Review and Herald, Vol. 51, No. 13. (3/28/1878)

Review and Herald

Mar 28, 1878

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Mar 28, 1878

Thoughts on Baptism.

By Joseph Harvey Waggoner

BY ELD. J. H. WAGGONER.

(Continued.)

SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.—CONTINUED.

We will now present an argument, which, we think, is justified by reason and the Scriptures.

As no person is answerable for the sins of another, so no person can repent of the sins of another. We may, indeed, be sorry that others have sinned. I am sorry that Adam sinned; sorry that my parents sinned; yes, sorry that you, reader, have sinned; but I am not required to repent of their sins or of yours. I cannot do it. I can repent of my own sins only. And as baptism is so intimately connected with repentance, I was baptized for my own sins, and for no others. However much Adam may have sinned, I should not have been required to be baptized if I had not sinned. It is as unscriptural and unreasonable to be baptized for the sins of another, as it is impossible to repent of the sins of another.

The Scripture says, “In Adam all die.” Adam, because of his sin, was shut away from the tree of life, lest he should eat, and live forever; Gen. 3:22, 23; and thus mortality was settled upon him because of sin; for “The wages of sin is death.” Of course his children, and so all his posterity, received from him a nature no higher than his own; with him all were shut out from the tree of life, all became subject to death, all returned to the dust. This death, which we variously call natural death or temporal death, and the first death in distinction from eternal death, or “the second death,” was a penalty inflicted upon Adam for his sin; and it was the penalty of that sin only. As he only was the transgressor, he only could bear the penalty; for “the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father.” To his posterity it is a consequence of their relation to him, and not a penalty. The “second death” is the penalty for the personal sins of Adam’s posterity. When sentence was pronounced upon Adam, a new probation was given to man through “the seed of the woman.” Through a promise of the Son of God, who should become a son of man, the gospel scheme was opened to the race; and as the race was already involved by the fall of Adam, shut out from the tree of life, and doomed to return to the dust, or to die, another death was placed before Adam’s race as the penalty for personal sin; for it is true, under all conditions and dispensations, that “The wages of sin is death.”

That the death which the race has fallen under ever since the fall of Adam is not the penalty of our personal sins, is proved by the following considerations: They who accept the gospel of Christ are justified through faith in him, and receive pardon of their sins; yet they die “in Adam,” as the unjustified die. But no one can believe that sin is pardoned and punished also. The remission of sin is the remission of its penalty. The individual who is pardoned by the gospel escapes the penalty of personal sin; “on such the second death hath no power.” Rev. 20:6. But they who are not pardoned,—are not justified by faith in Christ,—shall fall under the second death. This is proof sufficient that the second death is the penalty of personal sin.

Repentance, faith, remission, all combined, will not remove the consequence of Adam’s transgression. We still die “in Adam,” saints as well as sinners; and therefore this death is not the penalty of personal sin. The gospel may bring from it, as a benefaction; but it does not save from it by means of remission. It is remitted to nobody.

As in the case of the saints,—the justified,—so in the case of infants. They have no sins for which to answer. They cannot fall under a penalty, because they are innocent. Yet they die; of course not as sinners condemned, but as mortal creatures cut off from the tree of life by the action of Adam. His sin brought condemnation to himself, and it was deserved; but it brings no condemnation to these innocent ones; they do not deserve it, and “the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father.”

What, then, it may be asked, does the gospel actually offer in the case of infants? We answer, life; it offers them a resurrection from the dead. “As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” Infants die because of their connection with Adam, not on account of any sin of their own; and they are made alive in Christ, not because of their obedience, but as members of the race for whom he died. What they lost in the first Adam is restored to them by the second Adam. See a promise of a resurrection to children, in Jer. 31:15–17. This is positive, tangible; it stands on no uncertain inference.

There will be three classes in the resurrection. One, of sinners condemned, who have never accepted the gospel nor received pardon through Christ. The second death claims them as its own. Another, the saints; those who have had their sins washed away by the blood of the Redeemer. Being justified, the law has no claim against their lives. “On such the second death hath no power.” The third, infants, who have never sinned. Of course they are not condemned; they have done no wrong; on no principle of justice can they be condemned. Through Christ they are brought up from death, of course to die no more. They stand related to the law as the saints do; not as the saints, pardoned, but as innocents, against whom no charge can be brought. Having no sin upon them, they will die no more. That life they get through Christ as truly as do the saints. Hence they can join the everlasting song of redemption, with all the saints in glory. Had it not been for Christ they would have remained dead. For eternal life, its joys and its glory, they are as truly indebted to divine love and favor in the gospel as David, or Peter, or Paul. Thus it is easy to see that infants are saved by the gospel, but not by means of faith, repentance, and baptism. These are for sinners, not for innocents.

When strong men endeavor to maintain their theories by weak assumptions or flimsy arguments, it often becomes strong evidence of the erroneousness of their theories. They will do the best they can under their circumstances. We are led to these reflections by reading remarks on baptism, by Dr. Lightfoot, copied and approved by Dr. Clarke. He says:—

“To the objection, it is not commanded to baptize infants, therefore they are not to be baptized,” I answer, It is not forbidden to baptize infants, therefore they are to be baptized.”

This is one of the strangest arguments ever put forth by anybody. It is as much as to say, Anything which is not expressly forbidden may be properly maintained as a part of the gospel! That the Doctors should think the absence of a prohibition is equal in weight to the absence of a commandment, does not argue well for their acumen in matters of duty. Under such a rule, the wildest vagaries and most gross innovations may be maintained as of authority in the church of Christ.

Nor does the reason assigned help the case. They assume that the rite was well known to and practiced by the Jews in and before the days of John, and was passed over into the gospel without the necessity of a precept. Why, then, was adult baptism so specifically required and so often mentioned? This might have stood on exactly the same ground. But there are two difficulties in his way: 1. If proselyte baptism existed among the Jews at that time, there is no evidence, not an intimation, that the Christian or gospel ordinance was the continuance of it. Certainly not, according to Dr. Clarke, for he argues that baptism takes the place of circumcision, which was ever distinct from proselyte baptism. 2. There is no proof that proselyte baptism existed among the Jews at that time. Many authors think it did, but the proof is far from clear. Prof. Stuart went into a thorough examination of the case, both of Scripture and history, and he sums up as follows:—

“It is a matter of no little interest, so far as our question is concerned, to inquire whether Christian baptism had its origin from the proselyte baptism of the Jews. This we have now done, and have come to this result, viz., that there is no certainty that such was the case, but that the probability on the ground of evidence is strong against it.”

The reason for this conclusion is found in such remarks as the following:—

“We are destitute of any early testimony to the practice of proselyte baptism antecedently to the Christian era. The original institution of admitting Jews to the covenant, and strangers to the same, prescribed no other rite than that of circumcision. No account of any other is found in the Old Testament; none in the Apocrypha, New Testament, Targums of Onkelos, Jonathan, Joseph the Blind, or in the work of any other Targumist, excepting Pseudo Jonathan, whose work belongs to the seventh or eighth century. No evidence is found in Philo, Josephus, or any of the early Christian writers. How could an allusion to such a rite have escaped them all if it were as common and as much required by usage as circumcision?”

He thinks, and not without reason, that the Jews in time adopted the baptism of proselytes in imitation of John’s baptism; and that the idea that John borrowed his baptism from the Jews is a mere supposition without foundation in any facts of proof. He admits, also, that the proselyte baptism of the Jews affords an argument in favor of immersion, for no one disputes that their baptism was immersion.

Another ground taken by Dr. Lightfoot, indorsed by Dr. Clarke, is equally faulty. He says:—

“Our Lord says to his disciples, Matt. 28:19, ‘Go therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them,’ &c. matheteusate that is, make disciples; bring them in by baptism that they may be taught. They are very much out who, from these words, cry down infant baptism; and assert that it is necessary for those that are to be baptized to be taught before they are baptized. 1. Observe the words here, make disciples, and then after, teaching, in the 20th verse. 2. Among the Jews, and also with us, and in all nations, those are made disciples that they may be taught. A certain heathen came to the great Hillel, and said, Make me a proselyte that thou mayest teach me. He was first to be proselyted and then taught. Thus, first, make them disciples, by baptism; and then, ‘teach them to observe all things,’ &c.”

When learned and able men resort to such pleadings to maintain their theories, it may well excite our pity. The fact is entirely overlooked that they were to “preach the gospel to every creature.” Mark 16:15, 16. Then follows the promise, “He that believeth”—the preaching—“and is baptized, shall be saved.” The argument of the wise doctors is on the supposition that all the instruction given is after baptism. If so, Peter was certainly mistaken in regard to his commission. Acts 2. He should first have baptized them, and then preached the gospel to them! And the record says, “They that gladly received the word were baptized.” This was all out of order, if the Doctors are right. They should first have been baptized, and then received the word.

We notice that the Doctors do not confine these remarks to infants. Their rule applies to adults; they so apply it themselves. A certain man wished to be proselyted (baptized) in order that he might be instructed; which, as they view it, supposes there was no instruction previous to baptism. Was it so in the house of Cornelius? in the house of the jailor? or in the case of the eunuch? or in any case recorded in the Scriptures? It is the very opposite in every instance. We scarcely know at which to be most astonished, the folly or the presumption of learned men in thus setting themselves so directly against the truths of the divine record.

In the above extract there seems to be manifested an entire misapprehension of the meaning and correct use of the term disciple. Webster says, to disciple (verb) is to convert to doctrines or principles; and a disciple is “one who receives instruction,” or “one who accepts the instruction of another.” Greenfield gives the meaning of “a follower.” These definitions are in harmony with all the facts of Scripture. They first became disciples by accepting the doctrines of the cross; they “gladly received the word.” Then they were baptized. Of course instruction did not cease with their baptism; they were to be taught—they were to learn—the truths of God and of the Christian life as long as their discipleship continued, which was as long

as they lived. Every instance in the Scriptures is according to this order.

The records of the giving of the commission, in Matthew and Mark, sufficiently refute the error into which the Doctors have fallen on this subject. Matthew records the words of the Saviour thus: “Go ye therefore, and disciple all nations, baptizing them,” &c. Mark records them thus: “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized,” &c. Discipling all nations, in one record, is exactly equivalent to preaching the gospel to every creature, in the other; and in both records, baptizing follows the discipling, or the preaching, and is to be administered to those who become disciples, or who believe the preaching. In frankness we must confess our belief, that, were men as careful to follow strictly the order of the divine injunctions as they are strenuous to maintain preconceived theories, there would be no stumbling over so plain a record as is given to us in the commission of our Lord to his ministers.

To further test the correctness of the position assumed in the above quotation, let us take the case of an infant, allowing that he is baptized, but who, as he grows up, persistently rejects the offers of the gospel; never becomes a follower of Christ; never believes his doctrines. And such cases are not rare. In what sense is he a disciple of Christ? In no sense whatever. To call one who never believed in Christ, who never accepted the gospel or followed the Saviour, a disciple of Christ, is to abuse the term, and to lower the standard of discipleship to a level with the world.

The Old Testament is in harmony with the New on this view of the subject. The word disciple, Isa. 8:16, is derived from the verb lah-mad, to teach, or to train; discipline. Neither in the Scriptures nor in the lexicons can a warrant be found for such a use of the term disciple as is found in the above quotation.

Once more Dr. Clarke gives the views of another eminent man, whose name (not given), he says, would do honor to his work. His strongest point, and which he considers sufficient of itself to prove his position, is based on Eph. 6:1, as follows:—

“Let the address of St. Paul to the Ephesian children be specially noticed. Children, says he, obey your parents en Kurio. How could they obey en Kurio, if they themselves were not en Kurio? In every instance, this expression marks incorporation into the Christian body.” “Respecting the ages of the persons designated (Eph. 6:1) by the term ta tekna, there can be no question; as a subsequent verse distinctly states them to be such children as were subjects of discipline and mental instruction.”

We thought to pass over the questions of criticism of the text, but are constrained to copy the following from Clarke’s comment on Eph. 6:1:—

“In the Lord] This clause is wanting in several reputable MSS. and in some versions. In the Lord may mean on account of the commandment of the Lord, or as far as the parents’ commands are according to the will and word of God.”

This comment robs the argument of all force, and shows that the claim of its author is not just, though he says, “This single passage, even if it stood alone, ought to set the tedious and troublesome controversy respecting infant baptism forever at rest.”

But what has he proved in regard to this text? Two important points are presented: 1. The children, ta tekna, are commanded to obey their parents; 2. This author says “respecting the ages of the persons designated,” they were “such children as were subjects of discipline and mental instruction.” In a word, they were “such children” as were capable of obeying a commandment, and of being under discipline and receiving mental instruction. But what has all that to do with infant baptism? Infants neither obey nor receive “mental instruction” before or at their baptism. We fully believe in the baptism of “such children” as conscientiously obey the instruction given in Eph. 1. But that argues nothing whatever for infant baptism. We can but express our surprise that any man, much less one “highly intelligent and learned,” should choose this text to settle the controversy in favor of infant baptism; but such are the arguments, if they can be called so, by which this doctrine is upheld.

(To be Continued.)

HOW LONG!

By Bonar

Do they still linger—these slow-treading ages? How long must we still bear their cold delay? Streak after streak the glowing dawn presages; And yet it breaks not—the expected day!

Each tossing year with prophet-lip hath spoken, “Prepare your praise, earth: awake and sing!” And yet yon dome of blue remains unbroken; No tidings yet of the descending King!

Darkness still darkens; nearer now and nearer The lightnings gleam; the sea’s scorched billows moan: And the sere leaf of earth is growing sere; Creation droops, and heaves a bitterer groan.

O storm and earthquake, wind and warring thunder, Your hour is coming! One wild outburst more, One other day of war, and wreck, and plunder; And then your desolating reign is o’er.

These plains are not your battle-field forever; That glassy deep was never made for you; These mountains were not built for you to shiver; These buds are not for your rude hands to strew.

Flee, and give back to earth its verdant gladness, The early freshness of its unsoiled dew; Take hence your sackcloth, with its stormy sadness; And let these wrinkled skies their youth renew.

Give back that day of days, the seventh and fairest, When, like a gem new-set, earth flung afar Her glory, of creation’s gems the rarest, Sparkling in beauty to each kindred star.

Come back, thou holy love, so rudely banished When evil came, and hate, and fear, and wrong; Return, thou joyous light, so quickly vanished; Revive, thou life that death has quenched so long.

Re-fix, re-knit the chain so harshly broken, That bound this lower orb to yon bright Heaven; Hang out on high the ever-golden token That tells of earth renewed and man forgiven.

Withdraw the vail that has for ages hidden That upper kingdom from this nether sphere; Renew the fellowship so long forbidden; O God, thyself take up thy dwelling here! —Bonar.

WORKING IN THE VINEYARD.

By Chas. B. Reynolds

When a call is made in behalf of the cause of God, instead of regarding the call as addressed to others, or studying how to evade it, let us take the appeal home to our own heart and conscience, and respond cheerfully, promptly.

Instead of seeking to be excused, to avoid labor, let us seek for it, beseeching God for ability faithfully to discharge the duty assigned us. Let the language of the heart be, “Lord, here am I! What wilt thou have me to do?” Instead of turning a deaf ear to calls for means, because to respond will necessitate self-sacrifice, let us rejoice that opportunity is afforded to prove the reality of our gratitude to God, by rendering a tithe of that which is all his own.

Begin each day with fervent praise for mercies bestowed; and implore God to bless with a spirit of diligence, an eager watchfulness for opportunities to labor in the vineyard of the Lord, in patience, meekness, and faith. It is astonishing what one faithful one can accomplish by patient, prayerful, persistent endeavor. “Where there is a will, there is a way.” One whose heart yearns to be about the Master's business will find work enough on every side; not perhaps some great work which will call forth the applause and admiration of men; it may be the quiet drudgery, the unappreciated hard task, the patience-trying, wearisome labor, unnoticed and unrewarded of men; but known and approved by Jesus, calling forth his smile, his present blessing, and insuring, in the soon-coming day, the “Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy Lord.”

Pray, “Give us this day our daily bread,” then do the daily work in return; put your whole might into it, the might obtainable from a mightier than yourself, which is the secret of all good or successful work. Act as though Jesus were by your side. Do not offer God poor, feeble, partial, grudging efforts, but your most vigorous, wholehearted, best energies. Work from love to Him who gives you the work and the strength to perform it. Do not insult the giver of every good, by dreamy promises of great things you mean to do, of wonderful efforts and self-sacrifices you intend to make when all things are in just the right shape, so that you can just as well as not; but heed the admonition, “Go work to-day in my vineyard.”

Remember we are never so blessed, never live so near to God, as when trying to bring precious souls to Christ. Believing the third angel's message, let us realize the perils of the unconverted around us. Let the parent bear in the arms of faith the unconverted children; let husband and wife plead at the throne of grace for each other; let us bear on our hearts the souls of nearest friends and kindred,—bear them before God as Christ bore them, with strong crying and tender entreaty. What shall be said of that man or woman who could save life, yet would not? To save one from mortal death is a noble and praiseworthy act; but how trivial compared with salvation from eternal death, from the sentence, “Depart, ye cursed.” To be the means of hiding one sin, and saving the sinner from punishment, were a priceless gift; but oh how trivial compared with the benefit of hiding a multitude of sins, and saving the sinner from the penalty of them all. “Let him know that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.” Jas. 5:20. This is the privilege God has committed to us; this is the treasure he has put into earthen vessels. ’Tis sweet to work for Jesus, for it insures not only present, but eternal reward.

The work of the Lord is hindered by idlers who do not feel the necessity of working in the vineyard. The lukewarm, driveling, moaning croakers are more baneful and do more injury than the most violent opposers. Those who openly oppose, call forth our energies to try to set them right; they stir us up to show the advisability of the work on hand and its necessity; but the influence of the idle and the penurious is fatal to the advancement of the cause in their vicinity. They are dead weights upon the church to which they belong, clogs, drags to the prosperity of the whole body. It is not in human nature to escape the deleterious influences of the unsympathizing idler. His dolorous doubtings, uttered only to cloak or excuse his own selfish laziness, will check the energy and double the burdens of the best, most active and faithful laborer in the vineyard of the Lord. It were better that a millstone were tied about our neck, and that we were cast into the sea, than that we should be of this number, to whom, not the “Well and faithfully done,” but “Depart, ye cursed,” must be pronounced in the soon-coming day, by the outraged and indignant Master.

“Go work to-day in my vineyard.” Every one has a work to do, all are called,—the aged, the feeble, the infirm, the young, the strong,—each has a work to do, some duty to perform, some influence to exert, sacrifices to make, efforts to put forth to help in proclaiming the message of present truth.

“Knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep; for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. The night is far spent, the day is at hand.” Soon our labor must close. A little while, a few short days, and we may be stretched upon the bed of death. We shall listen to the dull, monotonous ticking of the clock; shall note the solemn shaking of the physician’s head, shall hear the whispered words, “No hope;” shall read the anguished efforts of a loved companion to keep back the starting tears; shall hear the subdued sobs of sorrowing children; shall be face to face with death. Then, as we press loved hands in the last good-bye, how vividly will come to us remembrance of opportunities neglected. Oh! if we could have but one short week more of life and strength, how zealously we would improve it. How we would agonize before God for wisdom, and, with tears, implore our loved ones to heed the angel’s message of mercy, and flee the wrath to come.

How could we bid them farewell, knowing we had wretchedly failed in our duty to them? How could we meet our God with the blood of souls upon our garments?

We cannot recall the past, we have no promise of the future; but, blessed be God, we can improve the present. We have the now. Let us examine our condition, sit in judgment on our own case. What are we doing for Jesus? What work are we now engaged in that shall gain for us the “Well done”? We have the light, the testimonies are plain and oft-repeated. Are we faithful, living up to the light received?

In pitying mercy we are yet spared to retrieve the past. The message of the Master comes to us, “Why stand ye here all the day idle?” “Go work to-day in my vineyard.” May God help us to make haste to obey. CHAS. B. REYNOLDS.

THE CARNAL MIND.

By Jos. Clarke

“BECAUSE the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to his law, neither indeed can be.” Rom. 8:7.

The word carnal is defined by Webster to mean fleshly, sensual, lewd. In Col. 2:18, this mind is called the fleshly mind; in 1 Cor. 2:14 it is termed the “natural man [who] receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God;” and as in Rom. 8:8 it is said of the carnal mind that those who possess it cannot please God, so 1 Cor. 2:14 says that the things of the Spirit of God are foolishness to the natural man. To unfold this principle of righteousness has been the design of God from the time of Adam’s fall to the present moment. He has sought to bring heavenly or spiritual things to man’s notice in such a way as to draw him away from his own corrupt propensities and evil dispositions, and so affect his heart as to change his tastes and inclinations, weaning his affections from earthly, sensual, and selfish objects, and centering them upon such objects and aims as would tend to purify and elevate the soul. Man would thus be enabled to see clearly his true relation to God and his fellow-men; and nothing short of such a change can possibly bring him to a just and clear conception of his condition before God. The man of leisure and of learning may spend his life in study and deep thought; he may search all the books of philosophy and history, and yet he will remain in darkness so long as he remains outside of the regenerating influences of the Spirit of God.

A beautiful path has been opened up to man through the love and compassion of the Creator. Though fallen and corrupt, he may turn from the bondage of the carnal mind to the freedom of the spiritual mind. “For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.” “The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.” This glorious freedom from bondage to sin and the carnal mind is brought about by the grace of God in changing the natural desires and denying them, and giving, in their stead, those illuminating and life-giving principles which purify the heart, and make the man, once corrupt, vile, and perverse, a fit temple for the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Many, as did the Pharisees, interpret the sacred writings incorrectly, for want of the help of the Spirit of God. They mistake the meaning of the sacred writers, only because they are ignorant of the influences of the Holy Spirit. When Paul, in 2 Cor. 5:17, says, “Old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new,” he alludes to this very point,—the death of the carnal mind and the establishment of a different state of things in the heart. “Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature.” How can any sane man suppose that this passing away of old things indicates the abrogation of the moral law,—the very law which first humbled the sinner, and caused him to fly from the city of destruction to the cross of Christ for the removal of the heavy burden which sin, the transgression of the moral law, had laid upon him?

Christ, in the sermon on the mount, said, “If thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.” That is to the same point; the carnal mind is so partial to itself that it cannot make proper distinctions, and, being unenlightened, it gropes in its own darkness. But when the Spirit of God dwells in the heart, there is light. God, who is the author of all wisdom and light and knowledge, moves upon the heart of man, and straightway darkness is scattered, and clear light shines. The man once savage and fierce becomes meek and lovely; the heart once the receptacle of vile and blasphemous thoughts becomes clean and pure; hate is changed to love, and where once were all the vices, now bloom the Christian virtues, a lovely group of principles which beautify and ennoble the present life and insure the future.

Jos. CLARKE.

THE CATHOLICS AND THE ADVENT.

By Smith Sharp

The strongest church, financially, that we have in the Kansas Conference is in Doniphan County, situated midway between Atchison, Kan., and St. Joseph, Mo., it being about twelve miles to each place. Situated as it is near the Missouri River, as would be expected a large proportion of those living in the vicinity are Roman Catholics.

The truth was first preached here by Bro. Laurence, and he and Eld. Chaffee have bestowed about all the labor the church has ever had. Bro. C. held a discussion here about three years ago; and a Mr. O’Driscol, a lawyer of fine ability and a Catholic, was selected for moderator. Mr. O’Driscol had a fine opportunity of becoming acquainted with our views, and at once set himself to the task of preparing to refute them; and for the past three years he has been devoting a part of his spare time to an examination of the prophecies, with an especial aim to exculpating the mother church from any share in the judgments threatened the mother of harlots.

Every effort that had been made by the Protestants to refute our positions had failed, and they stood before the world charged by our people with following the traditions of Roman Catholicism. It was known that Mr. O’Driscol was a fluent speaker, a sharp lawyer, and that he was well-informed as to our doctrines and general history. Accordingly the meeting-house under the control of the M. E. church was opened, and he was invited to speak. A prominent Protestant introduced him to the congregation, and took a seat with him on the stand. He commenced ten minutes before seven o’clock P. M., Feb. 10, and spoke until eleven P. M., and finished up with a three-hours’ speech the next evening, thus occupying seven hours and ten minutes.

A few of the leading points is all that I have space to notice. He passed over the entire visions of Daniel and John, arguing in the very strongest terms the infallibility of the Church of Rome, defining heresy to be error, and charging it upon all Protestants. On Dan. 2 he agreed with us until he came to the little stone. This he claimed was the Roman Church, which was set up in the days of Christ, with Peter at

its head.

All the symbols that we apply to the papacy he applied to the Mohammedan power. He made the time, times, and dividing of time 1260 years, just as we do. Its commencement he fixed at the rise of Mohammedanism in A. D. 622; consequently it would end in 1882, at which time he thinks the Turkish power will be destroyed, and the Roman Church, which has so long been persecuted by that power, will be freed from it. He said if time continued ten years longer we should see cardinals, archbishops, and bishops flowing back to Jerusalem. Cardinal McCloskey, as also all the other cardinals, owned a see in Palestine, and they expected soon to rule over that country. The wilderness church, of course, was the Roman Church, which has been in the wilderness since A. D. 622, but is to come out in 1882. Soon after that he thinks Christ will come, but not before the pope is permitted to return to Jerusalem.

The two witnesses of Rev. 11:3 he thinks are the nuns and monks. The 1260 years that they prophesy in sackcloth is the time the church is in the wilderness. He says they wear the sackcloth under their black outer garment. He finds the fulfillment of the expression, “These are the two olive trees,” in the founding of hospitals for the destitute, by the nuns and monks; that they are the two candlesticks, in the founding of schools for the education of the young; and that their bodies were to lie dead in the street three days and a half, he thinks is fulfilled now in the abolishing of these institutions. Especial reference was made to what Bismarck had done in turning them out and taking their buildings for barracks and stables. There was a Prussian present who had been in the army before coming here; he remarked in a low tone that Bismarck had done a noble deed. This evidently gave the speaker freedom in commenting upon Rev. 11:10: “And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and send gifts one to another.” He says Ecuador is the only place on the globe where the monks and nuns are upheld; but he thinks they are soon to rise.

He has a novel view of the millennium, dating its commencement in A. D. 751 and its termination in 1751; thus making it continue during the time the pope could control the Christian nations. According to his view it ended about the time the Reformation began, and the devil is now let loose upon the church for a little season. The mark of the beast he has the turban on the head, and the sword in the hand. The Roman Catholic Church is the New Jerusalem. When they again return to Palestine, all without will be dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, &c.

He thought the two-horned beast a symbol of the Tartars of Central Europe, under Zengis (or Genghis).

He rejoiced in the hope of soon seeing the Roman Church arise, referring to their increase of numbers, and the fact that their missionaries are everywhere. Said the struggle is now a mental one, but it will soon be a physical one.

Space forbids that I should notice other points. There were Protestants present who appeared to be willing to stand all his hard sayings about Protestants for the sake of seeing Adventists crushed. They had evidently brought him there to whip us, and kill the Sabbath. Although he was called upon to prove the change of the Sabbath, he had but little to say about it, simply remarking that the change was made in the days of Christ; but he promised to be prepared and speak on it at a future time, if they desired it.

There was a general demand for a reply, and as I happened to be present I thought best to notice some points. The most of the Protestants and a few of the Catholics were out to hear me. I invited Mr. O’Driscol, but he excused himself. I had more than usual freedom. The murmurs that arose from the Catholics as I dwelt upon the symbols that apply to the papacy, and showed how they had fulfilled them, showed that all they wanted was the power, to silence heretics now as they once did. I think the tide turned in our favor. I know we have friends now where we had enemies before. SMITH SHARP.

HOW THEY DODGE.

By Agnes R. Lucas

Yes, those foxes of the desert do have holes; and what is noticeable is the way they sometimes get into them. It seems to me that they have these holes arranged alphabetically, something like this. Here is a long line of holes marked A, any one of which they will dodge into if attacked on the authenticity or correctness of the Scriptures. Then follows another line marked B, to be used in defense of that bliss people are supposed to enter at death. After that there is a great variety of holes marked C, with which to dodge the commandments; with as many more marked D, for an extra dodge from that despised fourth commandment.

Not long ago, Bro. B. asked a Mrs. B. who was at his house, who were meant by the children of men mentioned in Ps. 14: 2. Mrs. B., thinking some blow was meant for her, began to dodge, and to fight the law of God. She talked at random for a while, and then said, If your position is correct, “where did Cain get his wife?” A big dodge she had made, but evidently she had stumbled into the wrong hole. She was trying to get into one of the D’s, but had fallen into an A.

A similar case was that of Mr. W., who is quite a successful teacher. Some papers had been given him to read, that treated quite largely on the Sabbath question. I asked him how he liked them. His answer was that he had not read them, also that he knew scarcely anything about the people or their doctrines. He asked what they believed concerning creation. I answered, They believe the Bible statement of it. “Then,” said he, “how was it that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still?” I answered, I could not see that that had any bearing on the subject. His next dodge was, “Where did Adam’s sons get their wives?” I replied that Adam had daughters as well as sons. “Yes,” said he, “but the Bible says they took them wives of the land of Nod.” My answer was that I had never read any such passage. He then thought to dodge it all; and related what some infidel had said, rang the bell for school and thus closed, the chapter.

There is but one way of solving the problem why people who are quite intelligent on every other subject should manifest such ignorance of the Bible. Let 2 Peter 3:5 answer.

AGNES R. LUCAS.

Continue reading: UP-HILL BUSINESS