Earlier text: Battle Creek Bible Class.—June 27, 1868TREATMENT OF THE EARLY CHRISTIANS BY THE ROMANS.
THE following interesting remarks on this subject are an extract from Dr. Lardner. They cannot fail to interest every reader. 1. It must be owned, that according to the Roman laws, no man might introduce any new gods, or worship publicly or privately any strange or foreign gods not allowed of by public authority. 2. But yet the disciples of Jesus Christ were under the protection of the Roman laws, since the God whom they worshiped, and whose worship they recommended, was the God of the heavens and the earth, the same God whom the Jews worshiped, the worship of whom was allowed all over the Roman empire, and established by special edicts and decrees in most, perhaps in all the places in which we meet with St. Paul in his travels. It is evident that St. Paul makes his defense before Felix in Judea upon this foot. “They neither found me in the temple disputing with any man. But this I confess to thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers.” Acts xxiv, 14. They call this way a sect, a new sect; grant it to be so; but in this way I worship the God of my fathers, the same God which they do, and believe all things which are written in the law and the prophets, as firmly as any Jew whatever; nor do I say anything inconsistent with them, or which I cannot support by them; and therefore I am entitled to protection equally with them, since I have not attempted nor advised any disturbance or insurrection. This, therefore, was a very just and proper defense before Felix, a heathen magistrate, and it was completely valid. And the Roman magistrates out of Judea, and the heathen people everywhere, considered St. Paul and his companions as Jews. It was evidently so in Achaia. The Jews brought Paul before the judgment seat, “saying, This fellow persuadeth men to worship God contrary to the law.” Acts xviii, 13. But Gallio supposed that Paul had as good a right to protection as themselves, and that the differences between Paul and them were no other than such as might happen between men of one and the same religion; and that the only reason why Paul was brought before him, was the envy, malice, and bigotry, of some of the leading men among the Jews of his province. “If it be a question of words and names,” says he, “and of your law, look ye to it, for I will be no judge of such matters.” Verse 15. From whence I think it appears, that Gallio was not so ignorant of the case brought before him as some may be ready to imagine. If, says he, the matter in dispute be a “word,” some particular opinion and doctrine, which you say Paul preaches; or of names, whether Jesus may be called the Christ (or perhaps he means of matters about which the difference is so small that it is rather a controversy about names than things); or “of your law,” whether it obliges all men to be circumcised, who go over to the worship of your God, I will be no judge between you concerning such matters. If the sense I here give of these words, and particularly “of your law,” be right, it is an evidence that Gallio knew very well that Paul had converted heathens to his sentiments, and yet he took no offense at it; only he was resolved not to pass any judicial sentence upon these matters. And, indeed, I think it plain from St. Luke’s account, that Gallio had heard the Jews tell their story out. But when they had done, he had more honor and good sense than to oblige Paul to make an apology for his principles in court, under the character of a criminal or accused person. Nor is it at all strange, that Gallio did not resent St. Paul’s converting men from heathenism to the worship of the true God; since the Jews had done the same thing in many parts of the Roman empire without offense, though not with so good success as St. Paul. But to proceed. It is apparent that the heathen people also considered the apostle and those with him as Jews. It is with this speech that the masters of the damsel at Philippi come before the magistrates, when they brought along with them Paul and Silas: “These men, being Jews, do exceedingly trouble our city.” Acts xvi, 20. And though the magistrates were so far heated and misled by these men, as to order Paul and Silas to be beaten and imprisoned; yet they had no sooner reflected upon what they had done, but they were sensible that they themselves had broken the laws, in punishing men that were Jews, for spreading their principles, and that they were liable to be reprimanded for it. The uproar at Ephesus affords a remarkable proof of the same thing. The silversmiths that made shrines for Diana began a popular speech there, Acts xix, 26–34. “Ye see,” say they, “and hear, that not alone at Ephesus, but almost throughout all Asia, this Paul hath persuaded and turned away much people, saying, that they be no Gods which are made with hands.” (All the Jews said the same thing.) “And the whole city was filled with confusion. And they rushed with one accord into the theatre. And they drew Alexander out of the multitude, the Jews putting him forward. And Alexander beckoned with the hand, and would have made his defense unto the people. But when they knew that he was a Jew, all with one voice about the space of two hours cried out, Great is Diana of the Ephesians.” Alexander was put forward by the Jews, and undoubtedly intended to have declaimed against Paul; but so soon as the people knew that he was a Jew, instead of hearkening to him, they were thrown into a fresh ferment. I think I need not add that Festus so understood the matter likewise, his words having been already more than once produced, in which he tells Agrippa, that when Paul’s accusers stood up, they had only “certain questions against him of their own superstition.” Acts xxv, 18, 19. 3. It ought to be observed, that the first followers of Jesus did everywhere observe an admirable decorum in all their words and actions. It may, perhaps, be inconceivable by some, how they should be able thus to behave everywhere, animated as they were with a warm, as well as just, zeal for the truths of the Christian doctrine, and a thorough dislike of all the abominations and absurdities of the heathen worship; but yet it is certain they did so. We have uncontested evidence of it. St. Luke assures us, Acts xvii, 16, that when St. Paul was at Athens, “his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry.” But when he comes to make his speech in the Areopagus, his temper and address are equal to his argument, which certainly can never be exceeded. According to our translation, indeed, there is harshness in the very introduction: “Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious;” whereas the original is peculiarly soft, if any censure was intended; but I apprehend that St. Paul tells them, he perceived they were “in all things very devout.” This would give no offense at Athens. It was their peculiar character, the encomium which they were fond of above any other. It is true, St. Luke says, that at the conclusion, ver. 32, “when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked; and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter.” It is very possible, some might be surprised at the novelty of St. Paul’s principles, and be inclined to make themselves merry with them. But I do not perceive by St. Luke that they were; I think there could not be any exceptions made to the propriety or decency of any of his expressions. St. Luke has not recorded any of the discourses made by St. Paul, or those who were with him at Ephesus. But, however, we have authentic evidence of the innocence of their words and actions there also. “Ye have brought hither,” says the town-clerk to the people of Ephesus, Acts xix, 37, “these men, which are neither robbers of churches, nor yet blasphemers of your goddess.” He says this of Gaius and Aristarchus men of Macedonia, Paul’s companions in his travels.” So that this temper and prudence were not peculiar to St. Paul, but common to him with his companions. What the town-clerk says here may be relied on; he is speaking to the enraged multitude; if there had been any blasphemies uttered by these men, he had made them his own. The conduct or express declarations of Felix, Festus, Agrippa, are testimonies to the like unblamable and inoffensive behaviour of St. Paul at Jerusalem. I do not say, that according to laws since enacted in some states, the apostles would not have been judged offenders. But it ought to be remembered, that the Romans did, for a long time, as far surpass many modern governments in the justice and equity of their political maxims, as in the grandeur of their empire; nor had they yet renounced or departed from them. Had there been any affront offered by Paul to the Jewish religion, either Felix or Festus would have discovered and punished it. When such things were done by Romans, they could not escape. Undoubtedly therefore Paul had been as innocent in Judea as he had been out of it. Upon the whole then, from the several particulars here alleged, it must appear highly probable, that the chief officers of such a government as the Roman was at the rise of the Christian religion, should treat the first preachers of it just as they are represented by St. Luke to have done. They had no authority by virtue of any edicts or decrees then passed, to enter into the controversies then on foot between several cities in Egypt, who worshiped some one animal and some another, but none of them the gods of the Romans. These governors had not been wont to interpose between any of the sects of the Jews, of which there had been several for a long time, when no tumult or sedition arose among them. The Jews, it is likely, would have thought it the highest injustice, and would have made the loudest complaints if they had. The first Christians did not differ more from the Pharisees or Essenes, I do not say from the Sadducees, than these three sects differed one from another. How can it be thought, then, that these governors should undertake to suppress the first Christians, when they were obliged to protect all the rest; not this or that sect, but all the Jews in general? The Roman government protected the many rites of all their provinces. They protected Jews and heathens in one and the same city. The Jews had been now for some while, from time to time, making proselytes of Greeks and Syrians; converted them to the worship of the true God, the God whom the Christians preached; and brought them, some indeed to part only, others, to the observation of all the peculiar rites of their religion. This they had done, and the presidents gave them no interruption or molestation. Must not, then, these officers have esteemed it, as St. Luke represents them to have done, a new species of envy and malice in the Jews, to bring before them and desire justice against Paul and his companions, barely because they did not submit to them in every particular? And must not these officers have been prepared likewise to control their own people, when they would have abused Paul for what the Jews had been permitted to do; that is, for converting men to his peculiar sentiments when his principles were not at all more disagreeable to them, than those of the Jews; and his behaviour was far more peaceable and inoffensive than theirs had been? There is, however, one difficulty which I am aware may be started by some persons. If the Roman government, to which all the world was then subject, was so mild and gentle, and protected all men in the profession of their several religious tenets, and the practice of all their peculiar rites, whence comes it to pass, that there are in their epistles so many exhortations to the Christians to patience and constancy; and so many arguments of consolation suggested to them as a suffering body of men? Does not the Apostle Paul tell the Philippians, Phil. i, 29, that “to them it was given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake?” and the Thessalonians, 1 Thess. ii, 14, “that they had suffered like things of their own countrymen; even as they [the churches of Judea] have of the Jews?” Is not Timothy39directed, 2 Tim. ii, 3, to “endure hardness as a good soldier of Jesus Christ”? Are not the Hebrews reminded, Heb. x, 32, that they had “endured a great fight of affliction?” Does not St. Peter intimate, that they to whom he wrote, had “been in heaviness through manifold temptations?” 1 Pet. i, 6. 1. That the account St. Luke has given in the Acts of the Apostles, of the behaviour of the Roman officers out of Judea and in it, is confirmed not only by the account I have given of the genius and nature of the Roman government, but also by the testimonies of the most ancient Christian writers. The Romans did afterwards depart from these moderate maxims; but it is certain that they were governed by them, as long as the history of the Acts of the Apostles reaches. Tertullian and divers others do affirm, that Nero was the first emperor that persecuted the Christians; nor did he begin to disturb them till after Paul had left Rome the first time he was there, (when he was sent thither by Festus,) and therefore not till he was become an enemy to all mankind. And I think, that according to the account which Tacitus has given of Nero’s inhuman treatment of the Christians at Rome, in the tenth year of his reign, what he did then was not owing to their having different principles in religion from the Romans, but proceeded from a desire he had to throw off from himself the odium of a vile action, namely, setting fire to the city, which he was generally charged with. And Sulpicius Severus, a Christian historian of the fourth century, says the same thing. 2dly, I answer, that if the reader will be at the pains of comparing the epistles of the New Testament with the history of the Acts of the Apostles, he will find a perfect harmony in all these particulars which are mentioned in both. Thus St. Paul writes to the Thessalonians, 1 Thess. ii, 14, “Ye became followers of the churches which in Judea are in Christ Jesus; for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews.” And St. Luke informs us, Acts xvii, 5, that at Thessalonica, the Jews which believed not, moved with envy, took unto them certain lewd fellows of the baser sort, and gathered a company, and set all the city on an uproar, and assaulted the house of Jason.” As according to St. Luke, they were the Jews who usually began, or aggravated the disturbances against Paul; so Paul himself ascribes his own sufferings, and those of others likewise, to the Jews. Thus it follows in the place just now cited from him: 1 Thess. ii, 15, 16, “Who both killed the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men, forbidding us to speak unto the Gentiles that they may be saved.” And to the Galatians he says, Gal. v, 11, “And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? Then is the offense of the cross ceased.” From which words it is plain, that all the apostle’s sufferings came from the bigoted Jews; and that, if it had not been for them, he might have preached the gospel quietly enough. 3dly, Though the Romans were masters of the world, and were governed by these moderate maxims, as I have shown, yet the first Christians might be exposed to many hardships and sufferings, as they certainly were. The sources of them are very evident. There was a heavy persecution in Judea, which commenced not long after our Saviour’s ascension, and lasted, probably, several years. The Jews had a right to call men before the council, could excommunicate men out of their synagogues, scourge and beat them; they could bring men before the governor, and prosecute for capital crimes. Doubtless, they exerted all the power they had against the believers, and did other things they had no right to do; partly, through connivance, it is likely, of the governor, and partly, perhaps, because he could not hinder them. Then Herod Agrippa was king of Judea three years and more; and he, out of his own aversion to Christianity, and to please the Jews, was an inveterate enemy of the followers of Jesus. And after this, when Judea was again put under Roman procurators, beside the lesser punishments the Jews could inflict themselves, they could prosecute before the procurators, as they did Paul. And we find, that though Felix and Festus were both convinced of his innocence, yet they did neither of them dare to release him against the inclinations of the people of their province. And such was the Jewish influence in this cause, that by their means Paul was kept two years in prison in Judea, and as many afterwards at Rome. As for the sufferings which the Christians were liable to out of Judea, every one must be sensible, that wherever Paul or any other made any considerable number of converts among the heathens, many of the common people were provoked, and would be apt to insult them; and in some places, the inferior magistrates might be so weak as to concur with them, Acts xvi, 22. Besides, the Jews were numerous everywhere, throughout the Roman empire. When Paul was at Lystra, chap. xiv, 19, “there came thither certain Jews from Antioch and Iconium, who persuaded the people; and having stoned Paul, drew him out of the city, supposing he had been dead.” How the Jews of Thessalonica behaved, we have seen just now, chap. xvii, 5. These very same Jews of Thessalonica followed Paul and Silas to Berea, “and stirred up the people,” verse 13. In Achaia, “the Jews made insurrection against Paul, and brought him before the judgment seat,” chap. xviii, 12. At Ephesus, they would have heightened the rage of the people, though “the whole city was,” before, “filled with confusion,” chap. xix, 29. When this “uproar was ceased, and Paul was about to sail into Syria, the Jews laid wait for him,” chap. xx, 1–3. Nor ought it to be supposed, that the Jews were inconsiderable enemies. The malicious, however unfurnished, will always find some weapons; rage makes men, for a time at least, strong and terrible. We see a great deal of enmity against the first followers of Jesus, in the Jewish speeches and proceedings in Judea and other parts. But perhaps it is not easy to form a complete idea of it. What vexation must it not have given to the generality of this people, who were now in full expectation of subduing the whole world to themselves, to see a number of men of their own nation traveling over the Roman empire, teaching that Jesus, who had been crucified, was the Messiah, the great king and deliverer that had been promised to the Jews; inviting Gentiles also to the participation of all the privileges of the people of God, without insisting on circumcision or other rites of their law! EAGERNESS TO READ THE BIBLE.
In one of the schools at Newbern, there was a pious old woman of eighty years. She had been very constant in her attendance, and earnest in her efforts, but could not readily overcome the difficulties. Her eyes were dim with age; it was with great difficulty she saw the letters in the large Testament, and still greater that she remembered them. After two or three months she could call all the letters, and she was delighted. Their combinations and their sounds, syllables, words, were mysteries too great for her to master. The patience of her excellent teacher was well-nigh exhausted one evening, when she said to her: “Aunty, I do not think you can ever learn to read.” “Mity hard, missus; my poor ole eyes dark.” “Well, aunty, I reckon you had better give it up.” “Pears like I mus’, missus. O honey, wants to read heap!” “Well, I’m sorry, aunty, it is so; but you need not come again.” After three or four evenings, the old woman appeared again in school. When the teacher came to her, she said, “Well, aunty—here again, are you?” “Yes, honey, please, I mus’ read—mus’ hear Massa Jesus speak to me from his word hisself; ’pears like I shall die. I mus’ read de word ob de Lord, I mus’;” and tears ran down her cheeks like rain. The teacher could not resist the appeal; so she opened the Testament at the fourteenth chapter of John, and read to her with great deliberation and care three verses, and then left her to attend to others. Aunty bent over the book, and fixed her attention on the second and third verses. The letters she knew; the words were familiar to her, but to pick them out then, was to hear “Massa Jesus speak to her.” After a while she got the word “prepare” so she could put it to “I go;” then the rest followed by inspiration; and after an hour of the most intense effort she had ever made, she could read the two. When the teacher came to her again, she said, “Missus, ’spees can read ’em now.” She began, and with an intelligent deliberation read, “I go to prepare a place for you,” &c., to the end of the third. The teacher, surprised and pleased, asked her to read them again. Aunty did, with great clearness and propriety. “Yes,” said the teacher, “you have read the words of our blessed Lord yourself.” Aunty’s eyes filled with tears; her face beaming with delight, she broke out, “Yes, bress de Lord! he speak to me—to me, poor ole slave; he tell me go prepa’ a place for me; he go come again take me, poor brak woman; prepa’ place for me! Oh! bless Massa Jesus!” Against how many of us, will this poor old woman, kept in ignorance by slavery, rise up in judgment? All pains are taken from our very childhood, to teach us to read, and God’s word lies before us, daily neglected. As the Saviour said he had not found so great faith in Israel as in a certain Gentile woman, so we may say we have not found so great love for the word of God among all the highly-favored of the land. AND HE CONTINUED ALL NIGHT IN PRAYER TO GOD. All night in prayer! Oh! how that word
Thrills through my soul with solemn sound;
In tone with agony is stored
Of One who bowed on the cold ground,
With naught to shield his holy head,
Save heaven’s canopy above;
The gathering darkness, as it spread,
Witnessed the fervor of His love. All night in prayer! Thou blessed One,
Didst Thou kind nature’s rest forego
That Thou might’st wander forth alone
To brood o’er man’s sad state of woe?
Didst Thou one long and sleepless night
Pour forth Thy soul in ardent prayer,
That man might choose yon world of light,
And dwell with God and angels there? All night in prayer! The starry train
And beauteous moon their vigils kept,
Beholding, from their bright domain,
The form of Him who often wept
O’er human sorrow, toil and care,
And felt soft pity’s kindling glow,
And e’en was willing all to bear—
To drink our bitter cup of woe. All night in prayer! Did angels view,
Prostrate in kneeling beauty bowed,
While words which seraphs never knew
Reached far beyond yon glittering cloud;
They told into His Father’s ear
Of that sad day of coming pain,
When from His side a soldier’s spear
The life-blood’s gentle flow should drain. All night in prayer! Think, O my soul,
For ’twas for thee He wrestled thus,
To point thee to yon heavenly goal,
Where every murmuring thought is hushed,
Where peace, like rivers, flows along
The pure, celestial city wide,
While all repeat the glorious song
Of Him who has for sinners died. All night in prayer! Yes, O my Lord,
My soul shall count those moments dear,
When agony like thine was poured
In drops like blood, and sweat, and tears.
Thus let me view, with solemn awe,
The suffering scenes of Christ, the Lord,
And from Thy precepts ne’er withdraw,
But follow Thee at Thy blest word. Cowardice in a minister is baser than in a soldier, by how much our warfare is more honorable. A faithful reproof will get more love and honor at the last, than a sinful and fawning dissimulation. Though Paul reproved the dissimulation of Peter, yet Peter praiseth the wisdom of Paul. A man can have no worse enemy in the world than a flattering and fawning minister, that dares not deal plainly with his conscience. We are in much more danger to wrong the souls of men by our oil than by our salt,—by our praises, than by our reproofs.—Bishop Reynolds. In a meeting held by one of our brethren not long since, at which it was our privilege to be present, an opposer in a very angry and excited manner interrupted the speaker with the reckless assertion that “Millerism had made more infidels than any other thing under the sun; that the Bible said we did not know anything about the time.” Being unable to quote the passage he had in mind, he was asked if he was sure that the Bible made such a declaration. He was very sure it did, if he remembered correctly; but it was very evident that he did not remember correctly, or, perhaps, that he never knew precisely what the passage was, and had but an indifferent idea of what the Bible did teach on the subject of the second advent. But somehow everybody, from the greatest drunkard to the bigoted bishop, seems to know that the Bible says that no man knoweth the day or the hour; and, tearing this text away from its connection, they give it an unlimited signification, and seem to think it sufficient to put an eternal quietus on the agitation of the advent doctrine. This text the objector in question had got fixed in his mind in such a shape as to lead him to suppose that the Bible asserted that nothing could be known respecting the second advent of Christ. When informed what the text does mean, that no man maketh known, &c., and reminded that we were doing nothing of the kind, that we do not attempt to make known the day and hour, as the Bible does not reveal it, he was asked if he believed this text which stands in immediate connection with the other, namely, “When ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the door.” He could not be made to acknowledge that he did. He had taken his position that we could know nothing about it, and so it should be, and he would make no other reply. Very clearly, he did not believe this text. Now, infidelity is a disbelief of the Scriptures; and we ask, Who was the infidel in this case, the Adventist who believes all the Scriptures, or the opposer who for the sake of avoiding the conclusion that we are to know something about the second coming of Christ, was ready to deny one of the plainest statements in all the Bible? Adventism does not make infidels, it only develops those who are already such. But this is no new phase of the question. This cry of infidelity is no new thing. Adventists have had to meet it all the way along. The Advent Herald of Feb. 14, 1844, under the heading “A prediction fulfilled,” thus speaks on this point: “It has often been remarked by our opponents that the preaching of the Advent would make infidels. This prediction has been fulfilled; or, at least, it has been the means of showing many to the world, as infidels, who, but for the preaching of this doctrine, would have escaped all suspicion. In their efforts to escape the conclusions of Mr. Miller, many of our most distinguished ecclesiastics have been found to take strong infidel and neological ground; and among their hearers have been found ready listeners fully prepared to adopt any conclusions, however transcendental, if they could thus be made to believe the coming of the Lord a fable.” As it was then on the Advent doctrine, so it is now not only in relation to that doctrine, but to the great truths developed since that time. Take for instance the law of God. Before the claims of the fourth commandment are enforced a religious teacher can scarcely be found who will not contend for that law as one of universal and perpetual obligation; but when he is made to see that that commandment requires the observance of the seventh day as the Sabbath, he will, too often, to avoid the claims of this precept, declare the whole law abolished. And many professed Adventists, alas! are foremost in this impious work. But he, who for the sake of avoiding an unwelcome truth, denies any part of the Bible, is an infidel. The preaching of these truths does not make infidels, it only develops those who are already such, or who, rather than embrace them, are willing to become such. A little incident which occurred under the first message will further illustrate this point. An Advent preacher was lecturing at Lowell, Mass., when a Methodist class leader accused him of being an infidel, and wished him to call upon him. The minister accordingly gratified him with an interview, and called on him at his shop. Here the class leader repeated his charge that the minister was an infidel. The latter instead of replying handed him his Bible, and wished him to read a passage that he believed. The class leader took the Bible and turned the leaves back and forth without reading. The minister asked him why he did not read. He replied that he was looking for a text. The minister then told him that he could have read and believed the first text he opened at. The class leader saw that he had proved himself the infidel, and handed back the Bible. Keen-eyed skeptics notice these inconsistencies, and became strengthened in their position. They also mark the scoffing of professed religionists at the plain statements of the Bible, when brought out by a company of humble believers, and when they touch the pride and popularity of said professed Christians, and this powerfully builds them up in their infidelity. In proof of this look at the following instance. In 1844, the Universalist Trumpet thus spoke of the midnight cry: “We used to hear, six months ago, much said about the midnight cry. All the abettors in Miller’s follies joined in the cry. But of late we do not hear anything about it. All these birds of night have stopped their noise, from which we infer that day has broken, at which time owls generally cease to hoot.” This was copied by the Investigator, an infidel paper, with the following remarks: “We copy the above for the purpose of expressing the thought that occurred to us on reading it. The Millerites, whom this Reverend and Universalist editor sneeringly calls ‘owls,’ profess, like himself, to believe in the Bible and the Christian faith. He thinks them deluded; we will suppose he honestly thinks so. What, then, in such a case ought he to have done, as an honest, candid man? He ought to have said to them: ‘My Christian brethren, I think I have reason to believe that you are laboring in an error; and as I deem it my duty to remove it, I will, with your permission, discuss the subject with you in an open and friendly manner. Possibly I may impart some new views, which may convince you of your mistake; but should I fail I trust I shall not be so uncandid as, for a difference of opinion, to call in question your sincerity, nor so uncharitable as, for an error in judgment, to withdraw from you my fellowship.’ “Such or similar language from one Christian opponent toward another, while it would exhibit a spirit of kindness and friendly feeling, would do a great deal to convince the infidel that Christianity might be a better system than he was accustomed to believe it. But so long as he sees, as in the present case, that a mere variance of thought in one Christian brother is enough to stoop another, and a Reverend Christian brother, up to the eyelids in bigotry and censoriousness, he will have but little inducement to renounce his infidelity and become a Christian; for though his system may be lacking spiritual faith, as it certainly is, there is yet remaining enough of saving virtue in its practice to prevent him from quarreling, at least with his brethren.” The spirit manifested by the Universalist Trumpet, has by no means decreased since that time. And in view of such testimonies as the above, it is easy to see one great source from which infidelity derives its strength. So long as professed Christians will scoff at Bible doctrines, or refuse to believe certain passages of Scripture, because they destroy a favorite dogma, they may take to themselves the credit of all the infidelity that is developed or created by such a course. And this is all the connection that Adventism has with infidelity.