and retain
ing in their vernacnlar the languages of
tfie several oonntries from which they
came and to which they intend to retnrn.
This knowledge of Arabic, Turkish, Hin
dostanee and Tamnl will give an immense
advantage to these yonng men in taking
the work at the hands of their honored
fathers. A hopeful sign for missions.
There are eight others in the seminary
who, in addition to their knowledge of
English, speak German, Spanish. Welsh
and Greek in their vernacular.— Observer.
The famous stone memorial pillar of the
Moabitish king, Mcesa, discovered some
time since, has jnst been placed in the
Jewish section of the Louvre, at Paris.
The Administration purchased several
fragments of this valuable monnment,
which were in the possession of M. Cler
mont Ganneau. Some other pieces be
longing to the English Palestine Explor
ation Society were kindly presented, and
thus completed the surface on which is
engraved that considerable text. It will
be remembered that the monarch re
lates on it his wars with the Israelite prin
cess, and the inscription corroborates the
Bible aeeonnt, confirming it in the most
striking and nnexpeoted manner.
Postage Paid by the Mammoth News
papers.—The following are the official
figures of the Postoffioe Department
showing tb '“" " it of postage prepaid
by the large political dailies of the coun
try during the year ending December
31st, 1875: New York Iribune, $20,294,-
16; Chicago Inter-Ocean, $13,029 84: New
York Times, $11,586.02; New York Herald,
$8,043 02; Cincinnati Times, $4,963; Cin
cinnati Gazette, $4,483.02; Boston Journal,
$4,052.16; St. Louis Republican, $3,961.-
38; Chicago Times, $3,646 60; Chicago
Iribune, $3,004.38.
The above merely shows the mail cir
culation of the journals mentioned, and
does not indicate the nnmber of copies
sent by express companies, sold by news
agents, and delivered by carriers.
The American Sunday school Union.
—The fifty-first annual report of the Am
erican Sunday-school Union, which has
jnst been published, gives interesting
statistics of the progress of its work during
the past year. Daring the year the
association has published about 960
maps, diagrams, class-books, and numer
ous periodicals for use among the Sunday
schools of Amerioa. The Secretary re
ports that the growth and interest in
Bible study and Bible reading through
the adoption and general nse of the sys
tem of International lessons has greatly
increased the demand throughout the
country for instruction as to the methods
of Sunday-school work. In addition to
the oral instrnetion in Bible study im
parted in many Conference exercises, 128
distinct sermons and addresses have been
delivered npon this subject. The same
report includes a carefully prepared sum
mary of the missionary work of the
Union for the past year throughout the
northwest and the southwest, and also
Miohigan, the Pacific coast,Pennsylvania,
New Jersey, Ohio, Indiana, New York,
New England and Kausas. In the var
ious fields of its work thnß cited, the
Union has organized 1,258 new Sunday
schools, appointed 6,480 new teachers,
instructed 48,049 scholars, and visited or
aided 3.098 additional new schools. There
were also 13,825 families visited by the
missionaries. The Union expresses its
gratitude to the American Bible Society
for t e generous aid given to its works by
liberal grants of Bibles and Testaments to
supply needy schools. The report fur
ther states that the introduction of the
American Snnday school system on the
European continent has been heartily un
dertaken and vigorously prosecuted by
the London Sunday sohool Union, whioh
employs several Snnday-sohool mission
aries in Germany, France, Switzerland,
and elsewhere. The latest report of the
American oommittee reoords the follow
ing gratifying success of the foreign work
of the Union: In Germany 1,218 Sunday
schools have been established,B,743 teach
ers appointed, and 81,785 soholars in
structed; in France 990 schools have
been established, comprising 41,520
scholars; in Spain there have been estab -
lished 20 schools, with 95 teachers, and
1 060 scholars; in Italy 90 schools are car
ried on, receiving an attendance of 1,000
sobolars; while in Switzerland abont 600
schools have been established, number
ing 2.096 teachers and 46,370 soholars. In
Brazil, Chili, New Granada, Mexico, Zao
atecas, eto., Sunday-schools are also in
operation npon the American plan. The
receipts of the Union for the year, from
legacies and other sources, have amounted
to $90,079.65, and the expenditnree for
salaries, books, and other tq
$89,085,03,