Earlier text: The Law Given to IsraelThe Visigoths in the Western Empire.
By Alonzo T. Jones
“WHILE the emperor and his court enjoyed, with sullen pride, the security of the marshes and fortifications of Ravenna, they [A. D. 409] abandoned Rome, almost without defense, to the resentment of Alaric. Yet such was the moderation which he still preserved, or affected, that, as he moved with his army along the Flaminian way, he successively dispatched the bishops of the towns of Italy to reiterate his offers of peace, and to conjure the emperor, that he would save the city and its inhabitants from hostile fire, and the sword of the barbarians. These impending calamities were, however, averted, not indeed by the wisdom of Honorius, but by the prudence or humanity of the Gothic king, who employed a milder, though not less effectual, method of conquest. Instead of assaulting the capital, he successfully directed his efforts against the Port of Ostia, one of the boldest and most stupendous works of Roman magnificence. The accidents to which the precarious subsistence of the city was continually exposed in a winter navigation, and an open road, had suggested to the genius of the first Cæsar the useful design, which was executed under the reign of Claudius. The artificial moles, which formed the narrow entrance, advanced far into the sea, and firmly repelled the fury of the waves, while the largest vessels securely rode at anchor within three deep and capacious basins, which received the northern branch of the Tyber, about two miles from the ancient colony of Ostia. The Roman Port insensibly swelled to the size of an episcopal city, where the corn of Africa was deposited in spacious granaries for the use of the capital. “As soon as Alaric was in possession of that important place, he summoned the city to surrender at discretion; and his demands were enforced by the positive declaration, that a refusal, or even a delay, should be instantly followed by the destruction of the magazines, on which the life of the Roman people depended. The clamors of that people, and the terror of famine, subdued the pride of the senate; they listened, without reluctance, to the proposal of placing a new emperor on the throne of the unworthy Honorius; and the suffrage of the Gothic conqueror bestowed the purple on Attalus, prefect of the city. The grateful monarch immediately acknowledged his protector as master-general of the armies of the West; Adolphus, with the rank of count of the domestics, obtained the custody of the person of Attalus; and the two hostile nations seemed to be united in the closest bands of friendship and alliance. “The gates of the city were thrown open, and the new emperor of the Romans, encompassed on every side by the Gothic arms, was conducted, in tumultuous procession, to the palace of Augustus and Trajan. After he had distributed the civil and military dignities among his favorites and followers, Attalus convened an assembly of the senate, before whom, in a formal and florid speech, he asserted his resolution of restoring the majesty of the republic, and of uniting to the empire the provinces of Egypt and the East, which had once acknowledged the sovereignty of Rome. Such extravagant promises inspired every reasonable citizen with a just contempt for the character of an unwarlike usurper, whose elevation was the deepest and most ignominious wound which the republic had yet sustained from the insolence of the barbarians. But the populace, with their usual levity, applauded the change of masters. The public discontent was favorable to the rival of Honorius; and the sectaries, oppressed by his persecuting edicts, expected some degree of countenance, or at least of toleration, from a prince who, in his native country of Ionia, had been educated in the pagan superstition, and who had since received the sacrament of baptism from the hands of an Arian bishop. “The first days of the reign of Attalus were fair and prosperous. An officer of confidence was sent with an inconsiderable body of troops to secure the obedience of Africa; the greatest part of Italy submitted to the terror of the Gothic powers; and though the city of Bologna made a vigorous and effectual resistance, the people of Milan, dissatisfied perhaps with the absence of Honorius, accepted, with loud acclamations, the choice of the Roman senate. At the head of a formidable army, Alaric conducted his royal captive almost to the gates of Ravenna; and a solemn embassy of the principal ministers of Jovius, the Pretorian prefect, of Valens, master of the cavalry and infantry, of the quæstor Potamius, and of Julian, the first of the notaries, was introduced, with martial pomp, into the Gothic camp. In the name of their sovereign, they consented to acknowledge the lawful election of his competitor, and to divide the provinces of Italy and the West between the two emperors. “Their proposals were rejected with disdain; and the refusal was aggravated by the insulting clemency of Attalus, who condescended to promise that, if Honorius would instantly resign the purple, he should be permitted to pass the remainder of his life in the peaceful exile of some remote island. So desperate indeed did the situation of the son of Theodosius appear, to those who were the best acquainted with his strength and resources, that Jovius and Valens, his minister and his general, betrayed their trust, infamously deserted the sinking cause of their benefactor, and devoted their treacherous allegiance to the service of his more fortunate rival. Astonished by such examples of domestic treason, Honorius trembled at the approach of every servant, at the arrival of every messenger. He dreaded the secret enemies, who might lurk in his capital, his palace, his bed-chamber; and some ships lay ready in the harbor of Ravenna, to transport the abdicated monarch to the dominions of his infant nephew, the emperor of the East. “But there is a Providence (such at least was the opinion of the historian Procopius) that watches over innocence and folly; and the pretensions of Honorius to its peculiar care cannot reasonably be disputed. At the moment [A. D. 410] when his despair, incapable of any wise or manly resolution, meditated a shameful flight, a seasonable re-enforcement of four thousand veterans unexpectedly landed in the port of Ravenna. To these valiant strangers, whose fidelity had not been corrupted by the factions of the court, he committed the walls and gates of the city; and the slumbers of the emperor were no longer disturbed by the apprehension of imminent and internal danger. The favorable intelligence which was received from Africa suddenly changed the opinions of men, and the state of public affairs. The troops and officers, whom Attalus had sent into that province, were defeated and slain; and the active zeal of Heraclian maintained his own allegiance, and that of his people.” “The failure of the African expedition, was the source of mutual complaint and recrimination in the party of Attalus; and the mind of his protector was insensibly alienated from the interest of a prince, who wanted spirit to command, or docility to obey. . . . The resentment of the Gothic king was exasperated by the malicious arts of Jovius, who had been raised to the rank of patrician, and who afterwards excused his double perfidy, by declaring, without a blush, that he had only seemed to abandon the service of Honorius, more effectually to ruin the cause of the usurper. In a large plain near Rimini, and in the presence of an innumerable multitude of Romans and barbarians, the wretched Attalus was publicly despoiled of the diadem and purple; and those ensigns of royalty were sent by Alaric, as the pledge of peace and friendship, to the son of Theodosius.” “The degradation of Attalus removed the only real obstacle to the conclusion of the peace; and Alaric advanced within three miles of Ravenna, to press the irresolution of the Imperial ministers, whose insolence soon returned with the return of fortune. His indignation was kindled by the report, that a rival chieftain, that Sarus, the personal enemy of Adolphus, and the hereditary foe of the house of Balti, had been received into the palace. At the head of three hundred followers, that fearless barbarian immediately sallied from the gates of Ravenna; surprised, and cut in pieces, a considerable body of Goths; re-entered the city in triumph; and was permitted to insult his adversary, by the voice of a herald, who publicly declared that the guilt of Alaric had forever excluded him from the friendship and alliance of the emperor. “The crime and folly of the court of Ravenna were expiated a third time by the calamities of Rome. The king of the Goths, who no longer dissembled his appetite for plunder and revenge, appeared in arms under the walls of the capital; and the trembling senate, without any hopes of relief, prepared, by a desperate resistance, to delay the ruin of their country. But they were unable to guard against the secret conspiracy of their slaves and domestics; who, either from birth or interest, were attached to the cause of the enemy. At the hour of midnight [Aug. 24 A. D. 410] the Salarian gate was silently opened, and the inhabitants were awakened by the tremendous sound of the Gothic trumpet. Eleven hundred and sixty-three years after the foundation of Rome, the Imperial city, which had subdued and civilized so considerable a part of mankind, was delivered to the licentious fury of the tribes of Germany and Scythia.—Decline and Fall, chap. 31, par. 18-21. "The Lord is on my side; I will not fear; what can man do unto me?" Ps. 118: 6. Watchfulness for Christ’s Coming
By Sel.
ALL our watching must have reference to the coming of the Lord. In all things we must be diligent and faithful, to the end that we may not be ashamed before him at his appearing. We know not how soon we shall appear before the judgment seat of Christ, to receive according to the deeds done in the body; “therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober.” There's the Lord's Answer.
MANY years ago, when in my country charge, I returned one afternoon from a funeral, fatigued with the day's work. After a long ride, I had accompanied the mourners to the churchyard. As I neared my stable door I felt a strange prompting to visit a poor widow, who, with her invalid daughter, lived in a lonely cottage in an outlying part of the parish. My natural reluctance to make another visit was overcome by a feeling which I could not resist, and I turned my horse's head toward the cottage. I was thinking only of the poor widow's spiritual needs; but when I reached her little house I was struck with its look of unwonted bareness and poverty. After putting a little money into her hand, I began to inquire into their circumstances, and found that their supplies had been utterly exhausted since the night before. I asked them what they had done. “I just spread it out before the Lord!” “Did you tell your case to any friend?” “Oh, no sir, naebody kens but himself and me! I kent he would na forget, but I didna ken hoo he wad help me till I saw you come riding over the brae, and then I said, ‘There's the Lord's answer!’” Many a time has the recollection of this incident encouraged me to trust in the loving care of my heavenly Father.—New Testament Anecdotes. The “Early Closing.”
By M. E. Kellogg
A GREAT deal is just now being said about “early closing.” Ministers are preaching, and editors are discussing in their papers the problem of “early closing,” and the advantages to be derived from it. What is this “early closing” which is exciting such a furor? It is simply the closing of business at noon on Saturday, that the latter part of the day may be given to recreation. It is claimed that Americans work too hard; that they need more holidays, and the early closing will supply this want by giving a half holiday every week. This is the way the editors talk who claim to voice the sentiments of the overworked laboring classes. But the ministers and the religious element have another far different reason from that for furnishing a holiday to the people. It is hoped that all will take their fill of recreation and pleasure on Saturday, and thus be prepared to be very devout on Sunday. Really, then, the object is to promote the better observance of Sunday. It is a well-known fact that during the last fifty years there has been a growing disregard of Sunday. The wave of Puritanism, once so strong in the New England States, has ebbed away to a mere ripple, and the Puritanical custom of keeping Sunday strictly is giving place to the European idea of using it as a day for church services in the morning, and of recreation and jollity in the afternoon. If the practice of the early church is to be the guide in reference to which of these two ways Sunday shall be observed, the European idea should certainly prevail, for the first observance of Sunday was as a day of festivities and not as a Sabbath. The reason for this is obvious. They had not yet given up the Sabbath when Sunday was first introduced as a festival day, so they were not without a Sabbath, even though Sunday was nothing but a day of festivity and rejoicing on account of the resurrection. It is easy to see how, in that pleasure-loving age, when a great influx of pagans was pouring into the church, and the “mystery of iniquity” was working to establish the Romish Church, the day of pleasure would take the precedence of the day of worship and cessation from pleasure, and so the Sabbath would finally be lost sight of, especially as emperors and councils threw over the first day their royal and ecclesiastical patronage. Concerning the way Sunday was observed in the early church one of the so-called Fathers of the church bears the following testimony: “We solemnize the day after Saturday in contradistinction to those who call this [seventh day] their sabbath, and devote it to ease and eating, deviating from the old Jewish customs, which they are now very ignorant of.”—Turtullian's Apology, Reeve's translation. A mass of evidence might be adduced upon this point to show that Sunday was observed in the early church simply as a festival, the very element they are now trying to weed out. The Catholic Church, the direct and final outgrowth of the apostasy which introduced the festival Sunday, still observes the day in the manner of its early use. The period of reformation, beginning with Luther and reaching down to our day, has made apparent what was overlooked by the apostatizing church in the first centuries,—that man needs a Sabbath; not simply a day of relaxation and leisure, eating, drinking, and festivities, but a true Sabbath, such as Jehovah furnished the race when, amid the thunders of Sinai, he promulgated the commandment, “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.” And now instead of going back to the only Sabbath of divine appointment—the seventh day—the attempt is made to reconstruct the Sunday festival into a Sabbath, enforced by the fourth commandment (something the early church, and indeed the first reformers, never thought of doing); but their success thus far has not been very flattering. As there is no Bible ground for Sunday as the Sabbath, there can be no unanimity among its supporters, so among the Sunday advocates may be found every shade of sentiment—a house divided against itself. And so Sunday continues to be what it has been, a day of visiting and pleasure. And now, Biblical arguments (so called) having failed to produce the desired effect, it is determined by the ministers (by whose churches the thronging crowds go on Sunday to the beach, the park, or the beer garden) to give the pleasure-loving a day for recreation before the arrival of the “venerable day of the sun,” and thus being able to “buy repentance ere they grow devout,” fun now being over for the week, people may be prepared to enter the sanctuary in a pious frame of mind, filling the otherwise vacant seats, to the great delight of the ministers, who rejoice in the success of their plans. In the latter part of the third century the Sabbath was degraded into a fast that the lovers of pleasure might more readily join in the joyful celebration of the Sunday festival. Now they desire to turn the Sabbath into a holiday that they may make a Sabbath out of Sunday, the festival day! Thus they attempt to rectify one folly by another equally great. It is evident that men will not be satisfied until they have heaped every possible indignity upon the Sabbath. First it is turned into a fast day, then into a working day, and now it is proposed to make it a holiday. But even now it is beginning to be feared that a day of leisure on Saturday will not necessarily lead to a full church on Sunday. At a meeting of Presbyterian clergymen in behalf of the early closing, held at Pittsburg, Penn., March 30, and reported in the New York Tribune, one minister said that “at Warren, Ohio, an early closing movement was made, one of the arguments for which was that the clerks could attend prayer-meetings, but,” he added, with a twinkle of his eye and a pathetic tone, “I didn't see a single salesman at the prayer-meetings during the movement, so I don't think I should push the church attendance as an argument. I am in favor of it from a humanitarian point of view.” We may well inquire here if the church attendance will not be advanced by the Saturday half holiday, and the people still continue on in the even tenor of their way, devoting Sunday as well as half of Saturday to pleasure, what substantial benefits will be gained? Is one whole day of recreation each week so insufficient to satisfy the average American that another half day of the same nature must be added? How many days of fun do the clergy of our land think are required by our “humanity”? “Aye, there's the rub.” The fact is, they are laying their plans for a “Sunday closing” as well as a Saturday one. The Sunday closing being a closing of all kinds of labor, theaters, museums, art galleries, and everything of a secular nature, so that the church may have a monopoly on that day; and by giving the half holiday first, they mean to take away from the laboring classes the reason they have so long given for not attending church, that Sunday was the only day they had for their family and for recreation. If this plan shall prove successful, those who have no particular regard for religion will be obliged to exchange an entire holiday for a half holiday, and on Sunday, now set apart exclusively for religious purposes, they must go to church or stay at home, and the Sabbath of the Bible degraded and dishonored by the early apostate church that the Sunday festival might come in, now is to be made to serve as a festival day that Sunday may have free course to run and be glorified, enforced by the authority of the fourth commandment. At the meeting in Pittsburg, previously referred to, “Dr. Gibson thought those who kept men engaged till late hours on Saturday committed a sin against the fourth commandment, and were guilty of covetousness, which is idolatry.” As the fourth commandment says, “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work,” we can readily see why keeping men “engaged” upon any hour of that day would be an infraction of the divine command. But the doctor evidently thought it would not be a violation of the fourth commandment to work on the day God expressly commanded man to keep, in the very commandment he is trying to honor, unless the work is continued down close to the time when Sunday comes! Then it would not only violate the fourth commandment, but would be idolatry as well! What changes have come over the jolly festival day of the early church! Chrysostom, in the latter part of the fourth century, after the morning service on Sunday, dismissed his congregation to their respective employments, but now, according to this doctor, Sunday is so sacred that its holiness fairly bulges out upon the other days around it! Probably the “early closing” will be effected, and when the public have become sufficiently permeated with the theory of Sunday sacredness, an attempt will be made to compel all to observe this day. God's word has fully forewarned us against this whole work. Rev. 13 and 14 tell us how an attempt will be made to enforce the worship of the beast,—the papacy, and his mark, the changed Sabbath, and the last great warning against it proclaimed by those “that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.” Rev. 14: 12. Not only may we expect a Saturday closing, and a Sunday closing, but a greater closing than all; for following this proclamation of “the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus,” comes the great event for which the ages have waited, and which will close the history of this world. “And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle.” And because “the harvest of the earth is ripe,” “he that sat on the cloud thrust in his sickle on the earth; and the earth was reaped.” Rev. 14: 14-16. Let the agitation go on, for it arouses the pleasure-loving, as of old, to tread down the Sabbath, brings the light of God's truth and the knowledge of the Bible Sabbath to the honest inquirer, and thus the harvest of the earth is ripened, and prepared for the gathering day. A CORRESPONDENT of the Pall Mall Gazette having advocated the abolition of celibacy among the Roman Catholic clergy, H. Musgrave Wilkins, a Fellow of Merton, Oxford, thus replied to the letter: 'Many years ago, on my remarking to the late Lord Lytton that such an intention was attributed to the then Pope, Pius IX., he replied: "He will never do that. The influence of the Roman Catholic clergy depends on confession, and confession depends on clerical celibacy. People will be slow to confess to married men." The fate of Molinos, the Quietist, in the sixteenth century, illustrates the dependence of clerical influence on confession. He urged people to consult their own consciences and to take the sacrament without confession and absolution, contrary to the practice of the Roman Church. This did not suit the clergy, whose influence waned when confession was dispensed with. Molinos was imprisoned for life and the old regime restored. Pope Gregory VII., when he had enacted the celibacy, found himself obliged to permit the concubinage of his clergy.'—Sel. The Lord Is Great in Zion
"The Lord is great in Zion; and he is high above all the people." Ps. 99 : 2. Dr. Van Dyke on Baptism.
By Editor
SOME time since, Dr. Van Dyke wrote an article on baptism, specially on the baptism of infants, which was published in the Presbyterian Review. We did not have the reading of the article, but we laid aside the comments upon it by the Christian at Work, which interest us fully as much as the article itself could. This paper is highly pleased with the Doctor's conclusions, fully believing in infant baptism; and it admires the Doctor's effort in its behalf, and yet is greatly perplexed over his methods. We do not wonder at this; for the Christian at Work aims to be a fair and candid paper, and it is greatly perplexed over many points in the current theology of the day. It says:— "Dr. Van Dyke's positions may be epitomized in brief as follows: 1. He sympathizes not a particle with that Protestantism which cuts itself loose from Christianity." This seems the strangest of all strange declarations. We heartily agree with him in this respect, only we go a little further, and say that that is not Protestantism which cuts itself loose from Christianity. It is infidelity, no matter what name it takes or bears among men. But the paper might have gone further, and said that Dr. Van Dyke does not sympathize with Protestantism at all; for in this article it is said: "The mission of Protestantism is ended, and, of course, there is no longer any use for the term Protestant." We are happy to say that the Christian at Work does not indorse this statement, though it does not heartily repudiate the conclusions which legitimately follow from the statement. We do not call that Protestantism which praises and fawns before the Catholic Church. If the Catholic Church is indeed the true church of Christ, as was stated and vigorously argued some time since in a representative meeting of Presbyterians, when considering the subject of Catholic baptisms, then not only is the mission of Protestantism ended, but it never had a mission; it had not, and has not, a right to exist; then Protestantism is a "schism," just as the Catholics affirm it to be. The only justification which can be found for the existence and work of Protestantism is the declaration of the reformers that the Catholic Church is the great apostasy and antichrist; that it has so far perverted the gospel, and so far amalgamated the Christian system with pagan rites, that its faith and practice are not Christian, but a great system of false worship and worldliness. But the paper places a most singular construction upon the idea of adherence to Christianity. Immediately following the sentence which we quoted, is this: "In his view—and not in his alone—the traditions of the church in all ages are entitled to the deepest respect, and 'ought never to be rejected except under compulsion of loyalty to the Scriptures as the supreme rule of faith and practice.'" And thus we have it distinctly enunciated that to cut loose from Christianity is to reject the traditions of the church! Only with this reservation that they may be rejected wherein they are specifically disallowed by Scripture statement. But this is the stronghold of error, and opens the door to unnumbered false doctrines and practices. We think the following is the truth on the subject: The traditions of the church are entitled to no respect whatever, as far as faith and duty are concerned; the Scriptures, and the Scriptures alone, being the complete standard of Christianity. This is in perfect harmony with the statement of Paul, that the holy Scriptures are profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. 2 Tim. 3: 16, 17. That unto which the holy Scriptures do not thoroughly furnish us is not a good work. There is scarcely an error of the church of Rome which may not be admitted under the Doctor's rule, which is indorsed by the Christian at Work. But if the rule be disallowed, then sprinkling for baptism, infant baptism, the Sunday sabbath, and like errors, must necessarily be rejected. They all come in under the rule of paying the deepest respect to the traditions of the church.263 His second position is as follows:— "2. From the days of the apostles to the time of the Reformation and to the rise of the Baptist denomination in England, 'there is not in all Christian history or literature a line or a word of objection to the baptism of infants, upon grounds with which evangelical Christians in our day can have a particle of sympathy.'" This statement is not wholly true, but both in substance and method it is wholly deceptive. But we do not accuse the author of any intention to deceive, by any means. From his standpoint, according to the faith of his church, he stands justified. We can prove that the meaning of the original word, baptize, is immerse; that the ordinance is by a precept which calls for obedience, which excludes infants; that it is to be preceded by repentance and faith; that every Scripture example of baptism is in accordance with these facts. But this is not the kind of evidence for which the Doctor's proposition calls. He asks for history or literature this side of the Scripture record which objects to infant baptism. Now we can show that the earliest advocates of infant baptism ascribed it to tradition; that it was administered under the erroneous belief that no unbaptized infant could be saved; that because of the marvelous benefits which were ascribed to it, many unbelievers brought their children, and especially their sick children, to be baptized; and that infant communion was practiced with it, and is continued to this day in the Greek Church. Besides this, they who rejected the traditions of the church were denounced as heretics, and to preserve the writings of heretics was made a crime to be visited with the severest punishments. As an example we may state that Arius was a very popular man, having many eminent men as his followers; but an edict was finally promulgated requiring every one who had any of his writings to destroy them or to bring them to the authorities, and a failure to do this was punishable with death. Consequently all that we know of Arius is through his bitter enemies. Shall we go to such times and to such sources for Christian doctrine? But, of course, that class of "evangelical Christians" who hold that "the traditions of the church in all ages are entitled to the deepest respect," have not "a particle of sympathy" with such evidences as we present. Their position is wide as the world from ours. We hold that "The Bible, and the Bible alone, is the religion of Protestants." The Doctor holds that "the mission of Protestantism is ended," and tradition is to be deeply respected. The two positions cannot be reconciled. They must forever remain apart. But we are satisfied to differ with him, because we are Protestants, and have full faith in the mission of Protestantism. The third statement of his faith, embracing the fourth also, is one of great interest; it is as follows:— "3. The argument against infant baptism from the silence of Scripture is rejected as proving too much: 'There are many things about which the Bible says nothing, which all Christians believe and insist upon.' As for example, 4. All Christians agree that the Lord's Supper is for all believers; 'but where is there a single passage of Scripture which says that women are to be admitted to the Lord's table?'" Against this we present a two-fold argument: (1) The very terms in which baptism is required or commanded exclude infants from the rite. It is an ordinance of precept, which infants cannot obey. It is in the Scriptures always preceded by faith and repentance, which renders it doubly impossible for infants to meet its requirements. If objections of this nature could be presented against females partaking of the Lord's Supper, we would yield that question at once. But they cannot; the cases are not parallel. But, (2) The Scriptures do present a fact, which is itself a rule whereby females are admitted to the Lord's table. It is found in Gal. 3: 26-29. "For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." Here are a series of important points: They who are children of God by faith in Christ, put on Christ in baptism, and are thereby constituted the seed and heirs of Abraham. And among them the distinctions of male and female, and Jew and Greek, or Gentile, are unknown; they are all members of the household of faith, or the body of Christ. They being alike members of the church of Christ, they alike have the privileges of the membership of that church. This is undeniable. The first partakers of the Lord's Supper, and all the partakers for several years, were Jews. But this text from Paul to the Galatians proves that they are all one, members of one household; and we insist that there is as good proof of the right of females to come to the Lord's Supper, as there is that Gentile converts have that right. And in both cases the proof is complete. Here again we say that if the Doctor can find a parallel to this argument in favor of infant baptism, we would yield the question. But it cannot be found. The point marked 5 needs but few words of comment:— "5. Most Christians believe that infants dying in infancy are saved through Christ, though incapable of exercising and confessing faith in Christ, which is the only expressed condition of salvation. 'But where is the text which says so in so many words?'" We turn to Jer. 31: 15-17, and compare this with Matt. 2: 17, 18, and we learn that children, little children, will certainly be raised from the dead. See also 1 Cor. 15: 22-26. They inherited mortality from Adam, and die on that account, and not because of any sin committed by them. Their fall and death were not by their forfeiture, and they will also be raised without any condition. They are resurrected by the Saviour, by the power of his blood which purchased them. But, never having committed any sin, they cannot be condemned, but necessarily enjoy eternal life by virtue of the resurrection. They, too, will be the redeemed of the blood of the Lamb. But this salvation, so plainly taught in the Scriptures, is not discerned by modern theologians, because they lay no stress on the doctrine of the resurrection. Here again the Doctor is lame in his argument. There remains to be noticed his most material point, the one upon which he most relies, the identity of the church in both Testaments, and of circumcision with baptism. But here he is necessarily the weakest, as may easily be shown. NO MORE sensible instruction was ever given than that by Paul in his letter to Titus, namely, "Avoid foolish questions." Many have, evidently, never read this, or they have forgotten it, or they do not care for it. Sometimes such questions are even introduced into the Bible-class, and there become sources of contention, whereby the Spirit of God, given to be our guide into all truth, is grieved away, the object of the class is lost sight of, and a failure to receive any benefit is the result. We give examples. No more fruitful theme for cavilers has ever been got up than this query, Where did Cain get his wife? Did he find her in the land of Nod? and if so, How did she come to be there? and finally, as the grand result, How, aye, how, can the Bible record of creation be true? The editor of the Cincinnati Gazette, in answer to a correspondent, suggested that Cain took his wife with him when he journeyed to the East. Perhaps this answer will give rest to some troubled souls. Another position, believed to be truth by some, is this: The Hebrew word nod (long o, node) means a vagabond. The Lord told Cain he should be a fugitive and a vagabond; in the Hebrew it is, he should be a node. Some scholars insist that it should be thus rendered: "And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land, a vagabond," a nod. But more suggestive, and better in fact, than all these solutions, is the answer given by a pious negro to a would-be wise caviler. "You believe the Bible," said the railer, "you ask the Lord for wisdom; I suppose you can tell me where Cain got his wife." Said the negro, "I neber asked de Lord dat question; I asked him what I should do to be saved." We commend this thought to the consideration of the multitude of restless ones who are submissively willing to throw away their Bibles, and to go down to destruction, because they cannot tell to a certainty, the pedigree of Mrs. Cain! If they cannot rest under the burden of this momentous question, perhaps they may find a pleasing diversion in the question, Where did Seth get his wife? or, Where did Lamech get his two wives? The folly of some people is almost beyond endurance. Parallel to this (in practical importance!) is the query, If the Lord raised up Pharaoh for the purpose specified in the book of Exodus, was Pharaoh to blame for doing as he did? and, Could he do otherwise than he did? The only interest that can possibly attach to this question, as we see it, is to make it bring this result, namely, If the Lord determined that Pharaoh should do as he did, is it not also in his determination that I shall do as I do? If Pharaoh was compelled so to act, and therefore was not to be blamed, am I not likewise compelled to act as I do, and therefore not worthy of blame? This conclusion is easy to arrive at, and very gratifying to selfishness and carnality. We recommend to the notice of such querists, another conclusion, thus: If Pharaoh was destroyed for his rebellion against God, will I not also be destroyed for my sins? This may be found a far more profitable theme for meditation than the other. If some persons searched the Scriptures as diligently to learn their meaning, and to read duty there, as they search them to find a way of self-justification, they would learn that the rising up, or standing up, of a king, means his reigning. See Daniel, chapters 11 and 12. To raise up a king, is to bring him to the throne. Egypt was to be punished for its wickedness, and because this Pharaoh was a stubborn, selfish, willful person, the Lord raised him up; that is, he brought him to the throne—caused him to reign—that the ruin might be under his hand. If this Pharaoh had been a man of a kind, gentle spirit, the Lord would have so ordered in his providence that he should not reign at that time. Another would have been raised up—caused to reign in his stead. An illustration of this truth is found in the case of Ahab. The Lord threatened to cut off his house entirely, but because Ahab greatly humbled himself, the Lord said he would not bring the evil in his day, but in the day of his son, who did evil even as Ahab had done, but did not manifest the same contrition for his sin. This is a most profitable Scripture text—"Avoid foolish questions."