Review and Herald, Vol. 51, No. 7. (2/14/1878)

Review and Herald

Feb 14, 1878

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Feb 14, 1878

THOUGHTS ON BAPTISM.

By Joseph Harvey Waggoner

BY ELD. J. H. WAGGONER.

Some questions have been presented to me on the subject of Baptism which I would like to answer in full, going somewhat beyond the extent of the questions to determine their relations as well as their most direct bearings.

The influences brought to bear upon us even from childhood, of association and education, are so many, so varied, and often so subtle, that it seems impossible to find an investigator who is entirely free from prepossession or prejudice. But this should lead us, not to excuse this unhappy state of things because so many are involved in the same difficulty, but, rather, to distrust our positions and always to be willing to have them tested anew by the great detector—the Bible.

Brought up under the influence of the Presbyterian Church, I had no views of Baptism which I could call my own, that is, which were received by conviction instead of tradition. At the age of twenty-three I made a profession of faith, and was then requested to read “Dwight’s Theology.” At that time I had never read a work or heard a sermon on Baptism which was opposed to the faith of the church of my parents. By carefully and prayerfully examining the arguments of Dr. Dwight, and all the passages referred to by him together with their contexts, I became thoroughly convinced that his conclusions were not just.

On the mode of Baptism (as it is improperly expressed), a very extended argument seems hardly needed at this day. The Baptist authors, Carson and others, though they have not exhausted the subject, have well established the principles from which safe conclusions may be drawn. The Baptist denomination, as also the “Christian,” is worthy of our high regards for the service they have done to the cause of truth on this subject, under reproach, opposition, and often persecution, if not always open and violent, none the less keen and cutting to the conscientious and sensitive, when it comes from those who ought to be friends, and to whom Christian charity would indicate a different course.

The “Disciples” also, led out by Alexander Campbell, have shown an earnestness and zeal worthy of commendation in their efforts to extend the truth concerning the action and subjects of baptism. But they have, unfortunately, so related these to certain errors, especially that of antinomianism, as greatly to detract from the value of their efforts on these important points. Because of the prevalence of this “antinomian delusion,” as Rev. Andrew Fuller aptly called it, the relations of Baptism need now to be specially considered. However, first the inquiry arises,

WHAT IS BAPTISM?

It is often claimed that words, when used in the Scriptures, have a different meaning from that which they have when used elsewhere, and this claim is especially made in regard to the word baptizein, the Greek infinitive to baptize. Our understanding of language is gained only through our knowledge of the meaning of its terms. If these are not clearly defined, then we can have no clear understanding of the language. If words in the Bible do not have the meaning which is established by usage and given in the lexicons of the languages in which they were written, then it follows evidently that we cannot understand the things which are professedly revealed, unless we have a special lexicon to give these unusual meanings of the words. Such a claim really destroys the efficiency and sufficiency of the word of God as a revelation. By connection with a certain doctrine or ordinance, a term may come to have a technical or restricted application, but its meaning is not thereby changed.

This is illustrated in the common use of the word millennium. Webster says, “A thousand years; used to denote the thousand years of the twentieth chapter of Revelation.” No particular thousand years can be indicated by the meaning of the word, yet in all discussions of the Scriptures, it is at once understood that it refers to that thousand years mentioned in the Scriptures. While the word has acquired such a restricted application as to direct the mind to that particular period, its signification is not at all changed by that use. True, by that use we have been accustomed to associate with the word the idea of peace, &c., but such ideas have no necessary connection with the term. They are but the result of a certain accepted description of the thing specified. A millennium may be either of joy or of sorrow. Neither is indicated by the word, and it is only by arbitrary association that we attach the idea of joy and peace to the millennium, for the term itself could never convey any such idea to the mind.

And such is the case with the word Baptism. When spoken in Christian lands, and especially in discussions of the Scriptures, the mind at once turns to the ordinance of Christian Baptism. But in the phrase “Christian Baptism,” we have added to the word Baptism all that we have associated in our minds with the act or thing as a Christian ordinance. Of course much that is foreign to the simple meaning of the term is attached to it by association. When searching for the meaning of a term we ought to free it from all such associations or foreign elements. In this case the word had an established meaning before it was used to designate a Christian ordinance. And if the ordinance was not made to conform to the meaning of the word, then the word so used did not convey a correct idea to the mind of the hearer or reader; and such a use would be well calculated to create confusion.

We cannot suppose that the Institutor of the ordinance designed to be obscure in his directions for the discharge of a gospel duty. Then the question arises, Was there any word in use in our Saviour’s time which would specify any particular action in the administration of this ordinance? We answer, There was; and such a word was chosen by him; one having an established and unmistakably definite signification.

It should be borne in mind that it is not safe to trust to modern dictionaries for the meaning of words adopted from other languages. They aim to give the signification of words as they are now used. And here it is proper to remark that usage takes precedence of the lexicon as authority. When use has established the meaning of a term, the dictionary gives that meaning. A dictionary cannot make meanings. It is a standard only so far as it gives correctly the meaning established by the best usage. If we wish to ascertain the true meaning of words in other languages, we must resort to the usages and the lexicons of those languages. We have an illustration of this in point. We have an old English dictionary published in Scotland in which the only definition given of baptize is “to christen.” That was the idea attached to the word at the time when and place where the book was published. But insert that definition in a Scripture text, as Mark 16 or Acts 2, and it is found to be, not only erroneous, but ridiculous.

Again, we should never try to settle the meaning of the word by our ideas of the intention of the ordinance. The intention of ordinances is always more or less a subject of controversy; and the occasion of controversy is increased by confusion in regard to the meaning of the terms used. We do not learn the meaning of words by the intention of ordinances; but we learn, rather, what the ordinance is by the meaning of the words which define it.

There are eight words in the Greek of the New Testament referring to the several actions which are supposed to be admissible in the administration of the ordinance of Baptism. These are:—

1. Baptizo. This word is never translated in the Authorized Version, that is, in our Bible, commonly known as King James’ Translation. It always appears under its anglicized form, baptize. We pass this for the present to briefly consider the others.

2. Rantizo. This word is used six times in the New Testament and is translated sprinkle every time. It has no other meaning. It is found in Heb. 9:13, 19, 21; 10:22; 12:24; 1 Peter 1:2.

3. Proschusis. This occurs but once in the New Testament, Heb. 11:28, rendered sprinkling. The lexicons give it the definitions of pouring upon, and sprinkling.

4. Ekcheo. This word is used eighteen times, and is translated pour out and shed forth. The lexicons give this definition. Ekchuno is considered a form of the same word, having the same signification, and is rendered in the same manner. It occurs ten times.

5. Epicheo is used but once, Luke 10:34, and is rendered pour in.

6. Katacheo occurs twice, Matt. 26:27; Mark 14:3, and is rendered pour.

7. Kerannumi (kerao) occurs three times, Rev. 14:10, and 18:6 twice. In the first-named text it is rendered poured out, and in the latter is used thus: “In the cup which she hath filled fill to her double.” The lexicons give it the definition, to mix, mingle, or pour out, as “from one vessel to another.”

8. Ballo. This word has the definition of throw or cast. It is used one hundred and twenty-five times; rendered cast ninety times; pour out twice, Matt. 26:12, and John 13:5.

Of the seven words last noticed, not one of them is ever used in referring to the ordinance of Baptism. The word ekcheo is supposed to be an exception, but it is not; for the ordinance is a subject of commandment, but the baptism of the Spirit, to which the word is applied, is not a subject of precept. But this will be noticed more particularly hereafter.

We come now to consider the word baptizo. This is defined immerse in all the lexicons. We say, in all, for we have never seen or even heard of an exception. We might give authorities to any length in justification of this statement, but we forbear, as it would only lengthen our remarks needlessly, contenting ourselves with some quotations from Prof. Moses Stuart. We choose to offer Prof. Stuart as authority for several reasons: 1. He occupies a prominent position in the Presbyterian denomination, and his admissions will therefore carry more weight than the claims of Baptist authors, though their testimony may be in perfect agreement. 2. His ability and learning were unquestioned; he long stood as a distinguished teacher in a theological school. 3. His writings being of recent date, he was in possession of all the advantages of the investigation on this subject, ancient and modern. Of the Greek he says:—

“Bapto and baptizo mean to dip, plunge, or immerse into anything liquid. All lexicographers and critics of any note are agreed in this. My proof of this position, then, need not necessarily be protracted; but for the sake of ample confirmation, I must beg the reader’s patience while I lay before him, as briefly as may be, the results of an investigation which seems to leave no room for doubt.”

He then proceeds to quote Greek authors, beginning with Homer, and gives thirty-seven instances of the use of the original with this signification. Giving five instances from Hippocrates, he remarks:—

“And in the same way in all parts of his book, in instances almost without number.”

Closing his list of citations, he adds:—

“It were easy to enlarge this list of testimonies to this use; but the reader will not desire it.”

Leaving the classics and coming to the records of the church, he says:—

“The passages which refer to immersion are so numerous in the fathers, that it would take a little volume merely to recite them.”

The investigations of others, especially of Dr. Carson and Prof. Conant, were no less exhaustive than that of Prof. Stuart, and all give the same results. And while we consider the vast number of instances given where it refers unmistakably to immersion,

there is no instance found where the Greek word baptizo means anything but immerse. Now where the lexicons are agreed, and the usage is uniform and unvarying, we think the question is settled beyond all chance of reasonable dispute; Baptism is immersion, and that only.

Of the figurative use of the word baptizo, Prof. Stuart says:—

“Inasmuch, now, as the more usual idea of baptizo is that of overwhelming, immerging, it was very natural to employ it in designating severe calamities and sufferings.”

It is a great mistake, yet made by many, to suppose that, because words are used in figures of speech, therefore they have a figurative meaning. There is no such thing as the figurative meaning of words. They must have a definite and fixed meaning in order to an understanding of the figures which they represent to us. The use of a word in a figure of speech works no change in its signification.

Having given such decided testimony from Prof. Stuart in favor of immersion, we should not do him justice did we not notice the reasons he gave for deviating in his religious views and practice from the meaning of the word. The paragraphs following contain the gist of his reasoning on the subject:—

“For myself, then, I cheerfully admit that baptizo in the New Testament, when applied to the rite of baptism, does in all probability involve the idea that this rite was usually performed by immersion, but not always. I say usually and not always; for to say more than this, the tenor of some of the narratives, particularly Acts 10:47, 48; 16:32, 33; and 2:41, seem to me to forbid. I cannot read these examples without the distinct conviction that immersion was not used on these occasions, but washing or affusion.”

We must again commend the frankness of his admission, but are constrained to express our conviction that he viewed the texts specified rather in the light of his theology than of any necessary construction, to find in them an argument for affusion. On Acts 2, he states what appears to him probable, but which every one knows is not necessary, and adds:—

“I concede that there are some points here which are left undetermined, and which may serve to aid those who differ from me in replying to these remarks.”

On Acts 10, he thinks Peter’s words imply this:—

“Can any one forbid that water should be brought in, and these persons be baptized?”

And yet he is constrained to say:—

“I admit that another meaning is not necessarily excluded which would accord with the practice of immersion.”

On Acts 16:33, he speaks more at length and is more unfortunate in his statement:—

“Here it is said that the jailor, after the earthquake and other occurrences, and when brought under deep convictions of sin, took Paul and Silas at midnight, and washed them from their stripes, i. e., washed off the blood which flowed from the wounds made by their stripes; and straightway (παραχρῆμα, forthwith) he was baptized, and ALL HIS. Where was this done? At the jail, or in the jail, where he met Paul and Silas; at any rate within the precincts of the prison; for after the whole transaction was completed, he brought Paul and Silas to his house, and gave them refreshments.”

Yet here also he admits that there might have been a bath in the jail wherein they were immersed; and so admits that his construction of the text is not necessary. The order of the events is not fully and correctly stated by him. It is as follows:—

1. He brought them out of the prison. Verse 30.

2. They spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. Verse 32.

3. He washed their stripes, and he and all his were baptized. Verse 33.

4. He brought them into his house, and set meat before them. Verse 34.

Thus the record does not give countenance to the idea that all this took place in the jail; for he brought them out, and they preached to all that were in his house, before his baptism. And after his baptism he brought them into his house and gave them food. The baptism took place neither in the prison nor in his house.

But we appeal to every candid, God-fearing reader, against all such reasonings. While it is admitted that the meaning of the word is immerse, and it is admitted that the texts may be explained in harmony with that meaning, genuine reverence for the word of God should lead every inquirer to search for that exposition which is in harmony with the evident meaning of the word used, and not to inquire if an exposition may not also be found not in harmony with the meaning of the word used. The latter course is subversive of divine revelation, and is calculated to engender strife and cause division. For, it must be confessed, the nearer we keep to the literal meaning of the text, the greater is the probability of uniformity in our faith and practice. And when we diverge from the true meaning of the words of the revelation, and admit supposed meanings, confusion is the unavoidable result, for each one is equally authorized to bring in his own supposition. But “God is not the author of confusion, but of peace.” We ought, then, to pursue that course which will shut out confusion, and bring peace and union to the household of faith.

(To be Continued.)

THE PLACE OF SEPARATION.

By Priscilla J. Owens

“And he called the name of that place Bethel [House of God], and the name of that city was called Luz [Departure, or separation,] at the first.” Gen. 27:19.

The pilgrim walked in grief and deprivation, Along the desert lone, And reached at last the place of separation, There rested on a stone.

But in his sleep a wondrous dream was given; He saw the angel guard Walking a ladder ’twixt the earth and Heaven, Thus keeping watch and ward.

A wondrous voice, the midnight silence breaking, That filled his soul with dread; And yet with hope, “I know now on awaking, The house of God,” he said.

“I knew not God was here, an exile driven Across the waste, I trod; Surely this place is as the gate of Heaven, This is the house of God.”

’Tis often thus; the place of separation By weary footsteps trod, Becomes the place of earnest consecration, The glorious house of God.

There by some heavy coffin-lid uplifted To hide some treasure dear, The cloud of tears and sorrow oft is rifted To show a Saviour near.

The chastened soul its lonely vigils keeping Beneath the midnight sky, Feels the soft wings across the darkness sweeping, God’s angels hovering nigh.

The stroke of grief falls down, our spirits rending From some bright idol’s weight; We see God’s hosts, arising and descending, And are not desolate.

We hear God’s voice, the mournful silence breaking, And turn from shattered dreams, To newer life and nobler joy awaking, To higher, holier themes.

Here, where our hearts with parting tears are riven, Low in this darkness round, We said, “This place is as the gate of Heaven, The house of God is found.”

Thus in the night we journey, sad and solemn, But in the light of morn Pour fragrant oil on the memorial column Of mercies newly born.

Receive, O God, our humble consecration, Here by this funeral sod; We feel ’midst pain and death and separation, Our home, our house, with God.

—Priscilla J. Owens.

WHICH DAY IS THE SABBATH?

By Jas. Harding

“There is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things.” 1 Cor. 8:6. From him all beings derive their existence. He who creates and upholds, has the right to govern and control. Hence it is that he is represented in Scripture as the Lawgiver who is able to save and to destroy. James 4:12. Existence being derived from the benevolence of the Creator, all intelligent beings are amenable to his just government. Man, as being made by God to inhabit the earth, is alone capable of distinguishing between right and wrong, and is therefore placed under the control of moral law. “God made man upright.” This at once presupposes a law to which he was conformed in his creation, as when anything is made according to rule, of necessity the rule itself is presupposed. Therefore this law was no other than the eternal, indispensable law of righteousness, observed in all points by the second Adam. This law is in opposition to the carnal mind, and yet, to some extent, observed among the pagans. For they, “having not the law, are a law unto themselves.” Rom. 2:14, 15. In a word, this law was afterward put in tangible form on two tables of stone, in ten precepts, and was called by Moses a law and commandments. It was given to Moses on Mount Sinai, for the Israel of God, and is now to us known as the moral law.

In Gen. 2:1–3, it is recorded that in six days God made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day God rested from all his work which he had created and made. And God sanctified and blessed the seventh day, because on it he had rested from all his work. Thus God gave to Adam, as the representative of the human race, a holy, sanctified day as a rest-day in memory of creation, because on that day the Lord rested and was refreshed. Ex. 31:17.

Here it would be well to notice that because Jacob wrestled with God and prevailed (Gen. 32:28), he was called Israel; so Paul says that all who prevail with God, through faith in Christ, are Israelites, and heirs according to the promise. Eph. 2:12; Gal. 3:29. Therefore, whoever accepts of Christ in the covenant of promise, whether Jew or Gentile, belongs to the Israel of God. The lively oracles were given to the Israelites, because the Gentiles were idolaters, and not fit to receive them. Paul says, Rom. 9:4, “Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises.” The Israelites were not only commanded to keep the Sabbath for a perpetual covenant (Ex. 31:16), but they were to keep the Sabbath for an everlasting covenant. 1 Chron. 16:15, 17. It is not best to despise the new covenant on the ground that it was made with the Israelites, nor to despise God because he was called the God of Israel, nor to despise Jesus because he was a Jew; for indeed we find we have both a Jewish Saviour and a Jewish Bible, and our salvation is all of the Jews. John 4:22. We read in 2 Pet. 3:5, 7, 13, that when this earth is burned over, and all the works that are therein burned up, the new earth (Isa. 65:17) shall come forth in all its celestial beauty. Then the Israel of God,—in possession of immortality, which is eternal youth and beauty, enrobed in righteousness without spot or wrinkle or any such thing,—shall come to worship before the Lord every Sabbath day. Isa. 66:23.

Men may celebrate just what day they please in memory of their birthday, but their birthday they can never change. Neither can the day be changed on which God rested, and which he stamped with his blessing, and gave to man as a test of obedience. Some claim that it does not matter which day we keep, if we only celebrate one day in seven. Our first parents tried that plan with the trees of the garden. One tree they did not eat of, but unhappily for the race they ate of the wrong tree. Just so, many are willing to keep a day, but are not willing to keep the seventh, as required. The reason they give is that the disciples came together to break bread on the first day of the week, Acts 20:7; but they fail to observe that as Paul was long preaching, the disciples did not break bread till next morning, or that they broke bread every day from house to house (Acts 2:46), in memory of Christ’s death. This had nothing to do with the Sabbath. It is claimed that because there were three thousand converted to God on the day of Pentecost, the first day of the week is the Sabbath day. It is also claimed that five thousand were converted to God under the preaching of Moody and Sankey, in St. Paul’s church in London, on Wednesday. Now, according to that principle of reasoning, why would not Wednesday be the Sabbath day? Reader, God will not be mocked. These things have no reference to the work of creation, of which the Sabbath day is a memorial. Ex. 31:17.

When a will is left after the testator is dead, the heirs must accept of the will as it is, or prove that the testator was not in his right mind. Reader, which do you prefer? Will you accept the will as it is? Paul says, Heb. 9:16, 17, that a testament is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. As Christ’s heirs, we have the death of the testator. Will you now presume to change the will? Read the testator’s words, Heb. 10:9: “Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.” As he has established the covenant and sealed it with his blood, let us see what it says. Heb. 8:10: “For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord: I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts; and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people.”

Having written the law on their hearts, he took the cup, Matt. 26:27, 28, saying, “This is my blood of the new testament; drink ye all of it.” If you do not love the law of God, you have no right to drink of that cup, as you will thus be guilty of the death of Christ. The transgression of the law caused the death of the Son of God. By the law we are to be tested in the Judgment day, Rom. 2:12, 16, when God will judge the secrets of men’s hearts. Christ said he came not to destroy the law (Matt. 5:17), but to fulfill it, by meeting its claims for us; he came to raise us from under its curse, that we might be able to keep it. 1 John 2:4: “He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.” Reader, remember that that law is sealed with the blood of Christ, so that if you trample it under foot, you trample on the blood of Christ, and are held as guilty as though you were the person that drove the nails into his body; 1 Cor. 11:27; and that law says the seventh day is the Sabbath. By breaking the first commandment, the Israelites would be guilty of breaking the covenant. Deut. 29:25. What is the difference between him that breaks the first commandment and him that breaks the fourth? Both break the covenant, and both are amenable to God for so doing.

It is claimed that the law was changed, the priesthood being of the tribe of Levi, and our Lord coming of the tribe of Judah. Heb. 7:12. The reader can easily see that this has reference to the Levitical law, which was all typical of Christ, and which at his death was entirely abolished, being, as Paul says, nailed to the cross. But the moral law of ten commandments is made after the nature of God,—unchangeable,—and not a jot or tittle of it shall fail till Heaven and earth pass away; and any man that shall break one of the least of these commandments, and teach men so, shall be the least esteemed in the kingdom of Heaven. If any man take away any of the words of this book, Rev. 22:19, God shall take away his part out of the book of life; and the words, Deut. 5:22, of the law say the seventh day is the Sabbath.

Lastly: the change in the Sabbath is the work of the beast which Daniel (7:25) saw in vision, which was to speak great words against the most high God, and think to change times and laws. The same beast is spoken of in Rev. 14:9; and all those who worship him by having his mark in their forehead or in their hands,—the forehead being the seat of the judgment, with which they approve the change, and the hands the instruments with which work is done on the seventh day, contrary to God’s law,—shall drink of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture. Rev. 14:10. But the saints are found keeping the law when Christ comes. Rev. 14:12.

Jas. HARDING.

NO PROBATION HEREAFTER.

By J. B. Frisbie

“For then how shall God judge the world?” Rom. 3:6.

Let us see if we can find a plain answer to this question. “For when the Gentiles, which have not the [written] law, do by nature the things contained in the law,

these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves; which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the meanwhile accusing or else excusing one another; in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.” Rom. 2:14-16. “We have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin. . . . That every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.” Rom. 3:9, 19.

Now what shall be the end of those that sin without the written law? “For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law.” Rom. 2:12. “For the day of the Lord is near upon all the heathen; . . . so shall all the heathen drink continually, yea, they shall drink, and they shall swallow down, and they shall be as though they had not been.” Obad. 15, 16.

If plain Bible facts relative to the Judgment are presented in these texts, then all theories of probation in the age or ages to come must and will be a failure. I have believed that there would be probation in the day of Judgment for all that never had an opportunity to be saved; that they would have time to be instructed, and then to receive or reject the light for themselves; but the Scripture testimony here presented is an unanswerable objection to all age-to-come doctrines that I have seen advanced. If there is to be an age of probation in the future, it can be of no possible use to us at the present time, any more than it would be to preach Noah’s flood, which is in the past. I believe that the third angel’s message is the present truth for the present time.

I write this for the benefit of some to whom I have spoken while holding the view above referred to. J. B. FRISBIE.

WHAT THE REFORMER DOES.

By S. H. Lane

None can estimate the amount of good the REFORMER is capable of doing so well as those who have witnessed the work that it accomplishes when it is properly circulated. A few facts in regard to this matter have come under my observation during the past few months, which are worth recording:—

Several years ago the publishers of the REFORMER received from the late Dr. R. T. Trall the names of several hundred persons to whose addresses he had been forwarding a paper called, The Gospel of Health. He wished to discontinue his paper, and have the REFORMER sent to his patrons for the time specified on his subscription lists.

I aided in transferring the names from Dr. Trall’s lists to those of the REFORMER, also in mailing the paper; and in doing so, I became aware of the fact that each month quite a number were forwarded to Thorntown, Boone Co., Indiana.

When I began labor in Indiana, I decided that I would sometime visit Thorntown, and present the truth. Last summer the way opened, and we pitched our tent there. The sanitary conditions of the town were quite good, much above the general average of towns in this State. It is noted as being a healthy place. We found quite a number of first-class families using graham bread and gems. All the time we were in the place we had no difficulty in obtaining graham bread; and never have we visited a town where we found so little pork used. We visited quite extensively, and not upon a single occasion did we find pork on the table. As soon as people learned that we were health reformers, those who were acquainted with the hygienic system were very friendly to us. Some were still taking the REFORMER, others, the Laws of Life. Thorntown contains about two thousand inhabitants, and never have we found in any town of its size so many men and boys who do not use tobacco.

Quite a number here had been either to the Health Institute at Battle Creek, Mich., or to Dr. Perret’s Remedial Institute at LaFayette, Ind. All of these had improved in health. This state of affairs, in my opinion, has been produced, in part at least, by the knowledge obtained through the teachings of health publications and the instruction imparted by the two health institutions I have mentioned.

Through the blessing of the Lord twenty-two embraced the truth here, and we organized a church of twenty-one members, only one of whom was using tobacco when first they heard the truth. We ordained two deacons in the church, one of whom was first favorably impressed with our people and the truth while at the Health Institute some years ago.

Brethren and sisters of Indiana, shall we not circulate the REFORMER throughout this entire State? Quite a number of places are now being canvassed. When the work is carried on in a thorough manner, subscribers are obtained. We have ordered five hundred Manuals as premiums for REFORMER subscribers. Three hundred are already in the hands of canvassers, and many of them are disposed of. Should all take hold of this work and canvass, we could soon order five hundred more, and before the end of the present year one thousand subscribers would be obtained for the REFORMER. Thus the way would be opened and friends raised up for those who labor in the State, and as the final result souls would embrace the truth and be saved in the kingdom of God. S. H. LANE.

Continue reading: A DREADFUL OCCURRENCE IN THE EAST.—DESTRUCTION OF AN ENTIRE PROVINCE