The doctrine of trine immersion, or of three baptisms, has been examined at length in this paper. Our views of its claims are contained in our pamphlet on baptism, which is advertised in this week's SIGNS. We have no confidence in that doctrine. We have carefully examined its historical argument, and find it lacking; it is not at all what they claim for it. And a lack on that point is fatal to it, for its historical argument, defective as it is, is its strongest argument; its argument from the Scriptures is weaker still. Perhaps one reason why this appears so is this: History, church history, is not daily before us, and many intelligent readers are not ready to determine whether or not their claims on history are just. But the Bible is in every man's hands, and all may read it every day; and therefore the fallacy of their Scripture argument becomes more apparent.
It is also a fact that trine immersion was introduced into the church at an early age; on this fact they rest with great confidence. But to us this amounts to nothing, inasmuch as we yield nothing in favor of mere tradition. It cannot be traced, as they often affirm that it can, to the days of the apostles. Neither did they who first practiced it derive it from the Scriptures. They did not make any such claim, though the claim is made for them now. In this respect it stands with the Sunday. They who introduced Sunday into the church did not even pretend to found it upon any Scripture authority; that pretense was invented long after its observance came into use. Whenever a practice becomes popular in the church, no matter what its origin may have been, somebody rises up and professes to find a warrant for it in Scripture.
The trine immersionists (some of them) have persistently declared that our remarks on that doctrine, in our pamphlet, do not touch the point. If that is so it is because “the point” is not contained in their own writings. We thoroughly reviewed the publications which were sent to us for that purpose, and not an argument, or anything claiming to be an argument, was left unnoticed. We have received the following, entitled a “Statement of Faith,” with a request to notice it. We publish it entire—not because of any merit as an argument which it contains, but—that we may not be accused of doing it any injustice. Coming to us all the way from Florida it is expected that we shall give it attention:—
“I did not fully understand trine immersion until I received light on the commandments of God. I accepted it because I believed the commission taught it. Matt. 28:19. But when I understood the atonement, I saw how utterly impossible it was to receive the benefit of the dip in the likeness of Christ's death, Rom. 6:5, before I had received the dip unto repentance in the name of the Father, as set forth in John 3:22-28, which Jesus confirms when he says (John 4:1, 2) that he baptized not (or none, McKnight) but John's disciples. Please notice John 3:22—And he baptized. Verse 23, and John was also baptizing. Also the Jews' false charge, verse 26, and John's answer, verse 27, that a man can receive nothing except it be given him from Heaven. Also John 6:37, 38, 44, 45, 65.
“There is no chance without John's work, and that was unto repentance, Acts 19:4, Matt. 3:2, for John says, I am not the Christ, but I am sent before him. Some try to make it appear that Jesus did not baptize but his disciples did. But this is not true as you will find by comparing the verses under consideration, for it reads, he did baptize; but it was only John's disciples, those who repented to God and were pointed to the Son. The same in Acts 19:1-5. Paul baptized John's disciples; not that John's work was invalid, but it was not sufficient in itself for reasons stated.
“I would to God that men would lay down their prejudice and reason together. Let us read the commission. Matt. 28:19. Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in (into) the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Not names but the name of each. In the name of the Father unto repentance, and in the likeness of Christ's death, and in the name of the Holy Ghost, that Spirit which will lead us into all truth, and finally into the kingdom if we keep it abiding with us. 1 Peter 1:3. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. What hope? Why, that the Spirit will raise or change us in that day when Jesus makes up his jewels. You have sinned against God and his Son, but if you sin against the Holy Ghost it will not be forgiven. How plain the work of the three.
“Rom. 6:4. This text is supposed to teach the design of baptism, that it symbolizes the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, and nothing more. As Christ died once, and was buried once, and rose once, so we should die to sin, be buried in the water once, and rise once. Those who teach single immersion in the three names claim this text also, and offer the same argument; but to show the inconsistency of this claim, we need but to mention that we cannot be buried into the death of Christ, into the name of the Father who never died. To say that baptism into the three names symbolizes the death of Christ is virtually to indorse the Catholic dogma of a triune God, and that when Christ died they all died. Bear in mind the text reads, We are buried with him—not with them; for they were never buried into death. Therefore if the name of the Father is to be used, and the name of the Holy Spirit, it must be by another than single immersion.
“Eph. 4:5: One Lord, one faith, one baptism. This text is quoted to prove that single immersion is baptism, and, that baptism is immersion; and that therefore immersion is gospel baptism. Nothing can be more far-fetched than this, as Paul is not speaking of the mode of baptism but of the rite; read Eph. 2:11. He tells the Gentiles that they were without hope, and without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, and without God in the world; but now they are brought nigh by the blood of Christ and made one with Israel, hence one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and father of all, and not one for the Jew and another for the Gentile (see Emphatic Diaglott). Grove defines baptismos, a washing, ablution, purification; baptism the Christian doctrine, depth of affliction or distress.” W. R. P.
REMARKS. 1. No one can possibly draw anything from the doctrine of the atonement in favor of three baptisms, or three immersions. But an individual with prepossessed opinions or a strong bias will always be able to strengthen his prejudices from any imaginable source. We heartily join in the wish that people would lay aside prejudice and candidly reason, with the firm conviction that such a course would speedily do away with this trine-immersion fallacy. We have always marked this strange mixing up of things in their professed reasoning on John's baptism, or the baptism unto repentance. We raise the inquiry, Was John's baptism a complete or only a partial baptism? In other words, Did he at all perform the rite of baptism unto repentance? If he did, then, according to the theory we are calling in question, he immersed three times, for its advocates claim that the rite is never complete without three immersions. Again, were the disciples at Ephesus, Acts 19, completely or only partially baptized? The record says they were baptized. Our trine-immersionist friends tell us this was the complement of John's baptism; John's was the first, and Paul's the last part of the one same work. But in both operations, how many times were the persons immersed? They were baptized on two different occasions. W. R. P. makes a distinction between baptism and immersion—between the rite and the form of the action—and so do all of his belief. We deny the distinction. But if they are right, John must have immersed them three times unto repentance; without this they would not have been baptized. And Paul must have had them immersed three times in the name of the Lord Jesus, without which they were not baptized. Do they now follow this example? Are they baptized (three times dipped) in the name of the Father unto repentance? And are they baptized (three times dipped) into the likeness of the burial and resurrection of Christ? We are able to answer for them: they are not. Remember that Paul says we are baptized into the likeness of his death. By making a distinction between the rite of baptism and the act of immersion, and claiming that it takes three acts of immersing to once perform the rite of baptism, they make it necessary to be three times immersed or buried to be baptized into the death of Christ. But that is an error. The difference in the two baptisms was not in regard to one being unto repentance, and the other not, for Jesus inculcated repentance as directly as John did, Mark 1:15, and so did his apostles, for Peter on the day of Pentecost prefaced his commandment to be baptized with that to repent. But John baptized in the faith of him who was to come; that he had come those disciples at Ephesus were not informed; they had not heard of the descent of the Spirit on that day of Pentecost, or that it was yet given. They were not at all believers in the risen and glorified Saviour. They needed to be baptized according to the terms of the commission.
2. The language of the commission does not justify three immersions. It is contrary to the analogies of Scripture language to make such a claim as the trine immersionists do. We read that Jesus will come in his own glory, and in the glory of his Father, and of the holy angels. How many comings are foretold in that text? According to their theory he will come once in his own glory; he will come once in the glory of the Father; and he will come once in the glory of the holy angels. There are three comings as unmistakably as there are three baptisms in the commission. Again, we ask how many Gods are mentioned in Ex. 3:6? “The God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” Will our trine-immersion advocates answer this?
3. The position of W. R. P. on Rom. 6, should hardly be dignified with the title of an argument. He says our claim that the rite is a burial into the likeness of Christ's death, is defective because it includes the name of the Father, who never died! This would answer very well for those who made baptism a mixed ordinance as the early sprinklers did. It would better suit his argument to sprinkle in the name of the Father, and bury in the name of the Son! But he buries once for each. The truth is that we do not get the full force of the Scripture or the full intent of the ordinance from one text. It is possible that but one baptism should be required into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and that that one baptism should be in the likeness of the burial and resurrection of our Saviour. It certainly is not required to have three forms of baptism, as the argument of W. R. P. would demand, because the Father was not buried or raised.
4. His doctrine of repentance is faulty in the extreme. He says we are baptized in the name of the Father unto repentance, and that we have sinned against the Father and the Son. If we have sinned against both we should repent toward both. But the special error is in the intimation that our sins are against the Father and the Son, but not against the Holy Ghost, or else we could not be forgiven. There is no Scripture to justify such a declaration. Every sin committed while the Spirit is striving with a man, is a sin against the Holy Ghost as much as it is a sin against the Son of God. If no sin against the Holy Ghost could be forgiven, we do not believe anybody, or any adult, would ever be saved. We do not believe any one sins against the Father who does not sin against the Holy Ghost. But the Saviour said that blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven. This was said because they called the work of the Spirit of God the work of Beelzebub. But not every sin against the Spirit of God is blasphemy. Such random declarations show a lack of careful consideration of the Scriptures.
5. The inference of all trine-immersionists on John 4:1, 2, is altogether without warrant. No Version contains such an idea; no writer worthy of the name of a critic ever hinted it. The reference to chap. 3:22 does not help their case, because the second verse of chapter 4 can explain or qualify that verse (3:22) as easily as it does the verse preceding (4:1). Notice the construction of the language: “Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples.” The contrast is not of the persons who were and who were not baptized, but of the persons who did and who did not baptize.
But this point needs no argument; it is simply a matter of fact which needs only to be stated. In verse 1, in the Greek, the word disciples is in the accusative, as it must be when speaking of those who were baptized. Now if verse 2 speaks of John's disciples, or of those who were baptized, the word would also be in the accusative. But it is not; it is in the nominative, thus showing positively that it refers to those disciples who did the baptizing, not to those who were baptized. We do not wish to accuse the trine-immersionists of either ignorance or willfulness in this matter, but if they persist in placing such a false construction on this text we cannot tell in what other light to hold them.
The statement of W. R. P. that chap. 3:26 contains a “false charge,” made by the Jews against Christ, is most singular. There is no charge in it, and the reply of John shows that there was no falsehood in it. John's answer, “He must increase, but I must decrease,” is pertinent to the fact that Jesus then had more followers than John. The latter was on the wane. He understood that he was but the forerunner, destined to drop out of sight as the claims of the Messiah were recognized. We cannot imagine why it should be called a “false charge,” or a charge in any sense, that Jesus made disciples or had followers.
When we commenced the publication of the articles on trine immersion which were afterward placed in our book, “Thoughts on Baptism,” the organ of the trine-immersionists promised a review of them. We carefully watched the paper for a long time but saw no review. We are sure that the argument contained in that book, both on Scripture and history, cannot be overthrown. We are happy to say that some have renounced the doctrine of a triple baptism on reading that book. Many others would do so if they would renounce their prejudice, and be guided by fair argument and correct reasoning.
Remarks upon the Seventh Chapter of Zechariah. The Nature of a True Fast.
By John Nevins Andrews
IN this chapter we have the record of a question proposed by the Jews concerning the continuation of the custom of fasting, which they had followed during the captivity at Babylon. We have also the answer of the Lord given at some length, and accompanied by admonition and reproof. There is a lesson in this chapter quite as important for us as it was for the Jews to whom it was directly addressed.
Sherezer and Regem-melech and their men were sent to the house of God to pray before the Lord, and to speak unto the priests [Joshua and his fellows, Zech. 3:8], and to the prophets [Haggai and Zechariah, Eze. 5:1; Hag. 1:1; Zech. 7:1], and to propound this question: "Should I weep in the fifth month, separating myself, as I have done, these so many years?" Zech. 7:1-3. The fast in the fifth month was in commemoration of the burning of the temple and of the city by the king of Babylon. 2 Kings 25:8, 9; Jer. 52:12, 13. The second temple was at this time built in part, and therefore the Jews thought that their fasting might now cease.
The answer of the Lord implies that he had never been pleased with their fasting. They mentioned the fast of the fifth month which they had observed because the temple and the city were burned in that month. But the Lord speaks also of the fast of the seventh month which they had observed because of the assassination of Gedaliah at Mizpeh, and of the dispersion of the remnant of the Jews that had been left by the king of Babylon. Jer. 41:1-18. The Jews had fasted in these two months during seventy years, and the question which they propounded to the Lord implied that in their judgment they had done something meritorious. Zech. 7:2-5. Their spirit was like that of the Pharisee in the temple. Luke 18:9-14.
The Lord graciously revealed to the Jews the serious errors which they had committed in the celebration of these fasts during the long period of seventy years. When they had fasted they had not done it to the glory of God. They had fasted to be seen of men, and to receive praise one of another for their great piety. Matt. 6:16-18. Or they had fasted to relieve their own minds of distress because of the sins which they had committed, while at the same time they intended to return to those sins again as soon as the fast was ended.
This conduct was the more inexcusable in the Jews because that Isaiah, about 100 years before that they were carried to Babylon, had set before them the folly of pretending to fast on account of sin, while they had no intention of forsaking their sins. Isa. 58:1-7. The words of Isaiah are often quoted to show that God does not approve of abstinence from food and of actual humiliation. But we find the prophet Daniel at Babylon, about 160 years after the time of this prophecy of Isaiah, actually humbling himself before God with fasting, sackcloth, and ashes. And we find that God regarded the humiliation of Daniel. See Dan. 9:3, 4, 20, 21. Daniel was familiar with the prophecy of Isaiah concerning fasting, and he knew that God was not displeased with humiliation when the heart of man repents of sin. On the contrary he believed such humiliation to be acceptable to God when men mean to turn from their sins, as in the case of the Ninevites, who repented at the preaching of Jonah. See Jonah 3:1-10. But when men who oppress the poor, or who extortioners, bow down their heads like a bulrush (Isa. 58:5, 6) in the act of fasting, but make no restitution of their unjust gain, and have no intention of forsaking their covetous practices, their fasting is an abomination before God.
But God teaches the Jews another lesson, which was probably a greater surprise to them than was the lesson on fasting. He says: "And when ye did eat and when ye did drink, did not ye eat for yourselves, and drink for yourselves?" Zech. 7:6. This language implies that we should eat and drink to the glory of God. It is the very doctrine of St. Paul: "Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God." 1 Cor. 10:31. Our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit, and we are not our own. 1 Cor. 6:19. We must not eat unwholesome food to gratify our appetite. Nor may we eat an undue quantity even of that which is wholesome. If we seek the glory of God in that which we eat and drink, we shall use that which will best preserve our health and strength for the service of God. Christian temperance consists in the moderate use of that which is good, and in total abstinence from that which is evil. There can be no temperance in the use of tobacco.
In verse 7 the prophet calls the attention of the people to the words of the former prophets on this subject. He must therefore refer particularly to the words of Isaiah which we have already examined. He also refers no doubt to the warnings of the prophets, given while Jerusalem was yet in prosperity, that city would be destroyed if the inhabitants did not turn from their sins. Jer. 7:1-16; 17:19-27; Micah 3:8-12.
But the Lord does not leave the subject here. He sets forth the works, meet for repentance, which should accompany their fasting. His language implies that the sins which he names were the sins that had caused him to punish the nation, and that though the Jews had fasted they had not forsaken these sins. Thus he says: "Thus speaketh the Lord of hosts, saying, Execute true judgment, and show mercy and compassion every man to his brother; and oppress not the widow, nor the fatherless, the stranger, nor the poor; and let none of you imagine evil against his brother in your heart." Zech. 7:8-10. Will any Christian man say that one of these duties can be neglected by us because we are justified by the blood of Christ?
Zechariah, speaking in the name of the Lord, tells the Jews how their fathers had acted in resisting this instruction, and what ruin came upon them in consequence. Thus he says: "But they refused to hearken, and pulled away the shoulder, and stopped their ears, that they should not hear. Yea, they made their hearts as an adamante stone, lest they should hear the law, and the words which the Lord of hosts hath sent in his Spirit by the former prophets; therefore came a great wrath from the Lord of hosts." Verses 10, 11.
During all the period that the Lord offered mercy on condition of repentance, they would not listen, but went on in their sins. When the wrath of God came upon them then they prayed, but it was too late. Thus the Lord speaks: "Therefore it is come to pass, that as he cried, and they would not hear; so they cried, and I would not hear, saith the Lord of hosts; but I scattered them with a whirlwind among all the nations whom they knew not. Thus the land was desolate after them; that no man passed through nor returned; for they laid the pleasant land desolate." Zech. 7:13, 14. Sin was the ruin of the Jews, as it will be our ruin if we persist in it. The captivity in Babylon and the dispersion of the Jews by the Romans were caused by rebellion. Had the Jews been faithful to God they might have remained in their own land to this day, and have been the most honored of all the nations upon the face of the earth. J. N. A.
The Book of Revelation.
By Uriah Smith
IS IT SEALED? OR CAN IT BE UNDERSTOOD?
THE last book in the inspired volume is entitled, "The Revelation of Jesus Christ." Our translators in styling it "The Revelation of St. John, the Divine," contradict the very first words of the book itself, which declare it to be "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass;" and Christ, it is added, "sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John."
The source from which this revelation comes is thus plainly given. God, the author of all things, makes it known to Jesus Christ; Christ, through the ministry of the heavenly angels, his divine assistants, signifies it to his servant John; and John, evangelist and apostle, and now prophet, acting as amanuensis, makes it known to the church.
The book itself has been described to be a "panorama of the glory of Christ." Certainly whoever reads it with any effort to form a mental conception of the imagery which it introduces, can but be deeply impressed with the grandeur, sublimity, and importance, of the scenes which are made to pass, in fascinating array, before the mind. Themes of thrilling and impressive interest, grand and lofty conceptions, sublime and magnificent description, the whole enhanced by the fact that these take hold upon the issues of the eternal world, are here calculated to awaken in the mind of the reader the most absorbing interest.
And the question that will first arise, is, For whose benefit are these scenes described? Can we ascertain our relation to them, or possibly our part in them? Can they be understood?
We answer, Yes; or the title of the book is itself a deception: yes; or God has declared his purpose to accomplish a work which he foresaw could never be fulfilled: yes; or he has solemnly pronounced a blessing upon an impossibility.
1. The book is called a revelation. A revelation is something which is revealed or made known. Moses has said, Deut. 29:29, that "the secret things belong unto the Lord our God; but the things which are revealed, belong unto us and our children forever." The very title of the book, then, is a clear refutation of a view which is, alas! too popular at the present day, that this book is a part of the hidden mysteries of God, and cannot be understood. A revealed mystery is a contradiction both of ideas and terms. A revelation is not something hidden and concealed; and if this is the nature of the book, it should have been called The Mystery, or the Hidden Book; certainly not, The Revelation.
2. It is declared that God gave this revelation to Christ, to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass. The expression "his servants," is very comprehensive. It includes all the followers of Christ in all time. And wherever and whenever there are any persons who are the servants of Christ, the Revelation is for them, designed to be a lamp unto their feet, and a light unto their path. But how can it show anything to Christ's followers if it cannot be understood? If, as some contend, it is an unfathomable mystery, dark and incomprehensible, so that all search for its meaning is labor lost, how does it show to the seeker after truth what is coming to pass? It would be worse than useless; for it would only create an anxiety which it would do nothing to relieve. Human tyrants have been known to post their laws so high that the people could not read them, and then punish mercilessly their violation. But God does not act thus. Would he undertake to make known to mankind some important truths, and yet fall into the worse than earthly folly of clothing them in language or in figures which human minds could not comprehend? Would he command a person to behold some distinct object, and then erect some impenetrable barrier between him and the object at which he was bidden to look? Would he give his servants a light to guide them through the gloom of night, and then throw over that light a pall so thick and heavy that not a ray of its brightness could be discovered through the obscuring folds? If he has dealt thus with us in the Revelation, then the expressly declared object of the book never can be attained, and he knew it never could be attained, when he solemnly put upon record that it was to show to his servants things which must shortly come to pass. He does not thus trifle, either with himself or us.
3. The third verse of the first chapter reads: "Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand." A blessing pronounced upon the reading of this prophecy, when the time spent upon it would be thrown away? A blessing upon hearing it when no man can comprehend it? A blessing upon a man who will understand it, when it is impossible that any one can understand it? This would be charging God with folly. Men may assert as some have asserted, that "the study of the Revelation either finds or leaves a man mad." This is a specimen of man's judgment; but the word itself assures us that whoever undertakes the study of this book with a calm and teachable spirit, and with a sincere desire to know the truth, that he may glorify God therewith, will find himself, at length, not mad, but in the rich possession of a heavenly blessing.272Yes, the Revelation may be understood. We may drink into the spirit of its soul-stirring themes till our understandings are enlightened to comprehend and appreciate them. We may gaze upon its scenes of glory till our hearts glow with the foretaste of their blessedness. We may listen to the invitation so tenderly given by the Spirit and the bride, when they say to all, Come, till our beings are fired with new zeal and new determinations to be with that enraptured throng that shall make heaven ring at last with ascriptions of blessing and honor and glory to God and the Lamb.
Let us study with new interest the sacred word; and, having laid hold upon the blessed hope which it sets before us, let us be very thorough in the work of purifying our hearts and lives, that this hope may in due time "change to glad fruition,
Faith to sight, and prayer to praise."
U. S.
Work While the Day Lasts.
By John Norton Loughborough
Our Saviour said, "I must work the works of Him that sent me, while it is day; the night cometh, when no man can work." John 9 : 4.
The period of Christ's public ministry and miracles among the Jews was by the Saviour himself emphatically called their day. When as a nation they had rejected Christ, their night came, and we behold the Saviour lamenting their fate as he wept for Jerusalem and said, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered her children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate." Matt. 23 : 37, 38.
In the public mission of our Saviour we have a most striking illustration of a life of activity and toil, of journeying from place to place, enduring hardships and privations. Weary, faint, hungry—"not where to lay his head"—but imbued with a sense of the magnitude and importance of his mission, he was ever active, improving every opportunity of doing good. How his time was employed is expressed by this one sentence, He "went about doing good."
If we study his life we shall see him watching for opportunities to do good, taking advantage of the golden opportunities as they present themselves, and adapting his discourses and labors to the condition and circumstances of those he would benefit.
We are to learn from the life and example of our Saviour that "it is enough for the disciple that he be as his Master." During the whole gospel day the Lord has demanded activity on the part of his servants; but now, in these last times, when fulfilling signs show unmistakably that the end of all things is at hand, our energies should be wholly devoted to the cause and work of God.
While the last message of truth is being proclaimed, and the world is being warned of its doom, how important that we work while it is day. When the solemn mandate shall be uttered in Heaven, "He which is filthy, let him be filthy still; and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still; and he that is holy, let him be holy still," it will be too late to change their condition. Then, though they may "wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, to seek the word of the Lord," they "shall not find it." Then night will indeed have come upon this generation, a night in which no man can work.
Now it is day. Now the fields are open everywhere, and now we have the golden opportunity to labor for the salvation of our fellow-men. Now, with our plan for missionary labor, there is an opportunity for every one to do something. Shall we have our hearts imbued with the Spirit of the Master? and shall we feel that we "must work" while it is day? If we have a disposition to labor in this cause there is no lack of opportunities. If we are ever on the alert and awake to observe the circumstances surrounding us, we may find opportunities to do good. It is not in debating with everybody we meet, whether they wish to learn or not, but it is in speaking a kind word to those in affliction and distress and caring for them, having hearts full of sympathy and love for per-ishing mortals, and conversing with them, praying for them, and seeking to lead them to Christ, that we can do the most good and receive the greatest blessing.
The reward of our labor is not measured so much by the amount we do as by the disposition and spirit with which we labor. If we are looking for opportunities to do great things only, those opportunities may never come. But we may perhaps overlook lesser opportunities and circumstances where a vast amount of good might be accomplished.
No opportunity or circumstance presented for doing good should be overlooked, for we often see great results from those things which, in themselves, might appear, at first sight, to be insignificant. It was only last week that I learned of a person embracing the third angel's message, whose interest was first awakened by reading a part of a torn leaf of the SIGNS OF THE TIMES, and the leaf was badly soiled at that. If such results are accomplished by a soiled piece of paper, we certainly have abundant encouragement to take clean and whole copies and distribute them as freely as our tracts. Shall we arouse to the importance of the time and "work while it is day."
J. N. LOUGHBOROUGH.
Napa and St. Helena.
By S. Brownsberger
In compliance with the resolution adopted at the recent annual meeting of the stockholders of Healdsburg College, that as far as possible during the summer vacation, the teachers visit the churches in the California Conference in the interests of the College, I met with the Napa Church, Sabbath June 2. In the forenoon the Sabbath-school, and the usual religious service were held. In the afternoon there was a special meeting in the interests of the College.
On the day following I visited several families. I spent the following Sabbath, June 9, with the church at St. Helena. As the families composing this church live from one to seven miles distant from the place of meeting, and the weather was exceedingly hot, it was thought best to hold but one meeting; accordingly the time for the usual service was devoted to the college.273I am satisfied that the resolution referred to above is a wise one, and if carried out with the spirit in which it was first recommended, it cannot fail to give a new impetus to the work on this coast. An intimate relation should be formed and maintained between the Missionary field and the College, and the Church should be well informed in regard to it.
The College must be made a recruiting station for the missionary field, and to this end it needs the sympathy, co-operation, and prayers of the church.
I expect to be with the church at Vacaville Sabbath, June 16.
S. BROWNSBERGER.
St. Helena, Cal., June 11, 1883.
The Missionary.
"WEAR OUT."
"Wear out!" but never let the rust
Of idleness corrode the trust
Your Maker gave; your part to play
In the great drama of "To-day"
Is to deal justly; aid the weak;
Ever for right and freedom speak;
Keep burning clear Truth's beacon light,
That its soft radiance through the night
Be to the lost on life's bleak moor
Like Bethlehem's star that shone of yore,
Guiding the shepherds on their way
To where the child Redeemer lay.
"Wear out!" though stern your features grow,
Though raven locks be turned to snow,
On to the front! nor laggard be.
With sturdy blows comes victory!
Shame on the weak and nerveless hand
That cannot grasp Truth's shining brand;
That shrinks when from fair freedom's tower
The tocsin sounds the trial hour;
That fails, when justice calls, to go
With battle-ax and "bended bow,"
And prove, upon his native sod,
His fealty to man and God!
—Selected.
Disguised Infidelity.
By R. F. Cottrell
As a hypocritical professor of religion is worse than though he made no profession, so infidelity, under a profession of faith in the word of God, is worse in its influence than an open rejection of that word. Avowed infidelity would be feared and avoided by many a mind that would listen to the insidious attacks upon revelation from one who professes to believe it.
To illustrate the idea, I will say that I once heard, from a professed preacher of the gospel of Jesus Christ, three lectures, in which he attempted to prove that Adam was not the first man of the human race, but that men had existed upon the earth hundreds of thousands of years before him, and that he was born of parents, as others are at the present day. He ridiculed the idea that "God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul;" and that God took a rib from Adam, and of it made a woman, and brought her to the man. He did not believe any such absurdity. But did he not believe the book? Oh! yes; but all this was allegorical; it meant that man was then raised to a higher state of development than he had enjoyed during the previous hundreds of thousands of years of his existence. He thanked God for the book of Genesis; but if there was anything in it that conflicted with the sure light of geological science, it was no revelation to him—he did not believe it. He also thanked God for giving to the world such a man as Charles Darwin, a devout believer in God, who had done so much for the advancement of science among mankind. One would think from the encomium of the speaker that the man, who holds that man was evolved or developed from the monkey, was truly one of the greatest benefactors of mankind.
Most Christian readers will wonder that such infidelity should be held forth by a professed believer in the Bible and a preacher of salvation through Christ. But let me tell you that all who favor the mystical mode of interpreting the Scriptures are accomplices in this work of helping in the progress of infidelity, and are in a degree responsible for the prevailing and increasing skepticism of our times. The Bible is a revelation to mankind, or it is not. If it is, its plain statements of facts, its promises, and its threatenings, are to be taken at par—they mean what they say. But if these things are to be allegorized, spiritualized, rationalized, and mysticized, the Bible is not a revelation, but a riddle. All have an equal right to guess at its meaning; and, as a consequence, there may be as many creeds as there are persons. To make such a book a revelation, another one is necessary to tell us what this one means.
You may wonder that any one should allegorize the plain statements concerning the creation of man as described above, so as to deny that he was formed of dust, while we see him turning to dust again; but if you make the threatening of death, in case of man's disobedience, to mean eternal life in torment, or something besides what God defined it to be—a returning again to the dust out of which he was taken—you are in a like position, and are aiding in the work of destroying faith, and building up infidelity. And this remark applies to every interpretation which takes the license of setting aside a commandment of God, or an ordinance of the gospel.
The fault of factions and false doctrines is not in the Bible, but in this huge license of interpretation. This is the pillar and support of infidelity. If the Bible be thus assailed by its professed friends, what shall we not expect from its open enemies?
R. F. COTTRELL.
Income of the Church of England
By Raymond F. Cottrell
The income of the Church of England is $22,625,000.