Review and Herald, Vol. 51, No. 10. (3/7/1878)

Review and Herald

Mar 7, 1878

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Mar 7, 1878

THOUGHTS ON BAPTISM.

By Joseph Harvey Waggoner

BY ELD. J. H. WAGGONER.

(Continued.)

ONE BAPTISM OR THREE BAPTISMS.

There are those who affirm that three immersions (“trine immersion”) are necessary to the full consummation of the ordinance; and they are accustomed to refer, with great confidence, to the practice of certain people or churches, as proving the correctness of their views. We have no regard whatever for the practice of churches, except wherein they conform to the specified requirements of the sacred word. Neither age nor popular consent gives warrant to error. Our inquiry is not, What has been practiced? but, What is truth? We care nothing for what people have done, but for what they ought to have done. We know that many grievous errors were brought into the church at a very early age. But we have no more confidence in, or respect for, a practice or an institution which can be traced to the darkness of the third century, than if it could be traced only to the fifteenth century. “What say the Scriptures?” is our sole inquiry.

But it is urged thus, “The Greek Church practice trine immersion, and we ought to give place to them in the understanding of their own language.” We reply to this, There is no mention of trine immersion in the Greek of the New Testament. There is a commandment to be baptized (βαπτισθῆναι), and the Greeks in obedience to this precept are immersed. So far we safely trust their knowledge of the Greek tongue. But the Greek also says, Eph. 4:5, there is one baptism (ἐν βάπτισμα), and if they depart from this and practice three baptisms, then they depart from the text of their own language, and we may not follow them. For trine immersion is nothing else but three baptisms, as the following will show:

1. They who practice trine immersion never sprinkle; they agree with us that the Greek word is properly translated immerse; and therefore we are agreed that baptism is equivalent to immersion. Hence, if Eph. 4:5 were translated throughout, it would read, “One Lord, one faith, one immersion.” Therefore their system is clearly contrary to this scripture; for they really have three baptisms. To reply, as they always do, that they have one baptism with three immersions, is only to contradict their own avowed faith, that baptism is immersion. For if baptism is properly translated immersion, then the expression “one baptism with three immersions,” is as much of a paradox as if they said, one baptism with three baptisms, or one immersion with three immersions. This is certainly so, unless we admit that baptism is not identical with immersion. But if we do this we concede the entire ground, and the question of mode has yet to be settled; that is, it will remain to be proved that immersion, and that only, is baptism.

2. It does not appear reasonable that three baptisms are required because there are three names given in the commission. That view involves too much separation of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Even in commercial transactions, anything done by an agent for a firm of three parties is done once for them all; as a debt of one thousand dollars could not be collected three times, once for each one of the firm, if one thousand were the sum specified. But the union of a firm in business comes far short of representing the unity existing between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and one baptism is the specified requirement.

3. It is not correct to claim that the ellipses of the language of the commission can only be supplied by the reading, “Baptizing them in the name of the Father, and baptizing them in the name of the Son, and baptizing them in the name of the Holy Ghost.” It is against the facts of Scripture and the analogies of language. Separately baptizing in each name is three baptisms, and it cannot be denied. As to analogy, we read that Jesus will come in his own glory, and in his Father’s, and in that of the holy angels. Their method of argument would make it read thus: When he shall come (once) in his own glory, and come (twice) in the glory of his Father, and come (three times coming) in the glory of the holy angels. But that is not the truth. It is but one coming in the three-fold glory.

There is full better reason to affirm on Ex. 3:6 that there are three Gods,—“the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” There is a just difference between the use and the abuse of language, and all should recognize it.

4. But, again, their practice is not consistent with their theory. They insist that three immersions are necessary to one baptism. Then if we read the commission as they do, and apply the definition of baptism as they claim it, it will stand thus: baptizing them (thrice immersing) in the name of the Father, and baptizing them (thrice immersing) in the name of the Son, and baptizing them (thrice immersing) in the name of the Holy Ghost. And thus nine immersions are necessary to fulfill the commission! They cannot possibly avoid this conclusion unless they acknowledge that they properly and truly baptize in each name by one immersion in each name, which is to say that one baptism is truly administered by one immersion, which is fatal to their theory.

5. Heb. 6:2 is quoted by them (“doctrine of baptisms”) as proof that there is a plurality of baptisms. But if this is proof in point, why do they deny that they practice three baptisms? and what is the necessity for their inventing the paradoxical expression of “one baptism of three immersions?” The text quoted is truth, but not in the sense in which they take it. The Scriptures speak of one baptism of water and

one baptism of the Spirit. To admit of three of one kind most surely contradicts Eph. 4:5. Whether Eph. 4:5 speaks of the baptism of water or of the Spirit, it certainly proves that there is but one of the kind of which it speaks.

6. Paul, in Rom. 6:3, says we are baptized into the death of Christ, or planted in the likeness of his death. 1 Cor. 15:3, 5 says Christ died for our sins, was buried, and rose again. This is the order. And that it is this to which the apostle refers in Rom. 6:1–3 is plain, for he gives our baptism or burial as proof that we are dead; he makes death (very properly) precede the burial. We inquire, then, Did Christ die three times? We insist that he died as often as he was buried. And if we are buried three times, we are not planted in the likeness of his death; for he died and was buried but once. This is decisive on the subject.

Whether a person should be buried face downward, as the trine immersionists baptize, may be, perhaps, a matter of taste, but we think no such method of burial was ever known. One author says we cannot safely appeal to custom in this matter, because the Romans cremated or burned the dead, instead of burying them! But the Saviour was not cremated, nor was this a custom with the Jews. Could it be shown that Jesus was laid in the grave face downward, there would be some show of reason for that practice. But we do not think he was; nor do we think burial in that manner is at all seemly, and we shall ever follow that which appears to be a more proper way.

Tertullian mentioned three immersions, by which we learn that such a practice was introduced as early as his day. But Prof. Stuart quotes him as saying on this subject:—

“Thence we are thrice immersed, answering, i. e., fulfilling, somewhat more than the Lord has decreed in the gospel.”—De Corona Militis, § 3.

If we can rely upon the language of the gospel, Tertullian was right in thus saying. Three immersions were never decreed by our Lord in the gospel. To the contrary, by specifying “one immersion,” the other practice is positively forbidden.

But one more point we will notice, to show somewhat the nature of the proof on which they rely. One of their prominent authors affects to find trine immersion in the supposed fact that the Jewish nation were three times baptized, once at the Red Sea, once by John, and once in the gospel commission. Weak, indeed, is that cause which must put forth such arguments to support itself. We will examine this briefly.

1. The assertion which it contains is not true. The same individuals were not baptized in the Red Sea and by John; nor was the Jewish nation baptized under the gospel commission. Individuals of that nation were baptized in the gospel, but in doing this they renounced all that separated them from the Gentiles. See Rom. 2 and Eph. 2.

2. If they were three times baptized, then again the claim is put forth in favor of three baptisms. But this they deny.

3. If there is no true baptism without three immersions, as they claim, then, inasmuch as Paul says they were baptized in the cloud and in the sea, they must have been immersed three times in the cloud and in the sea. But they were not; and this again proves that one immersion is baptism, according to the Scriptures.

4. If we apply to this text the rule of language which they apply to the commission in Matt. 28, it would read, they were all baptized (once) in the cloud and (once more) in the sea; one baptism for each. But they were not; as it took both the cloud and the sea to inclose them or surround them once. Here, again, their rule is shown to be erroneous.

5. Once more, applying both their rule and their definition to this instance, namely, one baptism for each, and three immersions for one baptism, and we then have them baptized (thrice immersed) in the cloud, and baptized (thrice immersed) in the sea—six immersions at the passage of the Red Sea. To deny either branch of this conclusion is fatal to their theory.

While we dismiss the theory as one hedged in on every side by its own absurdities, we cheerfully acknowledge our respect for the German Baptists (Dunkers) who teach and practice trine immersion. They are generally found to be a quiet, orderly people. But this should not prevent our exposing the error into which they have fallen. To the contrary, our regard for them, our interest in them, increase our desire to see them set right on this important subject.

NON-BAPTISM OF THE FRIENDS, OR QUAKERS.

While noticing prevailing errors on the subject of baptism, we must briefly notice that of the Friends, who ignore the rite altogether. This error is not so much founded on a misconstruction or false exhibition of particular texts, as on the adoption of a false principle, which is applied, professedly, to all that pertains to Christianity. We say professedly, for actually they come far short of uniformly applying the principle.

They profess to believe that all true worship is internal, and that the only baptism required is that of the Spirit. Outward forms or externals they regard as being vain, or as carnal substitutes for the internal and the true. Therefore they entirely discard the Sabbath, the Lord’s supper, and baptism. They might, we think, with equal propriety, discard public assemblies for worship, and audible prayer. While they reject that which is plainly commanded because it is outward and seen, with a strange inconsistency they attach great importance to a particular phraseology of speech, and even to the cut of a coat or the fashion of a bonnet. They chide us (kindly, it is true) for not using the same forms of speech used by the Saviour, as thee instead of you, seeming not to understand that neither of these forms was used by the Saviour, because he did not speak the English language. And they invariably use the objective, thee, for the nominative, thou; a misconstruction of language for which the Greek of the New Testament gives no warrant.

Their common form of address, using thee as second person, nominative, as “Does thee hear?” is exactly as if we used the third person thus, “Does him hear?” They aim to use the English according to the usage of three centuries ago; but really conform to no correct usage at all. A correct translation into any language at a certain time is a translation according to the proper usage of that language at that time. The present method of speaking the English language gives as correct a rendering from the Greek as the form used two or three centuries ago. For a people to plead for either in preference to the other, while they discard explicit precepts given by the Saviour, is like tithing mint and cummin, and omitting the weightier matters of the law.

Usage and association have caused us to regard the English language as it was spoken three centuries ago, as the sacred style, only because the sacred Scriptures were given to us by translation into that style. It would seem now to be quite irreverent to address the throne of grace in prayer in modern English, or in the form of speech commonly used in addressing our fellow-mortals. But if our reverence is fostered by such a discrimination in forms of address, it is proportionally decreased by addressing our fellows in the more solemn style now specially appropriated to devotion. One no more than the other gives the form used by our Saviour;

but one is, by custom or usage only, adapted to devotion, while the other, being the present form of the language, is properly used in every-day life.

We are led to make these remarks on this point as it seems necessary to understand their method of applying the principle which they have adopted.

Every principle which conflicts with the plain testimony of the divine word, is of a surety a false one. Applied to the subject of the Lord’s supper, their principle must be disapproved. The Saviour commanded his disciples to drink the fruit of the vine and eat the bread in remembrance of him. Luke 22:17–20. Paul corrected abuses of the ordinance, and further explained its use, showing that it should continue till our Lord comes again. 1 Cor. 11:23–26. A principle must be false by which a duty so plainly enjoined is rejected. No matter how much is claimed for spirituality in worship, there is neither spirituality nor worship in disobedience. As if man could better understand what is pleasing in the sight of God than we can learn from his word, which is given as a lamp to our feet and a light to our path. “Sanctify them through thy truth; thy word is truth.” John 17:17. Thus our Saviour prayed to his Father. The closer we cling to the word, the more perfectly we walk in the truth. The more perfect our obedience to his commandments, the greater our sanctity. 1 Peter 1:22; John 14:15; 1 John 5:3.

As in regard to the Lord’s supper, so we reason in regard to baptism. Our Saviour commanded it, and his apostles taught and practiced it. The assertion that the baptism of the Spirit is the baptism required in their teachings does not at all meet the case, for both Christ and his apostles commanded baptism. But the baptism of the Spirit is a blessing promised and to be received; while baptism in water is a duty commanded and to be obeyed. This truth is evident to every reader of the Bible. The Spirit is called “the Holy Spirit of promise,” because it is purely a matter of promise, and is distinguished, not only in this reason, but by direct Scripture proofs, from baptism in water, which is a matter of precept.

The Saviour in his commission to his disciples enjoined baptism. The first sermon under this commission, as we argue elsewhere, is recorded in Acts 2. In this sermon baptism is made a condition of the promise of the Spirit. “The gift of the Holy Ghost” is the blessing promised; repentance and baptism are the duties commanded in order to receiving the blessing of the promise. Here is a relation of the two which cannot be ignored without ignoring the commission and its fulfillment, and thereby ignoring the authority of our divine Lord.

Philip the evangelist went and joined himself to the chariot of the eunuch by special direction of the Spirit of God. Acts 8. What he said and did was by the inspiration of the Spirit. Having preached Jesus to the eunuch, on their coming to water the eunuch requested baptism. Philip must have preached baptism in the preaching of Jesus. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him. And the Spirit, under whose direction Philip had baptized the eunuch, caught him away that the eunuch saw him no more; and the eunuch went his way rejoicing.

Peter, also by special direction of the Lord, went to the house of Cornelius. An angel told Cornelius to send for Peter, saying to him, “He shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do.” Peter preached the gospel to all those assembled, and they believed, and the Spirit fell upon them, even as it had fallen upon the disciples on the day of Pentecost. Then Peter said: “Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.” In this instance the heavenly messenger referred to what Peter would tell him as something which he ought to do. And Peter commanded him to be baptized. That which he ought to do was to be baptized in water, for so Peter said, and the baptism of the Spirit they had already received. Peter, under inspiration and the direction of Heaven, did not tell them that the baptism of the Spirit was all that was necessary, but gave the receiving of this as proof of the propriety of their being baptized in water.

Paul came to Ephesus and found certain disciples who had not been properly instructed in the doctrine of the gospel, who had not received the Holy Ghost. Under his teaching and by his commandment they were baptized; and after they were baptized Paul laid his hands upon them and the Holy Ghost came upon them. Here this inspired apostle, by whose interposition the Holy Ghost came upon them, required them to be baptized before he laid his hands upon them. The order, in relation to the duty and the gift, here followed, is that laid down by Peter in Acts 2:38, 39.

We have now presented five points of Scripture, each plain and positive in its teachings, which show that the apostles, acting under the inspiration of the Spirit, taught and practiced water baptism, and Jesus commanded them so to do. They who reject baptism in water reject the counsel of Christ and of the Holy Spirit, as shown in the teachings and actions of the Lord and his apostles. The wisdom of such in this respect is not according to the word of the Lord, and therefore cannot be from above.

Of this class we say, as of the one last referred to, By a staid and quiet demeanor they have generally won the respect of their acquaintances. But no amount of pious bearing will excuse a departure from the plain requirements of the Scriptures. Our Saviour said, “In vain ye do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” No matter how great the appearance of sanctity, it is quite possible to make all our worship vain by making void the commandments of God by human traditions, or by walking according to the doctrines of men contrary to the precepts of the Scriptures.

(To be Continued.)

CHRIST OUR PEACE.

By Bonar

I thought upon my sins, and I was sad, My soul was troubled sore and filled with pain; But then I thought on Jesus and was glad, My heavy grief was turned to joy again.

I thought upon the law, the fiery law, Holy, and just, and good in its decree; I looked to Jesus, and in him I saw That law fulfilled, its curse endured for me.

I thought I saw an angry frowning God Sitting as Judge upon the great white throne; My soul was overwhelmed,—then Jesus shewed His gracious face, and all my dread was gone.

I saw my sad estate, condemned to die, Then terror seized my heart, and dark despair; But when to Calvary I turned my eye, I saw the cross, and read forgiveness there.

I saw that I was lost, far gone astray, No hope of safe return there seemed to be; But then I heard that Jesus was the way, A new and living way prepared for me.

Then in that way, so free, so safe, so sure, Sprinkled all o’er with reconciling blood, Will I abide, and never wander more, Walking along in fellowship with God. —Bonar.

A THEOLOGICAL BATTLE AT EAGLE HARBOR, N. Y.

By Charles B. Reynolds

At the commencement of the lectures here, we held three meetings on first-day mornings at Oak Orchard, about seven miles from this place. This induced Eld. Langelle (Baptist) to deliver a discourse on the “Sunday Sabbath.” He had done this some time ago—after Eld. Cottrell had held meetings and gone off—with considerable eclat, having no one to refute him. We did not learn of his intention till Sunday morning, too late to take up our appointment. Bro. and sister Gaskill attended and took notes, and Bro. G. announced that we would review Eld. L. Tuesday evening. His main dependence was on the Epistle of Barnabas, and what he termed the internal evidence, viz., since all the Christian world kept the first day, it must be right to do so.

At the time of the review, there was a very large gathering, and Eld. L. was present. In his discourse he repudiated Neander. On asking him if he would accept the testimony of Mosheim, Heylyn, Morer, Bampfield, Domville, and others, he declared he would only accept them if they indorsed the Epistle of Barnabas, Ignatius to the Magnesians, Pliny, and Justyn Martyr; for these were the authorities to which all church historians had to go for facts. We proved the absurdity of this position, and quoted the standard authorities declaring the Epistle of Barnabas a forgery, quoted from the epistle itself to show its lack of sense, decency, or inspiration.

His Bible evidence was the usual five texts,—John 20:19, 26; Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2; Rev. 1:10, concluding with the declaration that time was lost, and it was impossible to know which day was the seventh day.

Eld. L. announced a reply. Excitement in regard to the matter was very great. Long before the hour of meeting, the house was thronged. The Elder came with a mammoth clothes-basket of books which he proceeded to pile on his desk, making a most formidable and imposing display. He declared they were every one by Sunday-keepers and advocates of Sunday observance, and of unquestioned authority. He next admitted he was wrong in regard to the Epistle of Barnabas, that it was not written by the companion of Paul; but he proved he had good company and excuse for his error,—the majority of the authors of his books. These great church historians held the view he had first taken. He read from them and proved this, oblivious of the fact that he was impugning his own witnesses.

We had proved from them, that, while opposed to God’s Sabbath, they contained admissions that sustained our position. He had taken down book, chapter, section, and page of every quotation we gave. Instead of reading from those pages, he read extracts to prove they advocated first-day observance. He might, with equal propriety and fairness, have brought a file of the Examiner and Chronicle to prove that close-communion Baptists believe in immersion. If Bible texts furnish sufficient evidence, what need of his books and alleged teachings of the fathers? If there is no Bible testimony for first-day observance, of what avail are the traditions of men?

He said Paul tarried seven days at Troas, and did so expressly to teach the sacredness of the first day, and spend the sacred and holy Sunday with them. He admitted that the meeting mentioned in Acts 20:7–10 was a Saturday evening meeting, quoted Hacket, and declared that Paul, in starting off on a journey at daybreak on Sunday morning, did right; for he was not doing his own work, but going to preach the gospel. He dwelt on this, failing to explain how it was that Paul staid over expressly and only to spend Sunday with them, and then at break of day left them, thus teaching them to observe only the night, and not the day.

The Elder admitted that the Saviour taught the young man (Matt. 19) to keep the ten commandments; but said it was because the time had not yet come to preach the gospel. He admitted that Matthew, Mark, and Luke, years after the resurrection, called the seventh day the Sabbath; but asserted that the reason was they were reciting history, and not facts. Paul said he had not shunned to declare the whole counsel of God; yet had said nothing about Sunday, just so Wesley, Calvin, and all ministers, say they declare the whole counsel of God, yet say nothing in regard to the seventh-day Sabbath. The Elder appeared to think the writers of the New Testament as unreliable as his boasted “standard authorities.”

He said astronomers could compute eclipses; but he’d sooner believe the moon was made of green cheese than that they could tell which was the seventh day in the time of Christ. He “kept Sunday in its spiritual application to the moral commandment,” and it did not matter, if he kept it exact, whether it was the first day or not, since he kept the nearest to it he could. All Sabbaths were abolished at the cross: to prove this he quoted Col. 2:16.

He refused us opportunity to reply, and then refused us the use of the house for that purpose. He had also obtained from the trustee a promise to refuse us the use of the school-house, and some of his members had used their influence with the trustee of the adjoining district to refuse us the use of that house. The Good Templars offered us their Lodge room; but the owner of the building, under the dictation of his wife, one of Eld. L.’s members, forbade the use of the hall. This convinced all of the weakness of his position, since he took such extraordinary pains to prevent being reviewed. We announced we would review his discourse at his own home in Knowlsville, in the public hall, on Monday, and at Eagle Harbor on Tuesday.

Bro. Gaskill and myself walked to Knowlsville, and secured the hall that night, or rather it was one o’clock in the morning. Early in the morning, we are told, an application was made to secure the hall, just too late.

We had a very large and attentive congregation, and many are deeply interested at that place. The Eagle Harbor friends turned out in force, and all were greatly encouraged. At Eagle Harbor we reviewed the discourse again before a very large congregation.

The result is very encouraging. Some who doubted have been fully convinced; very many have thus had their attention called to the truth, and are reading on the subject.

CHAS. B. REYNOLDS.

TO THOSE COMING WEST.

By L. D. Santee

Since the article, “Take Heed that no Man Deceive You,” appeared in the Review, I have received a great many letters asking information about different parts of Kansas. All that I purposed to do was to give reliable parties with whom to correspond, that would furnish information concerning South-eastern Kansas. Of the western part of the State I know but little. The most of those who have written me are men with very little means. To all such I would say, If you can get here with $500 or more you will probably do well; but if you get here with nothing you will find it almost impossible to get a start.

The following which I clip from the N. Y. Witness I fully indorse:—

“FROM A SETTLER IN KANSAS.

“ATCHISON, KAN., JAN. 6, 1878.

“To the Editor of the Witness.

“DEAR SIR: I have seen nothing in your paper from this point. I do not think it is right to try to have people leave their homes and friends to come West unless they have some cash to go on with when they get here; for this State is, like all others, built up by poor people, and we have our hard times just the same as all Eastern States, only, perhaps, in different ways, and I don’t think quite so often. I think this State is one of the best; but if a man has a home and can make a living for his family, he had better be contented. We have good schools and churches.

“People must not believe all railroad companies say or what they may advertise, as this is the way they have of selling their own lands. If you have friends, and they advise you to come, why then of course come; but be sure to come fully prepared to meet with disappointments, as you will surely meet with some.

“GEO. W. MARGOVE,

“Late of New York State,”

L. D. SANTEE.

THE PRINCIPLES OF GOD'S GOVERNMENT UNCHANGEABLE.

By D. Burdick

God has not committed the principles of his government to man to be decided by the majority of the people. His laws did not originate with fallible man. The prevailing doctrines of the multitude have ever been in conflict with the pure principles of the divine law. Even in these latter days of improved facilities for obtaining knowledge, a veneration for the opinions of the multitude stands directly in the way of a candid investigation of important truths by many who otherwise evince a good degree of logical acumen. Instead of being reliable teachers of divinity, they are mere theorists. They take for granted a theory of long standing, which has nothing in the divine record to sustain it; hence, to make the idea plausible, they must make a parade of Bible quotations which have no direct relation to the petted theory. They must invent new definitions to terms which are common as household words. For instance, death, which everybody knows is the extinction of life, is called a separation from God. The death that was threatened Adam, it is said, was executed the very day he transgressed, not upon his physical system, but upon his spirit or soul. To save the incongruity of the idea that his body lived nearly a thousand years without a soul, or that he and his wife committed suicide by hiding among the trees of the garden, it is called a spiritual or moral death.

Perhaps on no other subject has the mind been so completely captivated as on that of the Sabbath and the nature and destiny of man. On no other does there appear such manifest incongruity between the teachings of man and the principles of God's word. Although the advocates of the Sunday Sabbath, and the inherent immortality of man, may, like the persecutors of the saints, verily think they are doing God service, nevertheless that belief will not prevent the legitimate fruit of an evil tree. One declaration of divine inspiration is worth more to the candid searcher after truth than the opinions of scores of uninspired men, however high they may rank in literary attainments.

Life and death as applied to the corporeal body with which, in all ages, man has been familiar, is the primary idea, to which primitive fact, in a figurative expression, spiritual life or death has an allusion, and without which these illustrations would be wholly unintelligible. Regeneration, and being born of the Spirit, are figures to show the necessity of a change of heart if we would secure eternal life through Christ, and have a part in the first resurrection, to escape the second death. They were not given for the exercise of the finesse of Rev. D. D.'s to prove that Adam was in full possession of animal life before the breath of life breathed into his nostrils a living soul.

The lengthy articles now being published to maintain this petted theory are elicited by the candid investigation of the nature and destiny of man by those who are not

trammeled by sectarian bias or a veneration for men of pompous titles. But, however carefully these investigations are kept from the view of the orthodox eye, truth will ultimately prevail. D. BURDICK.

Milton Junction, Wisconsin.

Continue reading: NATIONAL REFORM ASSOCIATION