Review and Herald, Vol. 51, No. 20. (5/16/1878)

Review and Herald

May 16, 1878

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · May 16, 1878

GREAT GUNS.

It seems that a mania like a flood is spreading over the world, exciting men to invent and produce all kinds of implements of destruction and weapons of slaughter. Human inventive genius has been strained for the last few years to produce cannon that could carry heavier shot, and to a greater distance, with greater destructive force, than any now in use. Italy seems now to be preparing the most wonderful piece of ordnance of which history gives any account. The Baltimore Sun gives the following statement:—

“The Italian government owns two of the largest ironclads afloat,—the Duilio and the Dandolo,—and contemplates the construction of another, with a thickness of armor never before attempted. In the meantime, the minister of war is experimenting with a gun fifty feet long. It almost seems as though such a weapon should have a new name, but at present this enormous mass of iron and steel is simply called a gun. This monster gun will require, as a charge, nine hundred and fifty pounds of powder, and the projectile will weigh about six thousand pounds. It is calculated that the gun will throw its projectile twelve miles. The distance seems wonderful, but is not impossible. The same government already has one gun weighing a hundred tons, which throws a bolt weighing twenty-five hundred pounds nine measured miles. With even the Whitworth guns carried by the Inflexible, and the Palliser projectiles, a weak nation may be battered in pieces all along the coast line, where the most important cities are generally situated. Stone fortresses are no protection at all, and engineers are going back to earth works.”

Men talk about the wonderful instrumentalities now made ready to convert and

save the world, but it is certain that the very nations upon whom they depend to accomplish this work of salvation have, for the last twenty-five years, expended ten dollars for the purpose of destroying men where they have expended one to evangelize them. Preparations to destroy men are increasing much faster than those to save them.—World’s Crisis.

HOW THEY VIEW IT.

By S. McALEXANDER

I found an article in a little monthly of April, 1878, entitled, “The National Soldier,” headed, “European War; Prophetic Warnings.” It was truly encouraging to me to see the light of prophecy shining in dark places. The above named paper is edited by N. W. Fitzgerald, at Washington City. The article referred to is clipped from The National Industrial, edited by Blanton Duncan, at Louisville, Ky. I quote as follows:—

“We have not space to comment on the important developments of yesterday. For more than a year we have been convinced that the great conflict could not be avoided. Indeed, the prophecies have always been clear on the subject. Ancient and modern writers, Jewish as well as Christian, who have commented upon the Bible, have been unanimous in the opinion, that the yet unfulfilled prophecies of the 38th and 39th chapters of Ezekiel point clearly to the great conflict in which Russia is to take the leading part. All these writers have believed Meshech and Magog unequivocally denote Russia. If these prophecies are now on the eve of fulfillment, the last days are indeed at hand, and it behooves every mortal to be prepared for what may come.

“The English government can put five millions of the best troops in the world into the field in six months. The Sepoys of India will rush to the standard to fight against the Russians, who have conquered the sultan. Such armaments as will be seen must make the earth tremble, when the shock of war does come. China may also be drawn into the war; for there have been steady aggressions on the part of Russia for years past, which have enraged that nation. The Russian army will probably occupy Constantinople, which will then be bombarded by the English fleet. If the Russians can keep the Bosphorus closed, they will be masters of the Black Sea; and the hosts will march into Palestine to meet the armies of England, which will come through the Red Sea from India, and via the Mediterranean from England.”

Mr. Fitzgerald heartily concurs with Mr. Duncan, and says: “We, from our knowledge of profane and sacred history and our confidence in the accuracy of the Jewish Scriptures, subscribe to this view of the Eastern question.” S. McALEXANDER.

PROTESTANTS APING THE CUSTOMS OF ROME.

By Editor

THERE is not a little imitation of Romish customs on the part of Protestants, much of it a mere thoughtless compliance with the dictates of fashion, but not, on that account, less injurious in its effects. A notable example has just been afforded by Mrs. Grant, who, according to news which comes direct from Rome to Washington, when she was presented to the pope, asked him to bless for her a silver cross which her husband had given her when they celebrated their silver wedding at Long Branch, in August, 1873. She said that on account of its being her husband's gift on the twenty-fifth anniversary of their marriage, she felt it to be particularly sacred, and desired the pope to bless it for her, which he did. We have no doubt that Mrs. Grant entertains the same convictions as to the real value of the pope's blessing on a piece of silver which are held by all Protestants. We have no belief that she thinks herself any surer of Heaven because she owns a cross over which the Roman Pontiff has extended his hands in benediction, or imagines that it can in any way affect her spiritual interests. Probably she only wished to be able to say: “This little article was blessed by the pope in my presence,” a very pretty and interesting way of preserving the memory of her visit to Rome. But the effect of her act on Catholic minds is shown in the exultant comments of the Catholic Review:—

“The mental agony that ‘Chaplain’ Newman and ‘Bishop’ Simpson must have experienced on receiving this shocking information must have been intense. Here are two most unpleasant revelations. It was bad enough that President Grant—the man whom the Methodists had looked upon as their own, and whom they had wished to parade before the country as a champion of pure Protestant principles—it was bad enough to find that he had given to his wife as a wedding souvenir, a cross; the very emblem of Popery! But to learn also that she carried this idolatrous and superstitious article to Rome, had taken it to the ‘Man of Sin,’ and had besought him ‘to bless it’ for her—this, indeed, is terrible! . . . Seriously, this little incident, which we mention only because it has a serious side to it, has this significance. At the bottom of the soul of every intelligent Protestant there is the feeling—hidden, smothered, refused utterance, denied and vilified, but still alive—that the pope is his spiritual father, and that he is the visible head of the church of God on earth. . . . The spectacle of the living and teaching church in this country—her beauty, order, unity and majesty—affects the hearts and minds of those outside her pale in spite of themselves. The contrast between her and the sects daily becomes more striking: the common sense of Americans, once freed from the trammels of ignorant prejudice, recognizes the divinity of her commission and the weight of her claims upon their submission. They may defer this submission, or refuse even at the last to make it, but the feeling exists, and is often powerful in its effects.”

The points of compliance with Romish customs, in fashionable circles, are almost numberless, and we submit that, in view of the effect which they produce on the Catholic mind, they ought to be discountenanced by all earnest Protestants. One cause for the invasion of these customs into good society is shown in the startling declaration which has been repeatedly affirmed on good authority, that “there are at this time, in this country, thirty-five thousand girls from professedly Protestant families in attendance upon Roman Catholic schools; and it is claimed by the managers of these schools that one of every ten of the girls in these schools is converted to the Romish faith; that three of every ten learn to hate Protestantism for life, and a large proportion of the whole become indifferent for the rest of their lives to all Protestantism in the simplicity of its faith and worship.” We are not able to verify the number here cited, and it is not necessary to do so. Every one at all conversant with the facts knows that the number of daughters of Protestants educated in Catholic schools is very large, and the results are greatly to be deplored.

Protestants ought not to play into the hands of the enemies of their faith; American patriots ought not to bring aid and comfort to the subtlest and most dangerous enemies of the republic.—Christian Statesman.

SOCIALISM IN GERMANY.

The Socialist movement in Germany is assuming somewhat alarming proportions. In some of the large towns it seems to be approaching a crisis. In Berlin Socialist artisans are daily declaring their determination to leave the church, and it is thought that still larger numbers would secede were it not for the fine exacted from persons declaring such an intention. Socialists in Germany are atheists. The movement in its religious aspect is the outcome of the infidelity and formalism that have been for a long time growing within the church. Politically, it is only another phase of the French Commune. Its strength and sudden growth may be judged from the fact, that, whereas in 1871 the Socialist party could command but 120,000 votes and two members in Parliament, it registered last year 497,000, nearly one-tenth of the whole voting population, and returned twelve members to the National Legislature.

Of one of its recent rapid strides the conservative community seems to have been almost unaware. On a late Sunday, however, a demonstration at the funeral of one of the Socialist leaders has done a great deal to arouse public sentiment and disclose the grave dangers that lie hidden beneath the surface. The deceased was one August Heinsch, a foreman in a semi-Socialistic printing-house, and a successful propagator of Socialistic doctrines. His death was supposed to be occasioned by excitement, and overwork in this cause. In the funeral procession fully ten thousand persons took part. Every one wore the red badge of the Commune. As many as a thousand women were among the number, and even little children, decked with crimson scarfs. Six Members of Parliament, also ornamented with red, headed the line and lent official dignity to the occasion. In all the streets a vast multitude of astonished spectators were gathered. At the cemetery, belonging to one of the atheistic societies, very concise and informal ceremonies were held, consisting only of revolutionary and eulogistic speeches, and, singularly enough, a Lutheran choral, there being as yet no distinctively Socialist hymns or music.

An ill-judged attempt was lately made by some of the clergy to establish a counter movement by organizing a party of “Christian Socialists.” As the fundamental doctrine of Socialism is disbelief in Christianity, and the two are absolutely irreconcilable, of course the effort was a failure, and only brought contempt on its originators. Thoughtful people are awaiting further developments of the movement with no little concern.—Christian Union.

The Mystery of Chastisement.

By S. Wilberforce

“We glory also in tribulations.” Rom. 5: 3.

Within this leaf, to every eye So little worth, doth hidden lie Most rare and subtle fragrance;

Wouldst thou its secret wealth unbind? Crush it, and thou shalt perfume find Sweet as Arabia’s spicy wind.

In this dull stone, so poor and bare Of shape or luster, patient care Will find for thee a jewel rare;

But first, must skillful hand essay, With file and flint, to clear away The film that hides its fire from day.

This leaf! this stone! it is thy heart; It must be crushed by pain and smart, It must be cleansed by sorrow’s art,

Ere it will yield a fragrance sweet, Ere it will shine a jewel meet To lay before the dear Lord’s feet.

—S. Wilberforce.

THE HORRORS OF THE FAMINE.

A RECENT letter to the Independent, from a missionary in Pekin, gives the details of one of the most appalling catastrophes of modern times. This was the burning of a yard full of wood-sheds, in which were housed a great number of refugees from the famine regions, who were collected here to obtain a little food furnished by the government. It was on Sunday, Jan. 6, and the wind was from the north, and bitterly cold. On reaching the scene of the disaster, the missionary found the sheds already consumed and a multitude of bodies roasting within. He says:—

“The poor victims must have been suffocated almost at once by the smoke and flames arising from the combustion of a foot or so of straw, upon which they slept, and which constituted their only means of keeping warm, aside from their own animal heat. The premises were surrounded by a strong stalk fence, plastered with mud, very difficult to break down. The fire broke out inside; but no one knows how, as no fire is allowed, except that in the little mud range, where the fuel on which the people are fed is cooked. It spread with astonishing rapidity, so that it was with difficulty that any escaped. The number within the enclosure appears to have been about two thousand eight hundred, and it is not certainly known how many were burned. The sight was the most horrible that could be imagined. A long row of sheds, quite consumed, mats above and straw beneath, and each packed full of hundreds of women and children, all burned to a cinder as they stood or squatted, before they had time to reach even the door. There were many very small children, scarcely three months old. It took three days to extricate all the bodies and get them coffined, and in many cases this was quite impossible.”

The accounts from the Province of Shansi are horrible beyond the imagination of those who in distant lands only hear of famine. The stories in the Books of Kings about the famine are realized in that province.

HISTORY AND TRINE IMMERSION.

By Joseph Harvey Waggoner

BY ELD. J. H. WAGGONER.

(Continued.)*

Eld. Moore highly indorses Quintner’s efforts in favor of their system, but his own pamphlet is much more ample in historical references. He says he has traced it directly to the apostles. The three writers nearest to the apostles given by him are Tertullian, A. D. 160–220; Clement of Alexandria, A. D. 150–220; and Justin Martyr, A. D. 100–165. These are the most important of all the witnesses, because they lived nearest to the apostles, and those who followed them must have depended on them more or less for any “tradition handed down from the apostles.” We shall take them in reverse order and notice first

JUSTIN MARTYR,

Because he was nearest to the apostles, Mr. Moore quotes and comments as follows:—

“Justin wrote ‘An Apology for Christians, Addressed to the Emperor, the Senate, and the People of Rome.’ In this work he describes the doctrines and ordinances of the church of Christ; and on baptism has the following passage: ‘Then we bring them to some place where there is water, and they are baptized by the same way of baptism by which we were baptized; for they are washed in the water in the name of God the Father, Lord of all things, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit.’”

“Justin’s works were written in the Greek language, and are translated by Mr. Reeves, who, when speaking of the confession usually made in those early times, says of the above passage: ‘The candidates were thrice plunged under the water at the naming of the Three Persons in the blessed trinity.’”

“This is the candid opinion of the learned translator, that when Justin writes of the Christians’ being washed in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, he means nothing short of trine immersion. We give Mr. Reeves’ convictions and candid opinion as a fair argument in support of the fact that the above passage refers to trine immersion.”

Mr. Moore makes his quotations in the above from Pengilly on Baptism. And here, reader, we have the first stone, the very corner-stone of the edifice of trine immersion; the first witness—the one nearest to the apostles—to prove that trine immersion existed in the very days of the apostles. Here we have several points of interest.

1. Justin says nothing at all about trine immersion! We are reminded of the case of the lawyer who said he had five reasons to give why his witness was not in court. First, he was dead. The Judge here excused him from giving the other four. So we might stop right here with a clear case, but we will examine a little further.

2. It is Mr. Reeves’ candid opinion that Justin meant trine immersion, though he says nothing about it. Upon what this opinion is based, and what it is worth, we shall presently see.

3. Mr. Reeves’ opinion is offered as a fair argument in favor of the fact that the passage refers to trine immersion.

It must be remembered that no other author of Justin’s day is cited to prove the existence of the fact assumed. The whole burden of evidence lies in Mr. Reeves’ opinion.

In the “Ante-Nicene Library,” published by Clark, Edinburgh, the works of Justin are translated by Dr. Dods. From chap. 61 of his first Apology we copy as follows:—

“I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God, when we had been made new through Christ; lest if we omit this, we seem to be unfair in the explanation we are making. As many as are persuaded and believe that what we say and teach is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we ourselves were regenerated. For in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the Universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, ‘Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of Heaven.’”

If the translation of Dr. Dods is correct, and Dr. Schaff gives it the same way, then the term baptism is used by Mr. Reeves only by implication. However, the idea of baptismal regeneration is strongly favored by the language of Justin; so early did erroneous views of baptism begin to find their way into the church. But by no fair construction can trine immersion be inferred from his language.

The next witness quoted nearest to the time of the apostles is

CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA.

Mr. Moore quotes and comments as follows:—

“Clement is addressing himself to the churches planted by the apostles,—churches composed of members, many of whom were baptized by the immediate successors of the apostles when he uses the following words: ‘Ye were conducted to a bath just as Christ was carried to the grave, and were thrice immersed, to signify the three days of his burial.’—Wiberg on Baptism, p. 228.”

We must say of this as we said of Theodoret: We cannot say positively that Clement never wrote these words, yet we are left strongly to doubt. No reference is made to any work where they may be found. We think we have had access to and have examined all that are usually ascribed to Clement, but these words are not in them. We have seen what liberty was taken with Sozomen to make him testify to their purpose, and what a strong argument is made out of nothing in the case of Justin; and why, if this quotation is genuine, are we not told whence this is taken? That which is offered in proof must be shown to be proof. We have a right to call in question such loose quotations.

We do not look upon this, however, as upon the testimony cited from Justin. If this should prove to be genuine, which we have good reason to doubt, we must remember that trine immersion was recognized in Africa earlier than anywhere else; and that Africa was, at that very time, the very hot-bed of superstitious innovations in the Christian faith. See Milner, as before quoted.

TERTULLIAN.

There is no dispute that Tertullian did mention trine immersion; but he referred it only to tradition. This is denied by the trine immersionists, but the proof is decidedly against them. Eld. Moore publishes an appendix of Caution on this point. He says:—

“In the writings of Campbell, Hinton, Fuller, and Wiberg, Tertullian is accused of stating that, ‘we are immersed three times, fulfilling somewhat more than our Lord has decreed in the gospel.’ This, however, is simply an incorrect translation of the Latin text, the Oxford translation of which reads as follows: ‘Then are we thrice dipped, pledging [not fulfilling] ourselves to something more than the Lord has prescribed in the gospel.’ Before the candidates were baptized they pledged themselves to some things not mentioned in the gospel, and to these Tertullian refers.”

These words of Eld. Moore’s are not warranted by the facts. Tertullian does not speak of what was done before baptism, but in baptism. And the version of Campbell, Hinton, Fuller, and Wiberg is most accurate in following the original, which is both followed and given by Stuart, whom we quoted elsewhere. The words of Stuart in full on this passage are as follows:—

“Tertullian himself, however, seems to have regarded this trine immersion as something superadded to the precepts of the gospel; for thus he speaks in his book, De Corona Militis, § 3: ‘Thence we are thrice immersed (ter mergitamur), answering, i. e., fulfilling, somewhat more (amplius aliquid respondentes) than the Lord has decreed in the gospel.’”

Stuart is surely as literal as may be in rendering respondentes, answering; and no one can possibly object to his making it equivalent to fulfilling, in this case; while the whole sentence in Tertullian points unmistakably to the action of trine immersion, and not to anything before baptism.

But there is a decisive text to which we shall now bring this matter. Bingham, “Antiquities of the Christian Church,” is one of the witnesses cited by Eld. Moore, in his historical evidences. Bingham has treated the whole subject at length, though he does not directly give his own opinion of the correctness of the method. Of the derivation of trine immersion he says:—

“Some derive it from apostolic tradition; others, from the first institution of baptism by our Saviour; whilst others esteem it only an indifferent circumstance or ceremony, that may be used or omitted without any detriment to the sacrament itself, or breach of any divine appointment. Tertullian, St. Basil, and St. Jerome put it among those rites of the church which they reckon to be handed down from apostolic tradition.”—Book 11, chap. 11, § 7.

It will be noticed that “apostolic tradition” is distinguished from that which was appointed by the Saviour. Tertullian, the very earliest witness for trine immersion, and the prince of traditional innovators, “put it among those rites of the church which they reckon to be handed down from apostolic tradition.” This shows that Eld. Moore’s “Caution” is utterly futile, and that his construction of the words of Tertullian is wrong.

The first name given by Bingham among those who held that trine immersion came from the appointment of the Saviour, is that of Chrysostom; but Chrysostom lived two centuries this side of Tertullian, in a day when traditions were more firmly established as authority in the church. In a review of the whole ground we shall refer to Tertullian again. We will briefly notice

MR. REEVES.

This is a witness of great importance to trine immersionists. It is his opinion which makes the “fair argument” that Justin Martyr believed in trine immersion. Mr. Reeves has stated the strong argument, in his own mind, for that practice, in the following words:—

“The ancients carefully observed trine immersion, insomuch that, by the ‘Canons Apostolical,’ either Bishop or Presbyter who baptized without it was deposed from the ministry.”

That somebody believed in and practiced trine immersion at an early age in the Christian church, we do not deny. But we wish the reader to bear in mind that we are now searching for the authority for the practice. Mr. Reeves has been quoted with great confidence, and he refers to his authority. This same authority is elsewhere given by Eld. Moore, so we will now notice

“THE APOSTOLICAL CANONS.”

Of these Eld. Moore says: “These ‘Canons, which consist of eighty-five ecclesiastical laws, contain a view of the church government among the Greek and Oriental Christians in the early centuries of the Christian religion’ (Mosheim, vol. 4, p. 44), and can be relied upon in tracing Christian baptism back to a very early date. Some learned men, who have made profound researches respecting the origin of these Canons, have assigned to some of them a date much earlier than A. D. 200.

“The fiftieth of the Apostolical Canons reads as follows: ‘If any Bishop or Presbyter do not perform three immersions of one initiation, but one immersion which is given into the death of Christ, let him be deposed; for the Lord did not say, “Baptize into my death,” but “Go ye, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Do ye, therefore, O Bishops, immerse thrice—into one Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost, according to the will of Christ by the Spirit.’—Quintner and McConnell’s Debate, p. 114.”

This is that to which Mr. Reeves refers; but he does not say one word as to its date, origin, and authenticity. It was of course written by somebody, and that somebody believed in three immersions. But who it was, and when he wrote, nobody knows. It was a very common practice in those days of pious forgeries to label their writings apostolical, or to ascribe them to some worthy Christian, to give them weight among those who did not stop to discriminate between the true and the false.

These Canons are from unknown sources. They did not all come into notice at one time. Notice that Mr. Moore says: “Some learned men . . . have assigned to some of them a date much earlier than A. D. 200.” But of the one in question, the fiftieth, he says nothing. He must have known some of the facts respecting it, and to endeavor to give authority to this by speaking a good word for “some of them,” savors much of the same spirit which originated them. Of the Canons Dr. Schaff says:—

“They are evidently of gradual growth, and were collected either after the middle of the fourth century, or not till the latter part of the fifth, by some unknown hand, probably also in Syria.”

These Canons are found, with notes, in a “History of Christian Councils,” by Bishop Hefele, of Germany. Appended to Canon 50, the one quoted above, is this remark:—

“This Canon is among the most recent of the collection. It is not known from what source it is derived.”

For the present we dismiss the Canons Apostolical, willingly according to the trine immersionists all the honor they acquire by the use which they make of them.

Preceding these Canons, in point of chronology, comes the testimony of

MUNNULUS, BISHOP OF GIRBA.

His words, claimed in favor of three immersions, were spoken in the seventh Council of Carthage, held under Cyprian, A. D. 256. There were eighty-five bishops present. The sole object of this council was to settle the question of the validity of baptism administered by heretics; and the unanimous testimony was that those who had been baptized by heretics must be baptized again, if they would enter the Catholic or orthodox church. Not one word was spoken against their mode or form of administering it; only that it was invalid, or no baptism at all, because it was by the hands of a heretic. Cyprian preserved on record the decision of each member of the council. We give specimens that the animus of the council may appear. Januarius of Muzzuli said:—

“I am surprised, since all confess there is one baptism, that all do not perceive the unity of the same baptism. For the church and heresy are two things, and different things. If heretics have baptism, we have it not; but if we have it, heretics cannot have it. But there is no doubt that the church alone possesses the baptism of Christ, since she alone possesses both the grace and the truth of Christ.”

Alypius of Ausvaga said: “We have received one baptism, and that same we maintain and practice. But he who says that heretics also may lawfully baptize, makes two baptisms.”

The following we copy from Eld. Moore’s book:—

“A. D. 256, while at the famous Council of Carthage, Munnulus made use of the following language in one of his speeches, preserved by Cyprian: ‘The true doctrine of our holy mother, the Catholic Church, hath always, my brethren, been with us, and doth yet abide with us, especially in the article of baptism, and the trine immersion wherewith it is celebrated; our Lord having said, “Go ye, and baptize the Gentiles, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”’—Works of Cyprian, Part 1, p. 240.”

The following, as the words of Munnulus, we copy from Cyprian’s records of this council, in his Works, vol. 2, p. 204:—

“The truth of our Mother, the Catholic Church, brethren, hath always remained and still remains with us, and even especially in the Trinity of baptism, as our Lord says, ‘Go ye and baptize the nations in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.’ Since, then, we manifestly know that heretics have not either Father, or Son, or Holy Spirit, they ought, when they come to the church our Mother, truly to be born again, and to be baptized; that the cancer which they had, and the anger of damnation, and the witchery of error, may be sanctified by the holy and heavenly laver.”

We fear the same liberty was taken with the words of Munnulus that was taken with the history of Sozomen. That which was called by him “the trinity of baptism,” is, by those who use his testimony to uphold a tradition, called “baptism, and the trine immersion,” &c. The difference is material, there is a reduplication of the term baptism, or immersion, and the duplicate thus becomes a word of explanation, just such as we find inserted in the words of Sozomen.

But the query may arise, What did he mean by “the trinity of baptism”? He explains this himself; we, says he, baptize in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Spirit, while heretics have neither Father, Son, nor Holy Spirit. Thus, instead of three immersions he refers to the three persons involved in the act of baptism. And the same idea is still more clearly expressed by other early authors. Thus in Clement’s “Recognitions,” Book 3, chap. 67, as follows:—

“But every one of you shall be baptized in ever-flowing water, the name of the Trine Beatitude being invoked over him.”

And again twice in his “Homilies,” thus:—

“Washing in a flowing river, or in a fountain, or even in the sea, with the thrice blessed invocation, you shall not only be able to drive away the spirits which lurk in you,” &c.—Hom. 9, chap. 19.

“For there is something that is merciful from the beginning borne upon the water, and rescues from the future punishment those who are baptized with the thrice blessed invocation.”—Hom. 11, chap. 26.

We are well aware that the “trine beatitude,” or “thrice blessed invocation,” drawn directly from the words of the Scriptures, was soon made the foundation of three-fold baptism, not at all based on the Scriptures, but resting on tradition only. We do not care to follow the historical testimony further, because volumes of tradition have no weight with us, and this is proved to have no other origin.

(To be Continued.)*

DRUNKENNESS IN CONGRESS.

SENATOR DAWES saw fit to deny the statements of Mary Clemmer, correspondent of the Independent, concerning the drunkenness of senators on the night of the passage of the Silver Bill. No one doubts the word of the Honorable Senator from Massachusetts, but the fact that he did not see the scenes alluded to is not proof sufficient to outweigh the testimony of another who from a more favorable position in the gallery looked down upon the floor. —The lady returns pluckily to her charge as follows: “By what mental reservation, by what esprit de corps, by what ignorance of the facts, he [Mr. Dawes] asserts that ‘no part of the statement is true of any one senator, much less sixteen,’ I suppose the God who has charge of him knows. Perhaps he was asleep; perhaps his eyes were shut; perhaps his ears were filled with wax, like the hosts of Ulysses; it matters not what was the material or spiritual condition of Mr. Dawes through all that hot and tiresome night—all the same in the Senate Chamber, where he sat, there were at least six senators positively drunk, and at least sixteen or twenty senators who showed unmistakable evidence of having drunk more liquor than was good for them. I not only know that six senators were drunk, but I know who these senators were. I refrain from giving their names now, as in my former letter, solely on account of the women who care for them and who bear those names. Pray don’t for a moment think that any regard for the men themselves would keep me from telling who they are. That senator of the United States who will come drunk into the Senate Chamber has no more claim on my toleration than he has on my respect.

“The special sentence (not mine) which Mr. Dawes quotes to contradict is: ‘Sixteen senators were beastly drunk, and when one of them rose to make a motion he had to be braced up on either side while he spoke his piece.’ Mr. Dawes’s ‘mental reservation’ must have come in on the ‘beastly.’ There were not sixteen senators ‘beastly’ drunk. But when Mr. Dawes adds, ‘No part of the above statement is true of any one senator, much less of sixteen,’ however unintentionally, he writes what is not true. At least ‘one’ senator was ‘beastly’ drunk,—the one who vomited on every beautiful sofa that he fell over. And it is equally true that there was a senator who had to stand ‘braced up’ by his friends on either side, while he incoherently muttered forth his drunken ‘amendments.’”—Chris. Statesman.

Clerical Titles.

[The following excellent thoughts on “Clerical Titles” are furnished for the Review by a Baptist minister.—Ed.]

He who appointed the gospel ministry did not distinguish it by such titles as are now applied to it. The word of God says nothing of Reverend, Most Reverend, Right-Reverend, Archbishop, D. D., LL. D., A. M., M. D., etc., in connection with ministers’ names. If the Bible is authority on this point, such titles are out of place when applied to the ministry. They may show that persons bearing them have been placed in high offices by their friends, or that they have mastered certain branches of learning; but they are not a criterion of their ability or success in converting people to the Lord. The ministry is not a philosophical institution, it is spiritual in its character and work. It may be well to affix these titles to secular teachers, as an index of their intellectual attainments; but one’s ability as a preacher is determined by the amount of spiritual labor he performs for the Lord.

We would not be understood as speaking depreciatingly of learning in the ministry; far from it! Let the minister study the various branches of learning; let his mind be disciplined, and its faculties developed; and if such studies have increased his ability, people will know it without having a title added to his name. These titles often signify more than is intended; for example, we see a name in print, thus: Rev. Mr. A——, M. D. This implies that the person is engaged in two different professions, and we do not know in which he is most interested. It shows that he is not doing as Paul recommended in 1 Tim. 4:15,—“Give thyself wholly” to the things of the ministry. The Bible term “Elder” is sufficient to distinguish the clergy from the laity; and ministers should be satisfied with it. The time is at hand when preachers should be preachers, and not every thing else; and when they should also be known by their practical labors, and not by the official drapery overshadowing their names. W. S. BARBER.

HEART THINKING.

By A. R. C.

“As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he.” It is generally an accepted doctrine that a man thinks with his head, but the truth of the former declaration would hardly hold in the latter case. It is often astonishing to see what can be done in a cause where there is thinking in the heart. On a recent Sabbath we visited a church of Adventists which has a membership of about forty-five. At ten o’clock there was a prayer-meeting, lasting forty-five minutes. Old men and matrons, young men and maidens, all kneeled at the same time whenever any one led in prayer.

After a powerful discourse by Eld. V. Hull, the church register was called, and all present made a brief report of themselves, and very nearly every one absent responded by letter. These letters were read by a young man, and were full of interest. In the afternoon, the Lord’s supper was celebrated, washing of feet, &c.

We gathered some items concerning the church, which cannot fail to show what consecration will do. A few Sabbaths previous, they raised $180 for general “T. and M. work,” as they called it,—tracts and missions. A brother in moderate circumstances gives annually $44; another brother, a farmer by no means rich, gives about $200 annually. Young men and women who live by their daily or weekly labor seldom give less than five dollars each, oftener ten. Their pastor, Rev. Mr. Matteson, is in Denmark on a mission. A publishing house is soon to be established in Europe, for which purpose $20,000 have been raised. Eld. Matteson’s wife is with him, but their seven young children are here;—two in Michigan, two in Northern Wisconsin, and three with this church. As we saw the three boys coming to church, whose ages we deemed to be from five years to ten, and were told that after four or five years, when the mission was established, their parents would return “to see their children,” we could but feel that somewhere there was thinking with the heart.

It seems like the days when we were young, when we heard it said that our China Mission would be re-inforced when somebody could be found to go; and the same thing is said now, and the mission has no missionary. Are we not thinking with our heads?

The work of spreading Sabbath truth so gathers on the hands of Rev. Mr. Matteson that he has called for aid, and others will soon go to his assistance. What we as a people would call a failure, and would abandon, this people will carry to victory. What consecration is there in a church which gives nothing to the “T. and M. work”?

A brother of the church alluded to has spent several weeks in canvassing for their publications in his own and neighboring towns, and it was all done gratuitously. A young lady said, “We do our own preaching, so our pastor can help others.” How many churches have we numbering forty-five, giving hundreds annually to tracts and missions? Do we not need a different mode of operation, or more thinking in our hearts?—A. R. C., in Sabbath Recorder.

Continue reading: BETTER THAN NOTHING