Earlier text: General ArticlesHISTORY AND TRINE IMMERSION.
By James White
TESTIMONY OF MR. REEVES, APOSTOLICAL CANONS AND MUNNULUS.
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 both Tertullian and Chrysostom again. We will briefly notice 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! We think, however, that injustice is done to Mr. Reeves by Mr. Moore. He might speak in truth of "the confession of those early times," which is quite indefinite, and of trine immersion in early times, without ascribing that idea to Justin. 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 Christion 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.'—Quinter and McConnel's Debate, p. 114." This is to that 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 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 truth of Christ." Ahyunus 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 witchcraft 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 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 "trine immersion," etc. The difference is among 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 invoked in the act of baptism. And much of the same idea is still more clearly expressed by the other early authors. In Clement’s "Recognitions," book 3, chap. 67, as follows:— "But every one of you shall be baptized in the 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," etc.—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. Thus do the facts of history completely demolish the claim of early practice of trine immersion, or of tracing it to the days of the apostles. We admit that it was early enough to be found among the superstitions which sprung up even in the days of Tertullian. We have little 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. The words of Dr. Miller, of Princeton College, are worthy of constant remembrance: "Even suppose you had found such declarations in some or all of the early fathers. What then? Historic fact is not divine institution." THE MORAL TEACHING OF THE JESUITS.
THAT the old pernicious doctrines of invincible ignorance, equivocation, mental reservation, and secret compensation are still firmly held and steadily taught by the disciples of this society, is clearly shown by a late work complied by M. Paul Bert, the leading speaker against them, in the summer of 1879, before the Chamber of Deputies. His book is a simple translation, with notes, of one of the works of the late Father Gury, for years professor of moral science in a Jesuitic college, the burden of exposing his order being thus cast upon the father himself. The works of this father are widely circulated both among the Jesuits and the common priests, and the accuracy of the translation can be easily tested by reference to the Latin original. The following extracts from the book, with comments by the Christian Union, will give something of an idea of the nefarious practices of this professed "Society of Jesus":— "In regard to invincible ignorance, that we may establish our assertions, look at this example, cited by Father Gury, of the confession of Florine: 'I have told a lie, but I do not think I sinned because a weighty motive impelled me; it was to excuse my cousin and save him from a severe punishment.' What is the decision of the Jesuit? Not only that Florine should be held free from the sin of lying, on account of her invincible or innocent ignorance, but that she has done well and acted in accordance with the divine will. The immediate wrong, the falsehood, is not opposed to the will of God, he says, 'for although it may be opposed to the primary divine will, it is not opposed to the secondary divine will, by which God commands or grants us something, in supposing our invincible ignorance.' Hence we are led to infer that God himself willed the lie, and accepted it as so much virtue on the part of his invincibly ignorant child. The element of truth in this reasoning renders it all the more dangerous to those who cannot foresee the results of its application and detect the hidden snare. "So it is, to take a more extreme case, with the confession of Adalbert. 'Wishing to kill my enemy Titus, I have killed my friend Caius.' The Jesuit not only excuses the penitent from all sin in this regard, but holds that, not having been able to foresee the death of Caius, his ignorance is a sufficient reason why he should not be bound to make restitution to the bereaved family. Thus we have numerous examples of approved acts of equivocation and mental reservation, although we should hardly expect them after the emphatic declaration of Father Gury, that 'it is never permitted to lie, not even in view of an advantage, for we must not do evil that good may come.' These are excellent words, but we soon find that there is, to the Jesuitical mind, a wide borderland between falsehood and truth, where a good Catholic may store nearly all his property in safety. The man who comes into an inheritance and hides his money, to save it from his creditors, does not offend against the truth in declaring that he has concealed nothing, because he has concealed nothing, 'in the sense according to which they have a right to ask him. So, in replying that he has concealed nothing, it is as if he had said he had committed no act of injustice toward his creditors, since it is only in this sense that the judge and the creditors can question him.' So when, in the custom-house, in answer to the official inquiry if he carries goods subject to duty, he replies, 'I have nothing,' it is evident to a Jesuit, though perhaps not to the custom-house officer, that he means, 'I have nothing that573I myself need make known. It is your business to look instead of questioning me.' Father Gury cautiously adds, however, with a touch of the inevitable policy of the order, that ecclesiastics should tell the truth, to avoid a scandal in case they should be detected in their denial, and the affair become noised abroad. "The examples of secret compensation are yet more distinct. The righteousness of this act is not only openly taught in the Moral Philosophy, but enforced by a number of supposed cases, like that of Augustus, who, sentenced by the judge to pay to Antonius a debt which he, though lacking the legal proof, had already paid in full, obeys the judge and then secretly steals the same amount from Antonius. It is well, says the Jesuit; he only takes his own again. So Mark, a servant, breaks by accident a costly crystal vase, and his angry master deducts its value from his wages. Mark has the sympathy and approval of Father Gury in the system of petty pilfering from his master by which he quietly and safely fills up the aching void in his pocket. Further than this, we have the case of a citizen, whose donkey is stolen by night, but the beast, escaping from the thieves, breaks into neighboring fields and does damage for which the judge sentences his master to pay. The citizen accordingly pays, but regards the decision as unjust, since he could not have prevented the occurrence, and so resorts to secret compensation, by helping himself not only from the goods of his neighbor's, but also from the public treasury. The Jesuit sanctions his course. "Such is the spirit of the whole book. The pure moral laws are upheld to those who may find it convenient to obey them; but where money or reputation or any worldly prosperity is concerned, the loop-holes of lying and theft and uncharity are sprinkled with holy water. This accommodating character of Father Gury's morality shows far more clearly in the practical cases cited than, at first sight, in the principles of the 'Compendium.' We are directly taught, indeed, that it is permitted to 'recommend a lesser wrong to one determined to commit a greater,' that a promise of marriage may rightfully be broken, if one of the parties come into possession of such a fortune as to arouse reasonable hopes of securing a richer partner; that it is not contrary to the law of kindness to 'wish a temporal ill to your neighbor, or to rejoice in it, for a good end,' and other similar moral lessons; but, for the most part, the Philosophy abounds in definitions and divisions and cross-divisions, until the sense becomes bewildered in a multitude of words. Conscience, for instance, branches into the vincible or invincible conscience, the certain or doubtful, the scrupulous or relaxed, the probable or improbable, and these, in turn, have their own ramifications, until the reader grows secretly hopeful that, however much he may sin against one kind of conscience, he will have plenty of varieties left to carry him through." WORSHIPING THE GOLDEN CALF.
THE worship of the golden calf is pretty general now. Men are esteemed according to the amount of money which they possess; indeed we say a man "is worth so much." Though the man may not be worth a pair of old shoes, yet if he has a big house, a fair estate, and a huge capital, he is said to be worth so much. Poor little creature! In many cases his worth might be written on your thumb nail. It is not the man that has worth; his house, his lands, and his gold have the worth, but not the man. There is far too much bowing down and cringing before the golden calf in all classes of society. Brother, you must sooner endure poverty than to do a wrong thing for the sake of riches; and you must learn to value men for what they are, not for what they have. It needs not Christianity to tell you that some of the worthiest, noblest and most kingly earn their bread by the sweat of their brow; when you meet them, love and honor them. On the other hand, you must know that some of the vilest of men have at times climbed to high places of wealth and power. Do not cringe to any man, but least of all bow to a mere money-bag. Value men by their characters, and not by their positions. God grant that none of us may ever be found worshiping the golden calf. Yet to get into society the meanest things are done. I do not know what sort of thing society may be, but I have heard that it is a very wonderful achievement to get into society; to have the privilege of enjoying the empty ceremonies and hollow shams of stupid splendor; to have the privilege of talking to those persons who spend more on their dress than on their religion. From what little I do know of this wonderful thing called "society" I have felt no ambition to partake in its felicities; and yet to get into society I have seen men fling away their principles, forsake their friends, stifle their consciences, abandon the church fellowships, and become traitors to their God. Forsooth they are successful in business, and hope to rank among the county families, and so they leave those who love them to entertain at lavish cost those who sneer at them. The Lord save those of you who are prosperous from being thus degraded.—Spurgeon. There was to be a marriage at Cana of Galilee. The parties were relatives of Joseph and Mary. Christ knew of this family gathering, and that many influential persons would be brought together there, so, in company with his newly-made disciples he made his way to Cana. As soon as it was known that Jesus had come to the place, a special invitation was sent to him and his friends. This was what he had purposed, and so he graced the feast with his presence. The guests assembled and time passed on. At length an incident occurred that caused much perplexity and regret. It was discovered that from some cause the wine had failed. The wine used was the pure juice of the grape, and it was impossible to provide it at that late hour. It was unusual to dispense with it on these occasions; so the mother of Christ, who, in capacity of relative had a prominent part to perform at the feast, spoke to her son, saying, “They have no wine.” In this communication was a hidden request, or rather, suggestion, that He to whom all things were possible would relieve their wants. But Jesus answered, “Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.” His manner was respectful, yet firm; he designed to teach Mary that the time for her to control him as a mother, was ended. His mighty work now lay before him, and no one must direct concerning the exercise of his divine power. There was danger that Mary would presume upon her relationship with Christ, and feel that she had special claims upon him and special rights. As Son of the Most High, and Saviour of the world, no earthly ties must hold him from his divine mission, nor influence the course he must pursue. It was needful that he should stand free from every personal consideration, ready to do the will of his Father in Heaven. The earthly relation of Christ to his mother was ended. He who had been her submissive son was now her divine Lord. Her only hope, in common with the rest of mankind, was to believe him to be the Redeemer of the world, and yield him implicit obedience. The fearful delusion of the Roman church exalts the mother of Christ equal with the Son of the infinite God; but he, the Saviour, places the matter in a vastly different light, and in a pointed manner indicates that the tie of relationship between them in no way raises her to his level, or insures her future. Human sympathies must no longer affect the One whose mission is to the world. The mother of Christ understood the character of her Son, and bowed in submission to his will. She knew that he would comply with her request if it was best to do so. Her manner evidenced her perfect faith in his wisdom and power, and it was this faith to which Jesus responded in the miracle that followed. Mary believed that Jesus was able to do that which she had desired of him, and she was exceedingly anxious that everything in regard to the feast should be properly ordered, and pass off with due honor. She said to those serving at table, “Whatsoever he sayeth unto you, do it.” Thus she said what she could to prepare the way. At the entrance of the dwelling there stood six stone water-pots. Jesus directed the servants to fill these pots with water. They readily obeyed this singular order. The wine was wanted for immediate use, and Jesus commanded, “Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast.” The servants beheld with astonishment, that instead of the crystal water with which they had just filled those vessels, there flowed forth wine. Neither the ruler of the feast nor the guests generally were aware that the supply of wine had failed; so, upon testing it, the ruler was astonished, for it was superior to any wine he had ever before drank, and vastly different from that which had been served at the commencement of the feast. This donation of Christ to the marriage supper was a symbol of the means of salvation. The water represented baptism into his death, the wine, the shedding of his blood for the purifying of the sins of the world. The provision made for the wedding guests was ample, and not less abundant is the provision for blotting out the iniquities of men. Jesus had just come from his long fast in the wilderness, where he had suffered in order to break the power of appetite over man, which, among other evils, had led to the free use of intoxicating liquor. Christ did not provide for the wedding guests wine that from fermentation or adulteration was of an intoxicating character, but the pure juice of the grape, clarified and refined. Its effect was to bring the taste into harmony with a healthful appetite. The guests remarked upon the quality of the wine, and presently inquiries were made that drew from the servants an account of the wonderful work that the youthful Galilean had performed. The company listened with unbounded amazement, and exchanged words of doubt and surprise. At length they looked for Jesus, that they might pay him due respect and learn how he had accomplished this miraculous conversion of water into wine; but he was not to be found. He had, with dignified simplicity, performed the miracle, and had then quietly withdrawn. When it was ascertained that Jesus had really departed, the attention of the company was directed to his disciples who had remained behind. For the first time they had the opportunity of acknowledging themselves to be believers in Jesus of Nazareth as Saviour of the world. John related what he had heard and seen of his teachings. He told of the wonderful manifestations at the time of the baptism of Jesus, by the prophet John, in the river Jordan; how the light and glory from Heaven had descended upon him in the form of a dove, while a voice from the cloudless heavens proclaimed him to be the Son of the Infinite Father. John narrated these facts with convincing clearness and accuracy. The curiosity of all present was aroused, and many anxious ones who were looking and longing for the Messiah, thought it was indeed possible that this might be the Promised One of Israel. The news of this miracle wrought by Jesus spread through all that region and even reached Jerusalem. The priests and elders heard with wonder. They searched with new interest the prophecies pointing to the coming of Christ. There was the most intense anxiety to know the aim and mission of this new Teacher, who came among the people in so unassuming a manner, yet did that which no other man had ever done. Unlike the Pharisees and other dignitaries who preserved an austere seclusion, he had joined the mixed assembly of festal gathering, and, while no shadow of worldly levity marred his conduct, he had sanctioned the social gathering with his presence. Jesus rebuked intemperance, self-indulgence, and folly; yet he was social in his nature. He accepted invitations to dine with the learned and noble, as well as the poor and afflicted. On these occasions, his conversation was elevating and instructive, holding his hearers entranced. He gave no license to scenes of dissipation and revelry, yet innocent happiness was pleasing to him. A Jewish marriage was a solemn and impressive occasion, the pleasure and joy of which were not displeasing to the Son of man. This miracle pointed directly toward breaking down the prejudices of the Jews. The disciples of Jesus learned a lesson of sympathy and humanity from it. His relatives were drawn to him with warm affection, and when he left for Capernaum, they accompanied him.—Great Controversy, Vol. 2. Meditation on Divine Truth
It is not the bee's touching on the flowers that gathers the honey, but her abiding for a time upon them, and drawing out the sweet. It is not he that reads most, but he that meditates most, on divine truth, that will prove the choicest, strongest Christian. THE ONE HOPE.
By James White
IN our last we showed that the doctrine of the millennium, or the world's conversion, was by no means the hope of the church presented in the Scriptures. The prophets of the Old Testament have pointed to no such hope. Jesus Christ and his apostles did not hold out to the church any such hope. But there is another hope cherished by the church, equally false; and that is, that at death the Christian enters Heaven. Hence, in all the popular sermons of the day, you are pointed to death for your reward, when your joys will commence. " Death," as the poet sings, " is the gate to endless joy." That which the apostle has represented as man's last enemy, is made his best friend. " The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death." Death, the last enemy of the just, is destroyed by the first resurrection. How oft have we heard, on funeral occasions, or when our friends have fallen asleep in Jesus, " They have gotten the victory over death. They have finally come to the point where death, their best friend, has cut the string of mortality, and let the immortal soul free." This we regard as a false hope. The Scriptures nowhere sustain it. The Scriptures do not represent that the Christian obtains any victory at death. It is true that the Christian, having lived a life of holiness, as he comes nearer to the end of his probation, and to that period of sleep in Jesus, may triumph in hope of the glory of God. It may be for the benefit of surviving friends, and as a matter of comfort in the church, that the evidence be given that the deceased was prepared for such a change. The Spirit of God may rest down upon him, and with his last breath he may shout the praises of God. The Christian may rejoice that death is soon to bring his sufferings to an end; but all this does not constitute proof that death lets the supposed immortal part in man free from the body to ascend to the heavenly world, while the body shall be carried to the grave. The experiences of Christians, triumphing in the last hour, does not prove that there is an immortal part in man that at death takes its flight to the glories of the heavenly world. The theology of the church being wrong, the experiences in the church have been mistaken. It is consistent with the character of God that thus our dying friends may leave evidence to show God's approval of a holy and godly life. Instead of the dying Christian getting victory over death, this is the hour of death's triumph, according to the decree of God on account of sin and man's fallen condition. But life and immortality are brought to light through the gospel. The grave will not long hold the sleeping just. We hear Paul proclaim the victories of the Son of God over death, in these triumphant words: " Behold I show you a mystery. We shall not all sleep; but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump; for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. . . . Then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?" At the last trump, and not at death, victory comes to the Christian. It is then that the Christian gets victory over death, being free, forever free from his power. He then exclaims, " O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?" We hear, by way of Patmos, Rev. 1:18, the Life-giver saying, " I am he that liveth, and was dead; and behold, I am alive forevermore, amen, and have the keys of hell [the grave] and of death." Jesus Christ, crucified on Calvary, passed into the tomb, and was raised by the power of the Father, triumphing over death. As he arose, he seized the keys of death and the grave, and with triumph ascended on high. Death may hold a Luther, a Wesley, until the hour when the triumph of sin, and Satan, and death, must cease at the descent of the King of kings in glory, to unlock the tombs, open the graves, and bring forth all the just, who have felt the last sting of death, and over whom the grave holds the victory. Hear that universal shout from the redeemed, " O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?" It is then, and not at death, that the Christian has the victory over death. But the apostle has spoken directly upon this point: " Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen." There were those in Paul's day who questioned the resurrection of the dead, the same as the spiritualists and others do at the present time. " But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen." The apostle makes the one to depend upon the other. If Christ is raised, the dead will be raised; but if Christ is not raised, the dead will not be raised. The gospel of the resurrection of the dead is all based upon the resurrection of Christ. " Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ; whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not." The apostles took their lives in their hands and went forth to preach the gospel. That gospel was based on the resurrection of Jesus Christ; and Paul reasons that if Christ had risen, then the dead would be raised; but if the dead were not to be raised, then Christ was not risen. Then their faith and their preaching were vain. But Christ had risen from the dead. The gospel was a reality, because the dead would be raised. The next verse contains a tremendous conclusion, to which we wish to call your attention: " Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished." But, says popular theology, Abraham triumphed in faith, and his immortal soul went home to Heaven. And there is Lazarus in his bosom in Heaven. And should there be no resurrection, Abraham is well enough off; Abraham is saved. The popular view teaches that Abraham, Isaac, and all the patriarchs, prophets, apostles, martyrs, and saints of all ages are eternally safe in Heaven. Then, what does Paul mean by saying, If the dead rise not, then is your faith vain and our preaching vain, and that they who have fallen asleep in Jesus are perished? According to this testimony, if there is no second advent of Christ, Abraham, Noah, Lot, and the apostles, and the martyrs have all perished. A certain minister in Ohio, in speaking of the second advent and the resurrection, said: " I do not see any need of a resurrection, since all the good of past ages have gone to Heaven, where there is fullness of joy." And if I believed with this Ohio minister, I would say the same. It is not worth while to have our Lord come back here after this body, if all go right to Heaven at death, where there is fullness of joy. Why trouble the old bodies which the dying saints were so glad to get rid of, when death, " the gate to endless joy " (?) freed them from those bodies and let them into Heaven? If there is fullness of joy there, you cannot make it any fuller. If there are pleasures for evermore, will it be any better to have the old bodies there? Why need the Son of God, attended by all the holy angels, descend from Heaven in matchless grandeur and glory, and the voice of the archangel shake open the grand old sepulchers of the patriarchs, and the graves of the prophets and apostles, martyrs and saints, small and great, simply to call forth old bodies they were so glad to leave behind, when, according to popular orthodoxy, they all went to Heaven at death? The hope of the gospel, the one hope, the one grand hope to which all the light of revealed truth centers, is the second advent of Jesus Christ, and the resurrection of the dead. If there be no resurrection of the dead, they that have fallen asleep in Christ are perished. That is the last of them. Death, in the last hour of dissolving nature, seized them, took them into its embrace, bore them to the tomb, and there they sleep, and to them death will be an eternal sleep, unless the Lord himself shall descend and wake them to immortality. But the Lord will come and unlock the prison house, and will call forth the righteous dead, clothed with immortality. This was the hope of Adam, of Abel, of Noah, and of Job, who says, " And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God." This was the hope of the prophet Isaiah, who says, " Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust." This was the hope of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ. The apostle Paul says, " Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ." This is not one of our blessed hopes, as though we had others; but it is the blessed hope—the one hope, the hope of the gospel, the hope of the church of all ages.