Earlier text: General ArticlesBAPTISM IN THE FIRST CENTURIES.
By James White
If the example of the church in the first centuries is of any weight or importance as indicating our duty in regard to baptism, it can only be because they preserved it in purity. For if they did not preserve it pure—if they perverted and corrupted it—then their example should be avoided and not followed. We shall now give abundant reasons for not only distrusting the acknowledged teachers and leaders of the early centuries, but for turning away from them with feelings of pity for their blindness and folly, if, indeed, we are not led to indulge stronger feelings than those of pity. Bingham gives the various titles which were given to baptism, going back as early as Tertullian. It was called "absolution," for an evident reason; "regeneration of the soul;" "illumination," because it was supposed to impart a knowledge of divine things to the understanding; "salvation," because it was supposed to be necessary to salvation and to insure it; "the sign of God," "character Dominicus," because the character of the Lord was supposed to be imparted to the subject! "It was a saying that baptism washes away all sins." It was for this reason that Constantine, for thirteen years after he professed Christianity, refused to be baptized, only requesting it on his death-bed, thus to make sure that his sins might all go together, as if to "compound his felonies" with Heaven! It was considered useful for physical as well as spiritual disorders, as a cure for diseases. Bingham relates that those who had no interest in Christianity themselves used to carry their infants to the bishops for baptism, in order to preserve them from diseases. It is said of Novatus, "From a hope of recovering his health he professed Christianity." "He was baptized in his bed when apparently about to die." Such were the views of baptism in the second, third, and fourth centuries. Connected with it, and as necessary to the full performance of baptism as "trine immersion," was the "renunciation." And Bingham says, "The antiquity of this renunciation is evidenced from all the writers that have said anything of baptism." If antiquity gives authority or makes it apostolical, then this ceremony must be accepted! Bingham gives Dionysius as his authority, thus:— "In another place he thus describes the whole ceremony: The priest makes the person to be baptized to stand with his hands stretched out toward the west, and striking them together (the original denotes collision, or striking them together by way of abhorrence); then he bids him thrice exsufflate, or spit, in defiance of Satan; afterwards, thrice repeating the solemn words of renunciation, he bids him thrice renounce him in that form; then he turns him about toward the east, and with his hands and eyes lift up to Heaven, bids him enter into covenant with Christ. Vicecomes thinks this triple renunciation was made, either because there were three things which men renounced in their baptism, the devil, his pomps, and the world; or to signify the three persons of the Trinity, by whom they were adopted as sons upon their renouncing Satan."—Book 11, chap. 7, § 3 and 5. Section 4 says, "It was accompanied with some other ceremonies." Then there were the unction, signing with the cross, and the consecration of the water. "The bishop begins the unction by thrice signing him with the sign of the cross, and then commits him to the priests to be anointed all over the body, whilst he goes and consecrates the water in the font."—Id. "The unction of confirmation, which was then usually the conclusion of baptism, both in adult persons and infants; and many of the passages which speak of the sign of the cross in baptism do plainly relate to this as an appendage of baptism, and closely joined to it, as the last ceremony and consummation of it."—Book 11, chap. 7, § 4. And § 3 says, "The water of baptism was signed with the sign of the cross." There is no doubt that the ceremony of consecrating and crossing the water had much to do in building up the idea of the wondrous effects of the water of baptism, both physically and spiritually. Thus Chrysostom said:— "They who approach the baptismal font are not only made clean from all wickedness, but holy and also just. Although a man should be foul with every human vice, the blackest that can be named, yet should he fall into the baptismal pool, he ascends from the baptismal waters purer than the beams of noon." See Coleman, Ancient Chris. Exemplified, pp. 368, 369. There was a regenerating and saving power ascribed to the consecrated waters. Neander says:— "Chrysostom specifies ten different effects of grace wrought in baptism; and then he complains of those who make the grace of baptism consist simply in the forgiveness of sin."—Vol. 2, p. 665. This superstition of consecrating and crossing the water, dates as early as the age of Tertullian. Of its efficacy he thus speaks:— "All waters, therefore, in virtue of the pristine privilege of their origin, do, after invocation of God, attain the sacramental power of sanctification; for the Spirit immediately supervenes from the heavens, and rests over the waters, sanctifying them from himself; and being thus sanctified, they imbibe at the same time the power of sanctifying."—Tertullian on Baptism, chap. 6. This mass of nonsensical mockery is traced to the second century, almost to the very time of the apostles! Tertullian mentions, also, sponsors in baptism and penance for sins after baptism. He is the first writer who mentions them, and also some other errors; but his mention proves that such customs existed in Africa in his day. We have said that Tertullian first mentions sprinkling for baptism, and quoted from him wherein he relates that the candidate was both immersed and sprinkled. There seems to be no doubt that sprinkling was first introduced, with many other things herein related, as an addition to baptism, and not altogether as a substitute for it. This is confirmed by the ritual of the Armenians, which required that the candidate be both sprinkled and immersed. But such additions or appendages soon supplant the original, as man, in the pride of his heart, ever tries to introduce his own institutions as an improvement of the Lord's plan. The following words of Tertullian do clearly show that in his day, sprinkling was considered sufficient to fulfill the act of baptism. They are concerning a controversy as to whether the apostles were baptized by other than John's baptism. He says:— "Others make the suggestion—forced enough, clearly—that the apostles then served the turn of baptism when, in their little ship, they were sprinkled and covered with the waves; that Peter himself also was immersed enough when he walked on the sea.' It is, however, as I think, one thing to be sprinkled or intercepted by the violence of the sea; another thing to be baptized in obedience to the discipline of religion. . . Now whether they were baptized in any manner whatever, or whether they continued unbathed to the end," etc.—Tertullian on Baptism, chap. 2. Reading these remarks, we must bear in mind that Tertullian does not speak against sprinkling itself, but against the occasion referred to, as not being in "the discipline of religion." For he elsewhere shows that sprinkling was then practiced in baptism, and his words, "baptized in any manner whatever," show that one particular manner was not then deemed essential. Also in his book on Repentance, chap. 6, urging a genuine repentance, he says:— "For who will grant to you, a man of so faithless repentance, one single sprinkling of any water whatever?" The prevalence of infant baptism at this early day cannot be fairly questioned. The historical evidence on this point is very full and explicit. Tertullian himself did not favor the baptism of infants, not because he did not regard the ordinance in the same light in which it was regarded by others, but he held the view which afterward influenced Constantine. However, where death was to be apprehended, he thought they ought to be baptized. Bingham just draws a conclusion from Tertullian's opposition to it, thus:— "Of his own private opinion he was for deferring the baptism of infants, especially where there was no danger of death, till they came to years of discretion; but be so argued for this, as to show us that the practice of the church was otherwise."—Book 11, chap. 4, § 10. We should not overlook this important fact, right here, that, though the words of Tertullian prove the practice of infant baptism, they equally prove that he did not consider it of authority higher than tradition. Had he believed that it was in accordance with a Scripture commandment, he certainly would not have argued against it. We think there is no room to doubt that "the practice of the church" in the second century, especially in Africa, the home of Tertullian, was to baptize infants. Cyprian argues in its behalf thus, in his letter to Titus:— "Who comes for that reason more easily to receive forgiveness of sins, because they are not his own but other men's sins, that are forgiven him."—Id., § 12. This unscriptural idea, well worthy of the darkness and superstition of the age in which it originated, is held to this very day by Protestant churches which practice infant baptism. Origen also uses this custom as an argument for the sinfulness of infants! A stronger evidence that the custom prevailed could not be required. Bingham quotes Origen's views on this point, and remarks as follows:— "It may be inquired, What is the reason why the baptism of the church, which is given for the remission of sins, is, by the custom of the church, given to infants also? Whereas if there were nothing in infants that wanted remission and indulgence, the grace of baptism might seem needless to them. . . Infants are baptized for the forgiveness of sins.' . . He affirms, that the church received the order of baptizing infants from the apostles."—Book 11, chap. 4, § 11. Cyprian and his colleagues in council decided that infants might be baptized as soon as born, lest they should die without baptism. Cyprian's own words in defense of this are these:— "As far as we can, we must strive that, if possible, no soul be lost."—Cyprian, vol. 1, p. 198. This shows that it was the belief in that early age that unbaptized infants were lost. And all this they professed to derive from the teachings of Christ and his apostles! With infant baptism came infant communion. The Greek Church, that pattern of Christian faith and practice in the eyes of trine immersionists, yet retains both these rites handed down from early fathers. St. Augustine, and others whose evidence is relied upon to prove the validity of three immersions, advocated infant communion. Dr. Schaff calls it "the incongruous system of infant communion, which seemed to follow from infant baptism." It naturally followed infant baptism, and accompanied it in the practice of the whole church for about six hundred or seven hundred years. By the whole church, we mean all embraced in the communion of Rome But it is no more incongruous, no more unscriptural, than infant baptism. And this was ancient as well as general. Quoting from Cyprian, Bingham says:— "Here we may observe that children were made partakers of the eucharist (which Cyprian calls the meat and drink of the Lord); and this is evident from other passages of the same author; which is a further evidence for the practice of infant baptism; for it is certain that none but baptized persons were allowed to partake of the eucharist at the Lord's table."—Antiquities, book 11, chap. 4, § 12. Dr. Schaff seems to think it had the strongest hold among the North African churches. It is highly probable that it took its earliest hold there; but the evidence clearly shows that it became as general as infant baptism or three immersions, or three aspersions; for it is true that three sprinklings or three pourings were admitted, as well as three immersions. The reader will readily agree with us that this is enough on this subject. The early church, even in the second century, did not retain baptism in the purity of the gospel. They connected with it an almost inconceivable number of rites, some of them of the most ridiculous form and nature. Therefore it is beyond all question true that we do not safely appeal to them for the true practice—the gospel form, and apostolic practice of baptism. Six Requisites for a Happy Home
Six things are requisite to build a happy home: Industry must be the architect; tidiness the upholsterer; it must be warmed by affection; lighted with cheerfulness; and industry must be the ventilator, renewing the atmosphere and bringing in fresh salubrity day by day; while over all as a protecting canopy and glory nothing will suffice but the blessing of God. LITHOBOLIA; OR, THE STONE-THROWING DEVIL.
THE above is the title of a tract, the first edition of which is exceedingly rare. I find this tract or pamphlet in a private library, not surpassed by any other in the country in the department of American history. The word "Lithobolia" is derived from two Greek words which mean "the casting or throwing of stones." This remarkable pamphlet professes to contain "An exact and true account (by way of Journal) of the various actions of infernal spirits, or witches (devils incarnate), or both; and the great disturbance and amazement they gave to George Walton's family at a place called Great Island, in New Hampshire, in New England, chiefly in throwing about (by an invisible hand) stones, bricks, and brickbats of all sizes, with several other domestic utensils as came into their hellish minds, and this for the space of a quarter of a year. The tract was published originally in London in 1698, and was reprinted in the Historical Magazine, New York, in 1861. "The contents of this pamphlet," says Hon. J. R. Bartlett, "possess an interest from the fact that they are so much in accordance with the manifestations of modern spiritualism. The events recorded in the work are stated to have been known to the inhabitants of the Province, and are upon record in his Majesty's Council Court." Among the persons who were eye-witnesses to the strange things stated to have taken place are, "Samuel Jennings, Governor of West Jersey; Walter Clark, Deputy Governor of Rhode Island; and Math. Borden, of Rhode Island." The facts recorded are, in brief, as follows: An elderly woman who considered herself as having been wronged by a neighbor in a business transaction declared that he should never quietly enjoy the piece of ground unjustly taken from her by his trickery. This woman, in accordance with notions of the age in which she lived, was believed to be a witch. A gentleman who was the guest of Mr. Walton, the unjust neighbor as was claimed, relates, apparently with the utmost confidence in the truth of that about which he gives his testimony, what he declares fell under his own eye. One Sunday night stones were heard to be violently thrown against the house by some person or persons unknown. Previous to this a fence-gate had been wrung from its hinges and violently dashed to the ground, and a fierce assault with stones had been made upon the family by unseen hands. On the Sunday night referred to, although the most diligent search was made for the person or persons throwing the stones, no one could be found, and the conclusion of Mr. Walton's guest was that the hurling of the stones must have been caused by means extraordinary and preter-natural. So violent was the force of the missiles that windows were broken, and even the bars and the hasps of the casements were snapped asunder. The pewter and brass vessels were pelted. Two candlesticks and a large pewter pot were knocked off the table on which they were standing. Some of the stones, on being taken up, were found to be hot, as though they had recently come out of the fire. The throwing of the stones, on the occasion of which we are speaking, continued for four hours, when the gentleman, weary with the excitement and the fatigue, went to bed, but in a short time was awakened by a fearful rattle against the partition of the chamber in which he slept. Not only stones, but a brick was hurled against the door and partition. After a time the wicked spirit or spirits who were supposed to be engaged in this malicious business retired, and coveted sleep came to the disturbed watcher. On comparing notes the next morning with the members of the family, strange stories were related by them. Several of the domestics had seen the spit which stood in the corner of the chimney vanish, then return, and then fly out of the window. A great stone, weighing over eight pounds, which was thrown into the window of the room in which the guest had slept, had been removed below, and subsequently carried back to the chamber, placed on the table, and on retiring from the room its occupant locked his door. Shortly after, the same stone was found in an antechamber, to which it could not possibly have been carried by human hands. During the day, stones of all sorts and sizes were flying about in various directions, to the great peril of life and limb to parties whom they came very near hitting. In the evening, while the gentleman relating these singular circumstances was playing upon a musical instrument, the door being opened for air, "a good big stone," as he soberly assures his readers, "came rumbling in, and as it were to lead in the dance, upon a much different account than in the days of old, and of old fabulous enchantments, my musick," he adds, very quaintly, "being none of the best." All through the week the same wonderful phenomena continued to occur. But the malicious demon seems to have reserved Sunday and Monday for the bolder perpetration of his diabolical tricks. The Sunday night following the one referred to, among other interesting performances, he, or they—for it was impossible to tell whether there was one, or whether there were many—threw two stones, about thirty pounds weight each, against the door and wall of the chamber where the guest was lodged. Whole bricks and parts of bricks were also used for this pleasant pastime. The next night, Monday, the experience was still more striking, literally so, for the gentleman referred to, going into the kitchen to watch the "goings on" there, was hit by some twenty or thirty stones, some of them "thumping him pretty severely," while some, even great ones, as if the considerate devil did not desire to vent his spite upon the innocent stranger, fell so lightly on different parts of his person as to do him no harm. A few days after, the wicked spirit did not prove himself so kind, for poor Mr. Walton, the object of his special wrath, was hit by stones thrown by invisible hands above forty times, some of them striking so hard that he did not get over the effects of the blows to his dying day. Notwithstanding his malice, the spiteful devil seemed to have a spice of fun in his nature, for one night the cocks of hay, made the day before in the orchard, were scattered in every direction, and some of the hay thrown up into the trees. A "form" that stood in the entry was set along by the fireside, and a joint stood upon that with a napkin spread thereon, with two pewter pots and two candlesticks. Thus things went on for weeks. At last, however, the end of this prank-playing came, and the demon departed to some unknown region. The writer of the narrative in closing says: "Who that pursues these preternatural occurrences, can possibly be so much an enemy to his own soul, and to irrefutable reason, as obstinately to oppose himself to, or confusedly fluctuate in the opinion and doctrine of demons, or spirits, or witches? Certainly he that does so must do two things more: He must tenaciously unhinge or undermine the fundamentals of the best religion in the world; and he must disingenuously quit and abandon that of the three theological virtues or graces to which the great Doctor of the Gentiles gave the precedence—charity, through his unchristian and uncharitable incredulity.—Rev. J. C. Stockbridge, D. D., in Christian at Work. CHRIST'S DISCIPLES BAPTIZE.
By Ellen G. White
"WHEN therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John (though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples), he left Judea, and departed again into Galilee." The prejudice of the Jews was aroused because the disciples of Jesus did not use the exact words of John in the rite of baptism. John baptized unto repentance, but the disciples of Jesus, on profession of the faith, baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The teachings of John were in perfect harmony with those of Jesus, yet his disciples became jealous for fear his influence was diminishing. A dispute arose between them and the disciples of Jesus in regard to the form of words proper to use at baptism, and finally as to the right of the latter to baptize at all. John's disciples came to him with their grievances, saying, "Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him." John stood in a dangerous position; had he justified the jealousy of his disciples by a word of sympathy or encouragement in their murmurings, a serious division would have been created. But the noble and unselfish spirit of the prophet shone forth in his answer to his followers:— "A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from Heaven. Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but that I am sent before him. He that hath the bride is the bridegroom; but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice; this my joy therefore is fulfilled. He must increase, but I must decrease." Had John manifested disappointment or grief at being superseded by Jesus; had he allowed his sympathies to be aroused in his own favor, when he perceived that his power over the people was waning; had he for a moment lost sight of his mission in this hour of temptation, the result would have been disastrous to the establishment of the Christian church. The seeds of dissension would have been sown, anarchy would have sprung up, and the cause of God would have languished for want of proper workers. But John, irrespective of personal interest, stood up in defense of Jesus, testifying to his superiority as the Promised One of Israel, whose way he had come to prepare. He identified himself fully with the cause of Christ, and declared that his greatest joy was in its success. Then, rising above all worldly considerations, he gave this remarkable testimony—almost the counterpart of that which Jesus had given to Nicodemus in their secret interview:— "He that cometh from above is above all; he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth; that he cometh from Heaven is above all. And what he hath seen and heard, that he testifieth; and no man receiveth his testimony. He that hath received his testimony hath set to his seal that God is true. For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God; for God giveth the Spirit by measure unto him. The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand. He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; and he believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." What a sermon this was to the Pharisees, clearing the way for the ministry of Christ. The same spirit that actuated Jesus, controlled the mind of John the Baptist. Their testimony corresponded; their lives were given to the same reformatory work. The prophet points to the Saviour as the Sun of Righteousness rising with splendor, and soon to eclipse his own light, then growing pale and dim in the glory of a greater light. John, by his unselfish joy in the successful ministry of Jesus, presents to the world the truest type of nobility ever exhibited by mortal man. It carries a lesson of submission and self-sacrifice to those whom God has placed in responsible positions. It teaches them never to appropriate to themselves undue honor, nor let the spirit of rivalry disgrace the cause of God. The true Christian should vindicate the right at the expense of all personal considerations. The news that had been carried to John concerning the success of Jesus, was also borne to Jerusalem, and there created against him jealousy, envy, and hatred. Jesus knew the hard hearts and darkened minds of the Pharisees, and that they would spare no pains to create a division between his own disciples and those of John that would greatly injure the work, so he quietly ceased to baptize and withdrew to Galilee. He knew that the storm was gathering which was soon to sweep away the noblest prophet God had ever given to the world. He wished to avoid all division of feeling in the great work before him, and, for the time, removed from that region for the purpose of allaying all excitement detrimental to the cause of God. Here is a lesson to the followers of Christ, that they should take every proper precaution to avoid disagreement; for in every division of interest, resulting in disputation and unhappy differences in the church, souls are lost that might have been saved in the kingdom of Heaven. In the occurrence of a religious crisis, leading men who profess to be God's instruments should follow the example of the great Master and that of the noble prophet John. They should stand firm and united in defense of the truth, while they carefully labor to avoid all injurious dissensions.—Great Controversy, Vol. 2. Seven Years of Sunday-School Attendance
A DELAWARE Superintendent gives a noteworthy example of regular attendance at Sunday-school. He says: "In the Sunday-school of which I am Superintendent, there is a little girl fourteen years old, who has attended promptly every Sunday for seven years, with only two exceptions, one of which was on account of sickness, and the other was absence from town, and on that Sunday she attended a Sunday-school in the city where she visited. So that, really, she has only been absent from Sunday-school one Sunday in seven years." DEFINITE TIME HIDDEN.
By James White
THE definite time of the second advent of Christ is purposely hidden from man. "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of Heaven; but my Father only." Many hastily conclude from this text that nothing whatever may be ascertained relative to the period of the second advent. But, in taking this position, they greatly err, in that they make this class of texts prove too much, even for their unbelief, and which at the same time arrays these declarations against others uttered by the Saviour, the most plain and pointed. We object to this position. 1. Because our Lord, after stating that the sun should be darkened, and that the moon should not give her light, and that the stars should fall from Heaven, gives the following forcible parable, and makes the most distinct application of it to this subject. He says: "Now learn a parable of the fig-tree; when his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh. So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors." Matt. 24:32, 33. No figure should exceed the fact illustrated in a single particular. This being the case in the parable of the fig-tree, the point becomes an exceedingly clear one. No language can be more direct. No proof can be more complete. With all that certainty with which we know that summer is nigh when we see the buds and the leaves shoot forth from the trees in spring, we may know that Christ is at the doors. The most daring unbelief will hardly venture to deny these words of the Son of God, and assert that nothing can be known of the period of his second coming. 2. Because our Lord declares that as the days of Noah were, so should also the coming of the Son of man be. Said God to Noah, "My Spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh; yet his days shall be a hundred and twenty years." Gen. 6:3. The period of the flood was given to the patriarch. And under the direct providence of God, he prepared the ark and warned the people. So the fulfilling prophecies and the signs distinctly declare that the second coming of Christ is at the doors, and the solemn message of warning has gone forth. 3. Those who claim that the text proves that nothing may be known of the period of the second advent make it prove too much. As recorded by Mark, the declaration reads: "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in Heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." If the text proves that men will know nothing of the period of the second advent, it also proves that angels will know nothing of it, and also that the Son will know nothing of it, till the event takes place! This position proves too much, therefore, proves nothing to the point. Christ will know of the period of his second advent to this world. The holy angels, who wait around the throne of Heaven to receive messages relative to the part they act in the salvation of men, will know of the time of this closing event of salvation. And so will the waiting, watching people of God understand. An old English version of the passage reads, "But that day and hour no man maketh known, neither the angels which are in Heaven, neither the Son, the Father." This is the correct reading, according to several of the ablest critics of the age. The word know is used in the same sense here that it is by Paul, in 1 Cor. 2:2: "For I determined not to know [make known] anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified." Men will not make known the day and hour, angels will not make it known, neither will the Son; but the Father will make it known. Says Campbell, “Macknight argues that the term know is here used as a causative, in the Hebrew sense of the conjugation hiphil, that is to make known. . . . His [Christ's] answer is just equivalent to saying, The Father will make it known when it pleases him; but he has not authorized man, angel, nor the Son, to make it known. Just in this sense Paul uses the term know: 1 Cor. 2:2: ‘I came to you making known the testimony of God; for I determined to make known nothing among you but a crucified Christ.’” Albert Barnes, in his Notes on the Gospel, says, “Others have said that the verb rendered knoweth means sometimes to make known, or to reveal, and that the passage means, ‘that day and hour none maketh known, neither the angels, nor the Son, but the Father.’ It is true the word has sometimes that meaning, as 1 Cor. 2:2.” The Father will make known the time. He gave the period of the flood to Noah, which well represents the proclamation of the second advent, given in connection with the evidence of the termination of the periods of Daniel, during the great second advent movement. And when the patriarch's work of warning and building was finished, God said to him, "Come thou and all thy house into the ark." "For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights." So when the waiting, watching, toiling time shall be finished, and the saints shall all be sealed, and shut in with God, then will the voice of the Father from Heaven make known the definite time. As we look back to the great movement upon the second advent question and its disappointment, and to the numerous efforts to adjust the prophetic periods by many of the first-day Adventists that time, and the numerous disappointments which have followed, we can but feel the force of the words of the prophet: "Son of man, what is that proverb that ye have in the land of Israel, saying, The days are prolonged, and every vision faileth? Tell them therefore, Thus saith the Lord God: I will make this proverb to cease, and they shall no more use it as a proverb in Israel; but say unto them, The days are at hand, and the effect of every vision. For there shall be no more any vain vision nor flattering divination within the house of Israel. For I am the Lord; I will speak, and the word that I shall speak shall come to pass; it shall be no more prolonged; for in your days, O rebellious house, will I say the word, and will perform it, saith the Lord God." Eze. 12:22-25. "I will speak," saith the Lord, "and the word that I shall speak shall come to pass." The voice of God will be heard from on high in the midst of the awful scenes just preceding the second advent. "And the seventh angel poured out his vial into the air; and there came a great voice out of the temple of Heaven, from the throne, saying, It is done." Rev. 16:17. See also Joel 3:16; Jer. 25:30. The burden of the prophecy of Ezekiel, quoted above, evidently is time. "The days are prolonged and every vision faileth." God will make this proverb to cease by speaking himself. In this way the Father will make known the time, a work not given into the hands of men, angels, nor even the Son. The present is emphatically the waiting, watching time. It is the especial period of the patience of the saints. Rev. 14:12. The Lord appeals to us thus: "Watch ye, therefore; for ye know not when the Master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning; lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping. And what I say unto you, I say unto all, Watch." Mark 13:35-37. J. W.