Review and Herald, Vol. 51, No. 23. (6/6/1878)

Review and Herald

Jun 6, 1878

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jun 6, 1878

HISTORY AND TRINE IMMERSION.

By Joseph Harvey Waggoner

BY ELD. J. H. WAGGONER.

(Concluded.)

AGAIN: WE MUST NOTICE THE REASONS FOR THREE IMMERSIONS.

It will generally be found that, in regard to religious rites and institutions, scriptural reasons and scriptural methods stand or fall together. When any people give an unscriptural reason for their practice, the presumption is that their practice is itself unscriptural, or a perversion of Scripture. Very early in the Christian Church reasons were assigned for three immersions which are either contrary to the Scriptures, or others than those given in the Scriptures. While, on the other hand, wherever we find “one baptism” literally and strictly followed, there we find the scriptural reason assigned for the action.

1. Paul says we are baptized into the Saviour’s death, and raised in the likeness of his resurrection. But this reason was not only ignored, but condemned, by those who advocated three immersions. This speaks more against the theory and practice than whole volumes of history can speak in its favor. It brands it as an innovation, setting aside both gospel faith and gospel practice. Speaking of trine immersion Bingham says:—

“Two reasons are commonly assigned for this practice: 1. That it might represent Christ’s three days’ burial. . . . 2. Another reason was that it might represent their faith in the holy Trinity.”

Pope Gregory the Great wrote to one who inquired of this:—

“Concerning the three immersions in baptism, you have judged very truly already, that different rites and customs do not prejudice the holy church, whilst the unity of faith remains. The reason why we use three immersions (at Rome) is to signify the mystery of Christ’s three days’ burial, that whilst an infant is thrice lifted up out of the water, the resurrection on the third day may be expressed thereby.”

This reason is unscriptural and inconsistent. We are baptized into Christ’s death; he died but once. We are raised in the likeness of his resurrection; he was raised but once. “Thrice lifted up out of the water” cannot be made to represent his resurrection, even though a great pope says it; while the Scriptures say nothing at all of the three days being represented by baptism.

The very first witness claimed by trine immersionists as speaking in favor of the practice gives this same unscriptural reason. This is Clement of Alexandria. We incline to the belief that the testimony is apocryphal, but if it is not, it only serves to show how very early this erroneous view was grafted into the Christian faith. These are the words ascribed to Clement:—

“Ye were conducted to a bath, just as Christ was carried to the grave, and were thrice immersed to signify the three days of his burial.”

Thus this testimony, whatever its origin, stands self-condemned, as being directly outside of the scriptural ideas of baptism. It is based on a false view of the ordinance.

And the famous fiftieth “Apostolical Canon,” which does such good service in the cause of trine immersion, says:—

“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.”

The word of the Lord is yea and amen, not yea and nay. If we had no other evidence that the three-immersion theory is based on a false construction of our Lord’s commission, this is sufficient, that it could only be maintained by setting aside the words of Paul in Rom. 6. There is no discrepancy in baptizing into the names of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and baptizing into the death of Christ, if we preserve, in the action, the likeness of his burial and resurrection. But it was clearly seen by the originators and early advocates of three immersions, that that practice could never be harmonized with the words of Rom. 6. Therefore an order of deposition was issued against any one who baptized into the death of Christ, notwithstanding that such was the baptism of the gospel according to the writings of the apostle Paul, not according to “apostolical tradition.”

And not only the early advocates of three baptisms denied the words of the apostle on this subject, but their followers of the present day maintain the same unscriptural position. Thus Mr. Moore, speaking of the words imputed to Clement, says:—

“Christ was placed in the grave, they in the water; Christ three days, they three times.”

It is only by a wondrous strain of the language that any analogy can be found between three immersions and lying three days in the grave. If Christ had been buried once each day, or had three times died and been buried, then they would have their case. But as he died once, and was buried once, and was raised up once, we can be baptized into the likeness of his death, and raised in the likeness of his resurrection, only by a single burial or immersion, and a single rising out of the water. And all the flourish about “the fathers” so well understanding the Greek language amounts to nothing on this question. The Greek can never be forced to favor “three baptisms,” three burials, or three resurrections. Good common sense and reverence for the exact words of Scripture are quite as essential as a knowledge of the Greek. We know that these same fathers were advocates of innovations and absurdities in both faith and practice. And we are assured that if they speak not according to the law and the testimony their words are not light, but darkness.

Again: Mr. Moore makes the Scriptures conflict with themselves in the following language:—

“The law of holy baptism demands that all persons should be baptized ‘into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,’ while the contrary law requires baptism ‘into the death of Christ.’”

We know not in what words to express our surprise that a man should quote the exact words of Scripture which refer to baptism, and denounce them as a “contrary law” and a perversion of the doctrine of baptism! The words of Rom. 6: 3–5 are as follows:—

“Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection.”

These words, according to Eld. Moore, contain the “contrary law” which he and his associates refuse to follow! We fully agree with him that it contains a rule clearly and explicitly contrary to “trine immersion.” But we shall never admit that these words of Paul’s are contrary to the commission of the Saviour while we retain any reverence and respect for the Bible.

One thing is now most clearly proved, which is this: Rom. 6: 3–5 IS CONTRARY TO THE CONSTRUCTION WHICH IS PUT UPON THE COMMISSION BY THE TRINE IMMERSIONISTS. This is proved by their arguments and their own admissions. The conflict is evident, and the issue is a plain one. And one question alone remains: Which is correct, Rom. 6: 3–5, or their construction of the commission? We are at no loss for the answer. We do not see how any one can have confidence in their view of the commission while it involves such a plain contradiction of the Scriptures. The trine-immersion theory stands self-condemned.

2. Those who will have the patience to read the writers of the early centuries in their controversies over the doctrine of the Trinity, must agree in this, that very much which was then written on the subject was an interminable jargon, a bitter contention over words to no profit; made up more largely of invectives and personal criminations than of argument; showing more zeal for party success than piety. With one thing we have been particularly struck,—that the dominant or orthodox writers sometimes expressed their faith in the very same words which were bitterly assailed as the rankest heresy when used by an opposing party. The “Athanasian creed” was saved only by the greater influence of the bishop of Rome. Athanasius himself was not always considered orthodox; he was not only banished from his place in the church, but a reward was set upon him by the emperor Constantius “to whomsoever should bring him alive or dead.” The bishop of Rome endeavored to procure his pardon, to whom the emperor replied:—

“All without exception have been injured by him, but none so deeply as I have been. Not content with occasioning the death of my eldest brother, he endeavored to excite Constans, of blessed memory, against me; and had not his aims been frustrated by my moderation, he would have caused a violent contest between us. None of the victories which I have gained, not even those obtained over Magnentius and Silvanus, appear so satisfactory to me as the ejection of this despicable man from the government of the church.”—Theodoret, b. 2, chap. 16.

The creed was formulated and the faith defined by Athanasius. Previous to that time there was no settled method of expression, if, indeed, there was anywhere any uniformity of belief. Most of the early writers had been pagan philosophers, who, to reach the minds of that class, often made strong efforts to prove that there was a blending of the two systems, Christianity and philosophy. There is abundance of material in their writings to sustain this view. Bingham speaks of the vague views held by some in the following significant terms:—

“There were some very early that turned the doctrine of the Trinity into Tritheism, and, instead of three divine persons under the economy of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, brought in three collateral, co-ordinate, and self-originated beings, making them three absolute and independent principles, without any relation of Father or Son, which is the most proper notion of three gods. And having made this change in the doctrine of the Trinity, they made another change answerable to it in the form of baptism.”—Antiquities, b. 11, chap. 3, § 4.

Who can distinguish between this form of expression and that put forth by the Council of Constantinople in A. D. 381, wherein the true faith is declared to be that of “an uncreated and consubstantial and co-eternal Trinity”? The truth is that we find the same idea which is here described by Bingham running through much of the orthodox literature of the second and third centuries. There is no proper “relation of Father and Son” to be found in the words of the council, above quoted. And we willingly leave it with the good judgment of every unprejudiced reader that three baptisms are more consistent with the idea of “three collateral, co-ordinate, and self-originated beings,” than with the idea of baptism into the names of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and in the likeness of the Saviour’s death and resurrection.

Bingham says this error in regard to a Trinity of three co-ordinate and self-originated and independent beings arose in the church very early; and so we find it in the earliest authors after the days of the apostles. He said that a change was made in the form of baptism corresponding to this form of belief; and so we find that three baptisms were announced by the same writers. Three baptisms are contrary to the express words of the Scripture, and contrary to the Scripture ideas of baptism into the death and resurrection of Christ. We must determine, and that to a certainty, that three baptisms is that erroneous form which was made to correspond to the doctrine of three co-eternal beings, which did not regard the true relation of Father and Son, and which gave rise to a rejection of the baptism of the gospel, into the death of Christ.

Eld. Moore says:—

“We have shown conclusively that Justin was baptized ‘in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,’ and by trine immersion, which traces trine immersion in an unbroken line to within thirty-three years of the close of the apostolic age.”

We quote this to show with what surpassing confidence he claims to have proved conclusively that of which he has not given one particle of evidence. And this seems to be characteristic of that class. The most absurd and improbable things are put forth with as much assurance as if they were demonstrated. Again he says:—

“The origin of single immersion can be found among the innovations of the fourth century, while sprinkling and pouring, as well as infant baptism, can boast of no better birth.”

We say that single immersion has not been and cannot be traced to the innovations of the fourth century. It is according to the plain teachings of the New Testament; and the historian or tradition-monger who seeks to elevate another form to its place only proves that he does not follow the light of divine truth. And, if Eld. Moore means to say that sprinkling and

pouring and infant baptism are also among the innovations of the fourth century, then he states what every one knows to be untrue who does not take all his historical knowledge at second-hand. Or, if he means to say that sprinkling and pouring and infant baptism, and, we may add, infant communion, have not as good historical evidence in their favor as trine immersion has, he then speaks against his own knowledge, or shows that his knowledge of history is really very limited. On this point we are willing to rest the case on the evidence herein presented.

THE CONSEQUENCES.

Some may be led to inquire, Does it not invalidate the Christian faith, or raise a doubt of the accuracy and sufficiency of the New Testament, to thus prove that the writers of the second and third centuries were so divided in sentiment, or so completely followers of traditions? We answer, Not at all. It proves the correctness of the New Testament, which pointed out this very state of things as soon to exist after the days of the apostles. Even in their own times they had to labor against this spirit of contention and division, which already began to distract the churches. Paul at Ephesus said:—

“For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.”

This fitly represents the condition of the poor, distracted church, under the leadership of ambitious men, such as obtained the controlling influence in the early centuries. We have no doubt that many honest souls mourned over this declension, but the willful and the ambitious are the ones who are heard, and who leave their impress on the multitude, and stand out most prominent in history. This contentious and ambitious spirit gave rise to the Roman hierarchy, a dominion in the church of Christ such as the Scriptures never sanctioned, and Christ himself forbade. The Papacy, as a power among the kingdoms of earth, was erected in the sixth century; but we shall greatly mistake if we think it arose so late as that. Paul, speaking of the “falling away” and the revealing of the “man of sin,” said, “The mystery of iniquity doth already work.” We must bear in mind that this mystery of iniquity was working in the church; it was by a falling away that the man of sin was developed. Such being the case, is it any credit to any system or doctrine that it found advocates and followers in that age? If we pay proper regard to the warnings of the apostles, and respect to the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith and practice, we should rather avoid quoting the opinions of “the fathers” in favor of any dogma, knowing that they lived in an age of darkness and great confusion. We pass no judgment upon their sincerity of purpose or honesty of intention. But we do affirm that it is not safe to follow every one who, we think, intends well; we must remember their liability to be deceived. We contend for “the Bible and the Bible alone.” Centuries ago this was declared to be “the religion of Protestants.” But alas for the day! Protestants, or those calling themselves by this name, are turning again to the fog of tradition for support, and rejoice when they can find the testimony of the fathers on their side, as if they had found great treasures.

We do not consider it necessary to consume time and space to show why the writings of the fathers have not been preserved as free from corruptions and interpolations as the Holy Scriptures. Reasons, good and sufficient, may be given. We never feel more thankful that we have the Bible, given by inspiration of God, and wonderfully preserved by the providence of God, than when we are reading the writings of the successors of the apostles. They present a labyrinth of contradictions and superstitions, from which we turn to find glad relief in the writings of those who “spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”

“Should all the forms that men devise Assault my faith with treacherous art, I’d call them vanity and lies, And bind the gospel to my heart.”

SHALL I BE THERE?

When upon the “great white throne” Christ shall sit as Judge alone; When the “book of life” is read There before the risen dead, As are turned those pages fair, Shall my name be written there?

When is closed the Judgment day, When this earth has passed away, When the city new shall come, And the saints be gathered home, Shall I in their triumph share? O my Lord, shall I be there?

When the mighty “white-robed” throng Swell the all-triumphant song,— Glory to the “Great I Am,” Glory, glory, to the Lamb, Ringing on the balmy air, Saviour mine, shall I be there?

If I follow Jesus here, If I hold my trust most dear, If I plunge beneath the flood, If I’m washed by Jesus’ blood, If for Christ I do and dare, Yes, my Lord, I shall be there!

—Selected.

WHICH IS THE HEATHEN?

By Milton C. Wilcox

The old dragonic spirit is getting waked up here. A few months ago a gentleman supposed to be of very liberal sentiments religiously forbade Mr. B., a Sabbath-keeper, the privilege of crossing a field of his on Sunday, under penalty of prosecution and not being allowed to cross at other times. Mr. B. was about his legitimate business, that of drawing logs to a saw-mill. The road running through the field is used as a public highway, and the field in question is out of sight of any inhabited dwelling. His route ran near no house where he could disturb the inmates, nor within four miles of any place of worship on that day. The parties have always been on good terms heretofore. The only excuse the gentleman offered was that “it was heathenish to work on the Sabbath” (?) where people could see you (he can go hunting though).

Now the definitions of heathen are: “An idolater; a pagan; a worshiper of false gods.” David, by inspiration, says: “For all the gods of the nations are idols; but the Lord made the heavens.” Ps. 96:5. Yes; the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and gave us his holy Sabbath as a memorial of his creative work, and that we might know his true character. (Eze. 20:12, 20.) We are commanded to “keep it holy;” we are told that “the seventh day is the Sabbath.” The Lord never revoked this command. His Son never changed it. (Matt. 5:17, 18.) He never commanded us to keep any other day. On the contrary, he has commanded us to labor six days, and I do not see why this part of the commandment is not just as binding as any of it.

On the other hand, the first-day institution was set up by a corrupt nation and a more corrupt church. The first command for first-day observance was given A. D. 321, by Constantine, a heathen emperor. An institution begotten by Paganism, brought up by Popery, and exalted and enthroned by Protestantism, is the rival of the Lord’s Sabbath! See how opposite are the commands:—

The Lord says, “The seventh [day] is the Sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord.” Ex. 31:15. Paganism says, Abstain from labor on “the venerable day of the sun.”

The Lord speaks of the Sabbath as “my holy day.” Isa. 58:13. Papacy says, The first day is the Lord’s day.

The Lord says: “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. ... The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.” Ex. 20:8–10. Protestantism says, The first day of the week is the Christian Sabbath, the Lord’s day.

Which will we believe? Whom will we obey? Says the apostle Paul, “Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey?” Rom. 6:16. Who is the heathen? MILTON C. WILCOX.

Oxbow, N. Y.

“FEARFUL TO CONTEMPLATE.”

THIRTY-THREE estimates, carefully compiled, from different parts of the United States, and all brought to harmonize, show the following startling facts:—

There is drank each year, in our government, 561,600,000 gallons of ardent spirits, which, at manufacturing prices, cost the consumers the round sum of $3,841,264,000.

It kills 164,062 persons each year, whose days are each shortened ten years, making a total of 1,640,620 years of time; put at $50 per year, this makes 82,031,000.

There are 1,523,662 regular or moderate dram drinkers, who lose one-third of their time drinking, and preparing for the drunkard’s grave, which is equal to 100 days to each man in the year, put at 50c. per day, this makes 76,183,100.

The total amount of crime costs the government annually $32,528,437, three-fourths of which is caused by ardent spirits, 24,396,328.

Add cost of pauperism, both public and private, caused by this evil, 21,375,000.

$4,045,249,428

This amount in one-dollar greenback bills, laid lengthwise (one touching another), would make a line 453,776 miles long. To count this amount at the rate of one dollar per second (eight hours in a day) would require 384 years of time, about eleven average lifetimes. And all this enormous tax for what? To degrade mankind, and hurry them off to the drunkard’s grave and the drunkard’s hell. This vast sum, if turned in a proper direction, would educate, clothe, feed, and provide a home for every poor orphan in the land; would build up every institution of learning necessary; pay off every pastor; build every church house needed; and in a short time send the gospel to earth’s remotest bounds; and no one harmed or hurried off to hell by it. Oh, how merciful and forbearing is the Almighty!

Now let some brother or sister, who is not held in bondage by “tobacco,” come out and show us the figures on that question.—Texas Baptist.

THE LAW OF GOD, AS RELATED TO BOTH THE OLD AND THE NEW COVENANT.

By C. A. Russell

That the old covenant was not the ten commandments, but an agreement between the Lord and the people respecting them, is clearly established by the concurrent testimony of Moses and Paul.

In Ex. 19:5, 6, the Lord, through Moses, addressed the people thus: “Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people.” “And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation.” Moses bore the message to the people, and in the eighth verse their answer is given: “All that the Lord hath spoken we will do.”

As recorded in chap. 24:5–8, the people twice renewed their promise to obey the words of the Lord. Moses wrote their words in a book, called the book of the covenant. This solemn covenant was then dedicated with blood, when Moses said (verse 8), “Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words.” What words are referred to? The words of the ten commandments. To prove this we have only to read in connection Ex. 19:5: “Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant,” and Deut. 4:13: “And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.”

Now notice that the covenant was made between the Lord and the people, and concerning the ten commandments, as is clearly shown by the above scriptures. Then it is certain that the ten commandments are one thing, and that the covenant, which was made concerning them, is a separate and distinct instrument. But we are not left to our own deductions in this matter, though the case is a plain one; for the apostle Paul has given an inspired commentary on this very point. In Heb. 9:18–20 he refers to the acts of Moses recorded in Ex. 24, and declares that that was the dedication of the first covenant. The words covenant and testament are used interchangeably, as will be seen by reading Heb. 8 and 9.

Once when discussing this subject with a member of the Disciple church, an illustration came to my mind which silenced my opponent. I said, We will suppose that a wealthy gentleman decides to build a house. He carefully draws up a design, and contracts with certain mechanics to build the house according to that design, and for doing this, he agrees to pay a stipulated price. The contract is put in writing and sealed, and the workmen commence. They have not proceeded far, however, before the gentleman discovers that they are not fulfilling his design. He expostulates with them. They promise to do better; but he becomes satisfied that they are not doing their work according to the plan, and he declares the contract forfeited, and discharges them. Now does the failure on the part of the workmen obliterate the gentleman’s design, so that he thenceforth gives it up? Rather does not the fact of his discharging those men show that it is still uppermost in his mind, and that he will accept nothing but a strict compliance with it?

We will suppose that this gentleman has an only son who possesses a generous and sympathetic heart, and who is in perfect accord with his father. He deeply pities those men, who have failed to secure the reward they so much need. He approaches his father and says, “I have decided to undertake to help those men, if you will accept my mediation. I propose to go and personally assist them. I will instruct, and work with them; and by the great sacrifice that I will make for them, will so endear them to me, that they will be successful in their second attempt. I will superintend the work, and through my influence it shall be done.”

In the above illustration, the design of the gentleman of course represents the law of God; the contract between him and the workmen, the old covenant, which the Lord made with the people concerning his law; and the generous-hearted son very feebly represents our adorable Redeemer.

The prophet Isaiah said of Christ, “He shall magnify the law, and make it honorable,” chap. 42:21; and, true to the divine prediction, we hear him, immediately after commencing his ministry, teaching that the law relates not simply to the outward actions, but also to the motives; thus showing that in order to be fully kept, its principles must be implanted in the heart.

Now let us read the promise of the new covenant, in connection with certain other scriptures bearing upon this point. In Jer. 31:31 we read: “Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah.” Verse 33: “But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel: After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.”

Thus we see that in his second attempt for the good of his people, the Lord makes his law the basis. It must be put into their hearts, in order that he may be their God, and that they may be his people. And mark: this is the manner in which the new covenant is made. It was instituted by Christ, and ratified by the shedding of his blood. Matt. 26:28: “For this is my blood of the new testament [covenant], which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (transgressions of the law; 1 John 3:4). “For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” Rom. 8:3, 4.

We are plainly told in the above scripture that the object of Christ’s mission to this world was that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us. Man, having inherited a sinful nature, and having indulged in sin, was incapacitated to keep the law of God; hence it could only condemn him. In this sense it was weak through the flesh.

Now we are prepared to ask, How is a person inducted into the new covenant? and what is conversion?

To the first question the answer has already been foreshadowed. It is the receiving of the law of God into the heart, and by faith in Christ, and through the assistance of his grace, fulfilling its righteousness by carrying out its principles in our lives. And when this is accomplished, the work of conversion is also. Hence they are identical.

Under the new covenant, which covenant was ratified by the death of Christ, the law of God is put into the hearts of his people. No event that could have been instituted by Heaven could so affect the heart of fallen man as the vicarious death of the Son of God. Christ dying for us! “Oh, for this love, let rocks and hills their lasting silence break!” All, whose hearts are touched with his love will try to walk as He walked who kept his Father’s commandments,

and such shall at last “have right to the tree of life, and enter in through the gates into the city.”

In view of the above facts, how glaringly false is the position of those who teach the abrogation of the moral law under the gospel. Rom. 3:31. This doctrine subverts the gospel, which undertakes to save men from sin instead of in sin. Matt. 1:21. It is as far from the truth as the earth is beneath the heavens.

In conclusion I would say, lest we be misunderstood, that we do not believe a person can be saved by any meritorious works of his own, but only through the merits of Christ; for we are all under sin. Neither can we be saved when we knowingly commit sin. C. A. Russell.

BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU SAY.

In speaking of a person's faults, Pray don't forget your own. Remember those with home of glass Should seldom cast a stone. If we have nothing else to do But talk of those who sin, 'Tis better we commence at home, Than from that point begin.

We have no right to judge a man, Until he's fairly tried; Should we not like his company, We know the world is wide. Some may have faults, and who has not? The old as well as young; Perhaps we may, for aught we know, Have fifty to their one.

I'll tell you of a better plan, I find it works full well. To try my own defects to cure Ere I of others tell: And though I sometimes hope to be No worse than some I know, My own shortcomings bid me let The faults of others go.

Then let us all when we commence To slander friend or foe Think of the harm one word may do To those we little know. Remember curses, sometimes, like Our chickens, “roost at home;” Don't speak of others' faults until You have none of your own.

—Selected.

SHOULD PARENTS ATTEND THE SABBATH-SCHOOL?

By J. O. Corliss

We say, Yes, by all means; and for important reasons: 1. Because the influence is better on the children, as they usually love the Sabbath-school and the truths it inculcates in the same degree that their parents do. 2. The parents, by studying the truth through this medium, become more firmly established in it, and better prepared for usefulness in the family and in society. Children look to their parents for examples, as they should do; and if the parents pass this important branch of education by as of little consequence, they need not be surprised to very soon find their children regarding it in the same light. If, on the other hand, the parents manifest an interest in the Sabbath-school, and labor for its prosperity, they may be rejoiced to see the children following in their footsteps.

Some have regarded the Sabbath-school as a place for children alone to receive religious training, hence have clothed and sent them there, taking but very little, if any, interest in the lessons to be learned, much less in teaching them to their children; and they have then persuaded themselves that their duty in this direction was done. The result of such a course is painfully evident. The lessons are not learned, the school becomes uninteresting, and the children gladly seek an excuse to absent themselves from it. Finally, at an early age they graduate; one step after another in the wrong direction is taken; they are soon beyond the influence of their parents and of the church, and are lost to the cause of God.

Do you ask, What more can I do for my children relative to the Sabbath-school? We answer, Take such an interest in the school as will lead you, not only to be there every Sabbath with your children, but to have your lesson thoroughly learned. As your interest in the lessons increases, you will see a decided improvement in the school; the children will learn to love it and will grow up in the truth, and you will have the satisfaction of seeing them gathered into the church and become fitted for a home in the kingdom of God.

When parents shall see the importance of this work, and take hold of it in earnest, the children will readily drink into the same spirit; and while engaged in preparing their lessons each week, they will look forward to the approaching Sabbath-school with delight. It will add to their interest, if, when Sabbath morning comes, and all are ready for the Sabbath-school, the family is called together, and each rehearses the lesson for the last time before going to the class.

Such a course would not only be pleasant and profitable to the children, but of advantage to many parents who would not otherwise study the word of God. Their minds can be drawn away from worldly cares to the great themes of the Bible, and thus in a measure they can be preserved in faithfulness to the duties God has enjoined upon them. Then for their own good, as well as their children's, it is essential that parents attend the Sabbath-school.

J. O. CORLISS.

KANSAS CONFERENCE.

By J. N. Ayers; Smith Sharp

The fourth annual session of the Kansas Conference of S. D. Adventists convened at Neosho Falls, Kansas, May 22, 1878. President in the chair. Prayer by Bro. Lamont. Sixteen delegates were present with credentials, representing twelve churches. Bro. Thomas Gibbs, from Rock Creek, and Bro. Yates, from Eureka, were admitted from their respective churches.

Elds. Butler and Farnsworth were invited to participate in all the deliberations, and also all other brethren in good standing in any S. D. A. church. The president was authorized to appoint the usual committees.

At the request of Bro. Stevens, the church at Marsh Creek was admitted. The churches at Otter Creek, Independence, Hanover, and Hymer were admitted into the Conference.

It being ascertained that this Conference had never adopted a constitution since the dissolution of the Kansas and Missouri Conference, the constitution recommended by the General Conference was read and adopted.

The president appointed the following committees: On Nominations, J. A. Ashbaugh, J. P. Henderson, J. M. Adams; On Credentials, Jacob Yates, M. J. Pearce, J. M. Stansbury; On Auditing, Wm. Dail, J. D. Rockey, A. J. Miller, R. H. Brock, O. S. Stevens, Henry Dickson; On Resolutions, C. F. Stevens, G. H. Rogers, J. S. Thorp.

Adjourned to call of chair.

SECOND SESSION.

Conference called at 5 P. M., May 24, 1878. Prayer by Bro. Dawson.

Bro. A. J. Stover, of Oswego, and John Gibbs, of Rock Creek, presented credentials from their churches and were admitted. The churches at Cherokee and Amity were admitted. The unorganized companies at Great Bend, Barton Co., Morton, Cherokee Co., and Tabor, Clay Co., were taken under the watchcare of the Conference.

The Committee on Nominations reported as follows: President, J. N. Ayers, Garnett, Kan.; Secretary, Smith Sharp, Ottawa; Treasurer, A. J. Stover, Oswego; Executive Committee, J. N. Ayers, J. H. Cook, and C. F. Stevens.

Each nominee was voted upon separately, whereupon all were unanimously elected.

The Committee on Credentials and Licenses reported as follows: For credentials, J. N. Ayers, J. H. Cook, C. F. Stevens, J. Lamont, and Smith Sharp. For licenses, J. D. Santee, Geo. Kennedy, J. S. Thorp, J. W. Bagby, John Gibbs, B. F. Truex, W. E. Dawson, G. H. Rogers, and J. P. Henderson.

All licenses and credentials were granted as recommended, except that the case of B. F. Truex was referred to the Executive Committee.

Adjourned to call of chair.

THIRD SESSION.

Conference convened Sunday, May 26, at 4 P. M. Isaac Palmer admitted to represent Zion church.

Voted, That the deficiency of money for paying the ministers be raised by donation, and that a committee of two be appointed to solicit donations.

The treasurer reported as follows:—

On hand at commencement of year, $0.00 Received from S. B., 1884.88 “ on tent fund, 55.50 Total, $1940.38 Paid out on orders to ministers, $1853.55 Tent fund, 25.90 Total, $1879.75 Cash on hand to balance, $60.93

A. J. Stover, Treas. Kan. Conf. J. S. Thorp and A. G. Miller were appointed to audit the account of the treasurer.

Calls for labor were made by the several delegates. The name of the Elk Falls church was changed to Bloomfield.

Voted, That we hold a general meeting in the fall; time, place, and securing of labor from the General Conference to be left to our Conference Committee.

Adjourned to call of chair.

FOURTH SESSION.

Conference called, Monday, May 27, at 5 P. M. Reports of the churches showed the following: No. of churches reported, 23; No. of members reported, 536. Amount of S. B. pledged, $1,350.00.

Several of the reports show that the churches have pledged one-tenth of their increase, so it is difficult to ascertain how much S. B. can be depended upon.

The committee to audit the treasurer’s report reported that they found it correct except a deficiency of $1.50 S. B. from Conola church. Treasurer’s report accepted.

It was voted that a license be granted to Marshall Enoch.

Bro. N. W. Vincent, State colporteur, reported as follows: No. of subscribers obtained on periodicals, 243; Annuals sold and distributed, 20; tracts distributed, pages, 32,000, also a few books and pamphlets. Preached and lectured thirty-three times.

The president, after being duly authorized, appointed the following Camp-meeting Committee: C. S. Glover, A. G. Miller, and J. A. Ashbaugh.

Remarks on the duty of ministers and licentiates were made by Bro. Butler and Farnsworth. The following resolution was adopted:—

Resolved, That we express our thanks to the General Conference for the efficient help they have sent us at this camp-meeting.

Voted, That a copy of these minutes be sent to the REVIEW for publication.

Adjourned. J. N. AYERS, Pres. Smith Sharp, Sec.

A REMINISCENCE.

By J. S. M.

THE first Seventh-day Adventist I ever saw lived in Washington county, R. I. Some one (he never knew who) sent him a few numbers of the REVIEW. This was about twenty-five years ago. He was pleased with it and subscribed for it, taking it ever after until his death. For many years he was the only Seventh-day Adventist in Washington county, but he lived to see three churches raised up within a few miles of him, and to see other members of his own family brought into the faith. The last act of his life was to attend a Seventh-day Adventist meeting, and he was drowned while on his way home.

Should the person who sent him the REVIEW ever get into the kingdom, and there meet old Bro. Holloway, will it not be reward enough? The fields are white for the harvest, but where are the laborers? We cannot all be lecturers, we cannot all fill responsible positions; but we can all send a paper to some one who may be benefited. J. S. M.

Continue reading: THE WORSHIP OF IMAGES