Signs of the Times, Vol. 11, No. 15. (4/9/1885)

Signs of the Times

Apr 9, 1885

International Tract and Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Apr 9, 1885

The First Great Deception.

By Ellen G. White

WITH the earliest history of man, Satan began his efforts to deceive our race. He who had incited rebellion in Heaven desired to bring the whole creation to unite with him in his warfare against the government of God. His envy and jealousy were excited as he looked upon the beautiful home prepared for the happy, holy pair, and he immediately laid his plans to cause their fall. Had he revealed himself in his real character, he would have been repulsed at once, for Adam and Eve had been warned against this dangerous foe; but he worked in the dark, concealing his purpose, that he might more effectually accomplish his object.

Employing as his medium the serpent, then a creature of fascinating appearance, he addressed himself to Eve, "Hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?" Had Eve refrained from entering into argument with the tempter, she would have been safe; but she ventured to parley with him, and fell a victim to his wiles. It is thus that many are still overcome. They doubt and argue concerning the requirements of God, and instead of obeying the divine commands, they accept human theories, which but disguise the devices of Satan.

"The woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden; but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die; for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." Eve yielded to temptation, and through her influence Adam also was deceived. They accepted the words of the serpent, that God did not mean what he said; they distrusted their Creator, and imagined that he was restricting their liberty, and that they might obtain great light and freedom by transgressing his law.

But what did Adam, after his sin, find to be the meaning of the words, "In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die"? Did he find them to mean, as Satan had led him to believe, that he was to be ushered into a more exalted state of existence? Then indeed there was great good to be gained by transgression, and Satan was proved to be a benefactor of the race. But Adam did not so understand the divine sentence. God declared that as a penalty for his sin, man should return to the ground whence he was taken: "Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." The words of Satan, "Your eyes shall be opened," proved to be true only in this sense: After Adam and Eve had disobeyed God, their eyes were opened to discern their folly; they did know evil, and they tasted the bitter fruit of transgression.

Immortality had been promised on condition of obedience to the requirements of God. It was forfeited by disobedience, and Adam became subject to death. He could not transmit to his posterity that which he did not possess; and there would have been no hope for the fallen race, had not God, by the sacrifice of his Son, brought immortality within their reach.

"The wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." In no other way can it be obtained. But every man may come in possession of this priceless blessing if he will comply with the conditions. All "who by patient continuance in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality," will receive eternal life.

The one who promised Adam life in disobedience was the great deceiver. The first sermon ever preached upon the immortality of the soul was preached by the serpent to Eve in Eden,—"Ye shall not surely die;" and this declaration, resting solely upon the authority of Satan, is echoed from the pulpits of Christendom, and received by the majority of mankind as readily as it was received by our first parents. The divine sentence, "The soul that sinneth, it shall die," is made to mean, The soul that sinneth, it shall not die, but live eternally. We cannot but wonder at the strange infatuation which renders men so credulous concerning the words of Satan, and so unbelieving in regard to the words of God.

The fruit of the tree of life had the power to perpetuate life. Had man after his fall been allowed free access to that tree, he would have lived forever, and thus sin would have been immortalized. But a flaming sword was placed "to keep the way of the tree of life," and not one of the family of Adam has been permitted to pass that barrier and partake of the life-giving fruit. Therefore there is not an immortal sinner.

But after the fall, Satan bade his angels make a special effort to foster the belief in man’s natural immortality; and when they had induced the people to receive this error, they led them on to conclude that the sinner would live in eternal misery. Now the prince of darkness, working through his agents, represents God as a revengeful tyrant, declaring that he plunges into hell all those who do not please him, and causes them ever to feel his wrath; and that while they suffer unutterable anguish, and writhe in the eternal flames, their Creator looks down upon them with satisfaction.

Thus the arch-fiend clothes with his own attributes the Creator and Benefactor of mankind. Cruelty is Satanic. God is love; and all that he created was pure, holy, and lovely, until sin was brought in by the first great rebel. Satan himself is the enemy who tempts man to sin, and then destroys him if he can; and when he has made sure of his victim, then he exults in the ruin he has wrought. If permitted, he would sweep the entire race into his net. Were it not for the interposition of divine power, not one son or daughter of Adam would escape.

He is seeking to overcome men to-day, as he overcame our first parents, by shaking their confidence in their Creator, and leading them to doubt the wisdom of his government and the justice of his laws. Satan and his emissaries represent God as even worse than themselves, in order to excuse their own malignity and rebellion. The great deceiver endeavors to shift his own horrible cruelty of character upon our heavenly Father, that he may cause himself to appear as one greatly wronged because he will not submit to so unjust a governor. He presents before the world the liberty which they may enjoy under his mild sway, in contrast with the bondage imposed by the stern decrees of Jehovah. Thus he succeeds in luring souls away from their allegiance to God.

How repugnant to every emotion of love and mercy, and even to our sense of justice, is the doctrine that the wicked dead are tormented with fire and brimstone in an eternally burning hell, that for the sins of a brief earthly life they are to suffer torture as long as God shall live. Yet this doctrine has been generally embodied in the creeds of Christendom.

A large class to whom the doctrine of eternal torment is revolting are driven to the opposite error. They see that the Scriptures represent God as a being of love and compassion, and they cannot believe that he will consign his creatures to the fires of an eternally burning hell. But, holding that the soul is naturally immortal, they see no alternative but to conclude that all mankind will finally be saved. Many regard the threatenings of the Bible as designed merely to frighten men into obedience, and not to be literally fulfilled. Thus the sinner can live in selfish pleasure, disregarding the requirements of God, and yet expect to be finally received into his favor. Such a doctrine, presuming upon God’s mercy, but ignoring his justice, pleases the carnal heart, and emboldens the wicked in their iniquity.

If the souls of all men pass directly to Heaven at the hour of dissolution, then we may well covet death rather than life. Many have been led by this belief to put an end to their existence. When overwhelmed with trouble, perplexity, and disappointment, it seems an easy thing to break the brittle thread of life, and soar away into the bliss of the eternal world.

God has given in his word abundant evidence that he will punish the transgressors of his law. Witness the visitation of his judgments upon the angels who kept not their first estate, on

the inhabitants of the antediluvian world, on the people of Sodom, on unbelieving Israel. Their history is placed on record for our admonition. Let us consider what the Bible teaches further concerning the ungodly and unrepentant, whom the Universalist places in Heaven as holy, happy angels.

"I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely." This promise is only to those that thirst. None but those who feel their need of the water of life, and seek it at the loss of all things else, will be supplied. "He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son." Here, also, conditions are specified. To inherit all things, we must resist and overcome sin.

"No fornicator, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, which is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God." "Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord." "Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whore-mongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie."

God has given to men a declaration of his character. "The Lord God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty." The power and authority of the divine government will be employed to put down rebellion; yet all the manifestations of retributive justice will be perfectly consistent with the character of God as a merciful, long-suffering, benevolent being.

God does not force the will or judgment of any. He takes no pleasure in a slavish obedience. He desires that the creatures of his hands shall love him because he is worthy of love. He would have them obey him because they have an intelligent appreciation of his wisdom, justice, and benevolence. And all who have a just conception of these qualities will love him because they are drawn toward him in admiration of his attributes.

CHRIST ALL IN ALL.

O loving Christ, I look within; Thou all my hidden life canst see, Deformed by guilt, defiled by sin, And yet I trust thou lovest me.

O loving Christ, I look behind, And near my tracks upon the sand A nail-pierced footprint there I find— Thou hast been ever at my hand.

O loving Christ, I look before; A mist hangs thick o'er hills and vales; Thou wilt be with me evermore, Thy loving guidance never fails.

O loving Christ, I look around; The flowers are blooming on the earth; The rose of Sharon still is found Amidst them all of greatest worth.

O loving Christ, I look beneath; Soon must this solid ground give way; Swiftly draws near resistless death— Thou wilt be with me in his day.

O loving Christ, I look above; The Father's house is large and fair, And in that home of perfect love I shall be with thee ever there. —Sel.

Law and Gospel.

By J. O. Corliss

How strange some modern theories appear when compared with the Bible; and how inconsistent, too, are their advocates in choosing methods of reasoning. This is only true in certain cases—where the words of God point out duty that conflicts with worldly interests. It is hard to believe that men wrest the Scriptures knowingly; yet on matters pertaining to other subjects they will reason logically, and adopt sound conclusions. There is only one satisfactory explanation of the question; they want it so, and force themselves to the position; then, to justify their course, they affirm that their attitude is the only correct one, and by refusing to candidly weigh counter arguments, they become settled in ways that will not bear the test of Bible measurement.

The contrast sometimes drawn between the moral law and the gospel well illustrates this. A correspondent in a late exchange says: "The law was an external application—a liniment to regulate the gait of folks—a remedy for unrighteous limping. It never effected a cure; it had to be constantly applied." Although the writer of these words no doubt thought his statements conclusive, it would be hard to find such glaring contradictions in the logic of a ten-year-old school boy. The law was "a liniment," "a remedy for unrighteous limping," yet in the next sentence we learn that it was not a remedy at all, for it "never effected a cure." And still the writer says in the very next breath: "It [the law] had to be constantly applied."

Webster says a remedy is "that which cures a disease; any medicine or application which puts an end to disease and restores health." Surely here is an anomalous position—that God gave to the world a remedy for unrighteousness that never effected a cure! And yet it must be constantly applied. Since the writer believes the remedy for sin that God provided in the old dispensation was a failure, what assurance has he that the plan now in operation will be a success?

The fact of the matter is, the first statement in the above quotation is untrue. The law of God was never designed as a remedy for sin. It was only a rule by which sin might be detected. "Thou shalt not" can do no more than this in any age. If the Jews had no other remedy for sin than the law, not one of them could be saved. The case is the same with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; yet the Saviour said that they will be seen in the kingdom of God when others are cast out. There must be a remedy to cure or take away the sin pointed out by the law. But before the remedy can be applied, the disease must be determined, and only one process has been marked out by which this may be done. The apostle says: "I had not known sin, but by the law; for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet." Rom. 7:7. But now suppose that after Paul knew his wrong he simply stopped violating the law, would that prove a remedy for his past transgressions? Everybody will at once answer, No. Those transgressions can only be taken away by the application of the remedy—the precious blood of Jesus Christ.

Then it follows that those who lived under the old dispensation, must have had a remedy for the sins which the law pointed out, if they became eligible to a place in Heaven. The Bible points out only one remedy, and that is the gospel. Paul says (Gal. 3:8) that Abraham had the gospel preached to him; that the children of Israel also heard the same (Heb. 4:1, 2), and that Moses himself believed in Christ. Heb. 11:25, 26. Now if, as we are told by some, the gospel "does all that the law did and infinitely more," why was the law delivered to the Israelites from Sinai more than four hundred years after the gospel was preached to Abraham? It would certainly be a useless appendage if the gospel would perform all that the law could do.

But some may object that the gospel which Abraham had, was not the gospel of Christ that we now have. And yet it was the same, as shown by the argument of the apostle to the Galatians. He says (chap. 3:16): "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ." Then in verse 29, he sums up the argument: "And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise." It is therefore plain that the promise of the gospel to Abraham, that in him all nations should be blessed, was the promise of Christ to redeem them from the curse brought upon them by their transgressions of the law.

The article referred to, plainly says that "The gospel does not destroy the good effect of the law; it does all that the law did." But in the name of reason and common sense, we ask, What "good effect" did the law ever have if it never effected a cure, and yet was constantly applied for fifteen hundred years? Strange effect that, if the law was designed as a remedy for unrighteousness. With all the shifting and turning by some to put away the law, all are obliged to admit that the law was given for some wise purpose, and for some "good effect," or else the character of the Lawgiver suffers at their hands. But we inquire, What "good effect" was the law designed to cause? Simply to turn men from transgression to obedience; to cause them to yield to God's requirements.

This was truly a good effect; one that would prove them penitent, and make them eligible to receive pardon through the gospel, which has ever been the remedy for sin and uncleanliness. But does not the blood of Christ take away sin without the sinner obeying the requirements of the law? "I had not known sin, but by the law," said the venerable apostle; "for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet." Rom. 7:7. "By the law is the knowledge of sin." Rom. 3:20. If a man by the law is shown his sins, and then he does not change his attitude toward the law, he is still a sinner. He has not shown the least sorrow for his wrong course. What claim has he upon the mercy of the Lord? Evidently none whatever. Now suppose the Lord should pardon such an individual, what effect would it have, but to confirm him in his wickedness? That would make Christ a partner in the transgressions of the individual so pardoned.

This is just the way the Bible puts it. Paul says that a man cannot be justified by the law, neither can he be justified by Christ while he lives in sin. Hear him: "But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid." Gal. 2:17. "Sin is the transgression of the law" (1 John 3:4); therefore the man who violates the law is a sinner, and in the text just quoted, it is shown that Christ will not justify the one who continues in sin (transgression of the law), because that would make him the minister of sin. It is true, as the antinomians maintain, that "the gospel does not destroy the good effect of the law;" certainly not, the law is established through faith in the gospel. Rom. 3:31.

But can the gospel alone regulate the movements of men? Some seem to think so, and affirm in the face of such texts as the one last quoted, that the law is no longer necessary, because, with gospel grace in the heart, one will not desire to do wrong. One writer illustrated it in this way. He said the law of God was a sort of injunction prohibiting certain things, well illustrated by signs in public parks which read, "Keep off the grass," "Do not cut or mar the trees." These are only for the unruly; well-disposed persons would keep off any way, so the signs would be useless to them. From this it was argued that a Christian will stay where he belongs, and do what is right, because he has a kind of common sense inside. Profound logic, indeed! That is as conclusive as the statement of a certain minister, who, upon being asked if he thought the Bible would warrant a certain decision rendered by him, said: "We do not need Bible for that; common sense teaches it is so."

Common sense is a good commodity, and one of which many have little or none to spare, judging from the loose way they reason. Now with reference to well-disposed persons keeping off the grass without the prohibition being kept before their faces, we ask: Suppose such persons came from the dusty city to a park, for the first time, and no signs were posted forbidding to walk on the grass, how many would forbear doing so? How many would know it was forbidden? Not many, surely. A man's good intentions do not always keep him in the right way. He must be educated upon points of duty, to be well up in "common sense."

But why waste time in reasoning in the line referred to? While it is evident such writers are only trying to lay a foundation to abolish God's commandments, their reasoning legitimately carried out would only establish every part of the law of God. If the gospel does not destroy the good effects of the law (which were only obedience to God), and if the Christian will do right any way, because he has "common sense" in his heart, does not this argue that the principles of the law are, and must be, still maintained by the Christian? Then why not accept what the New Testament says of the law, and regulate life's actions by it.

But the law greatly offends some people. It could not do so if they were in harmony with it. And the only reason we have ever learned why they do not agree with it is because of the requirement of its fourth precept, which says that the seventh day is the Sabbath. This is the particular point that offends; take that away, and the controversy over the law would immediately cease. But we are obliged to leave it as the Bible transmits it to us. It is in the law, placed there by God himself, and he has never divorced it from the law; contrariwise, the Saviour said: "One jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled." Matt. 5:18. When professed Christians will heed this saying of Christ, they may then exclaim with the psalmist: "Great peace have they which love thy law; and nothing shall offend them." Ps. 119:165.

J. O. CORLISS.

Inexcusableness of Error.

By Watchman

To BE wrong in religious belief and practice is neither blameless nor harmless. There is a radical distinction between right and wrong, whereby wrong is wrong and nothing else. It is an inspired declaration that as a man thinketh in his heart, so is he. If he thinks wrong, he is wrong, and is accountable for being wrong. There may be strong tendencies and attractions to erroneous thinking, believing, and doing, but this liability to wrong instead of right does not create a necessity for being wrong. We may be right, and hence we are criminal when we are wrong, endowed as we are with the capacity for, and furnished with the means of, knowing and doing what is right. It cannot be admitted that we are actually doomed, either in the constitution of our natures, or in any combination of circumstances, to unavoidable deviations from what is right in religious belief and practice. We are plainly accountable for both our opinions and our conduct, and therefore our errors are inexcusable.

This is true, even of the heathen, as is conclusively shown by the apostle Paul, who says: "The invisible things of Him from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and godhead, so that they are without excuse." Yet we are told that the heathen are "acceptably religious," as though their supposed sincerity would cover the multitude of their superstitious atrocities. But receiving the oracles of God rather than the platitudes of men, the conclusion is unavoidable that the heathen are unacceptably irreligious, and if they, with only the light of nature, are inexcusable in their ignorance and disobedience of God, those who have a written revelation from God may know what they ought to believe, as well as what they ought to do. The Bible that they have is all-sufficient for their right direction.

While the mariner may err who has neither chart nor compass nor star to guide him on the watery way, and the traveler may go astray when shrouded in midnight darkness, voyagers upon the ocean of life, and wayfarers of time, need not lose the true course for reaching Heaven. The great Teacher said to the Sadducees, "Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures." Too many are in the same condemnation. A right knowledge of the Scriptures, possible to them, might keep from fatal error. Not only is there an all-sufficient directory, but an infallible guide, for conducting into all truth. For this purpose was the Holy Spirit promised in those cheering words, "When he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth." Those having these advantages need not err, and as they are capable of being right, they are criminal for being wrong.

There is responsibility and criminality implied when it is said concerning those who were wrong in their views and conduct in relation to God, that "they did not like to retain God in their knowledge." Through their aversion to knowing, loving, and serving God, it is said that they "changed the truth of God into a lie." In these inspired declarations is indicated the real source of religious error. The evil is ascribed to the wicked heart in which it originates. All errors in belief and practice, religiously, are the offspring of a wrong state of heart—voluntarily wrong when it might be right. Where thinking and acting are not right, the heart is not right. Those who are wrong are wrong because they love to be wrong. If they wanted to be right, they could be right.

Surely it must be vastly important to candidly and prayerfully examine all religious opinions by the only infallible standard of religious truth, which is the word of God as contained in the holy Scriptures, concerning which an inspired apostle says: "Whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place." The inspired psalmist said: "Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path." Such help in avoiding a wrong way can hardly be overestimated. They who do not avail themselves of it are wronging themselves, insuring, as they do, their own condemnation. Searching the Scriptures and depending upon the enlightening influence of the Holy Spirit, they need not err.

—Watchman.

How Shall I Live?

By Raymond F. Cottrell

I OFTEN hear people acknowledge the Sabbath truth, but they say, "I don't see how I am going to live if I keep the Sabbath." This is talking just as our Saviour told us not to talk. "Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? (for after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. But seek ye first the kingdom of God and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you." Campbell translates: "But seek first the kingdom of God and the righteousness required by him; and all these things shall be superadded to you."

Are we not in the hand of God? Shall we take ourselves out of his hand, and take care of ourselves? We read: "Keep my commandments and live; and my law as the apple of thine eye." "If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." "Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life."

Should we anxiously ask, How shall we live if we keep the commandments? For me I do not see how I am to live, if I do not keep them.

R. F. COTTRELL.

Duty the Principal Thing.

How COMMON is the error of thinking that one's truest success is his doing the most good that is possible. Doing one's duty is always better than doing any amount of good; better than accomplishing the largest beneficial results by one's action—apart from the question of strict duty. Saul made the mistake of thinking that worship and sacrifice were better than simple duty-doing. The Lord sent Samuel to rebuke and to condemn Saul's folly. David did better. When his men were in two divisions, one part fighting unto death, and the other part doing nothing but to stand and watch the camp equipage, David insisted that the measure of reward should be according to the men's duty-doing, and not according to their active service and its results. He said: "As his part is that goeth down to battle [to do great things], so shall his part be that tarrieth by the stuff [to attend to his simple duty there]; they shall part alike. And it was so from that day forward, that he made it a statute and an ordinance for Israel unto this day." That seems to be God's standard of approval in every sphere. The invalid, patiently enduring in weakness and suffering, a helpless charge in the care of others, is as sure of recognition, and of a glorious reward, as is the wise ruler of a great people, or the winner of souls by the thousand as a brilliant and successful preacher of Christ. One's only anxiety need be to know what is duty, and to do that. Duty-doing is doing good, and should be the highest aim of service on the part of every child of God.—Sel.

A Century of Failures of Attacks on Christianity.

THIS century opened in the twilight of declining deism. The greatest brilliancy of deistic writers is found at about the middle of the eighteenth century. Voltaire, you remember, died in 1778; Rousseau, the same year; Gibbon, in 1794. Thomas Paine lived till 1809; Shelley was with us until 1822; Byron, until 1824; and Goethe, until 1832. There beamed over into this century from the eighteenth a large amount of lurid light from the French revolution, and from the foremost deistical writers, and so our century began with an anti-supernaturalistic bent. At the opening of the century, Schleiermacher exerted a profound influence on all Protestant theology in Europe. Mystical in some portions of his teaching, not regarded as everywhere sound by the best judges of to-day, he yet did an incalculably great service for the progress of religious thought. In the middle and toward the close of the last century Christianity found new vigor and new methods in the Wesleyan revival in England. Wesley and Whitefield, as well as Butler and Paley, had shown that Christianity was not likely to disappear. As our century progressed, great revivals swept through large parts of Christendom; missions to foreign lands arose; the religious press became a cosmopolitan power. As it was on the whole evident that deism had not gained the victory over its antagonist, new and more determined schools of infidelity began novel forms of attack. Physical science made prodigious advances, and the key-note of infidelity was anti-supernaturalism.

The first school of skepticism which became a large power in our century now seems ludicrously grotesque in its central positions. It was the fashion of Professor Paulus, of Heidelberg, the leader of this school, to explain all occurrences called miracles in the Bible, by merely natural causes. A miracle could not have occurred; therefore, no miracle did occur. Wherever the New Testament record appears to authorize the statement that a miracle occurred, we must explain the facts by natural causes. To give an example: Professor Paulus always insisted that when the New Testament says, "Christ walked on the sea," all it means is that he walked on the shore near the sea. This treatment of the New Testament records was ridiculed even by such a man as Lavater.

"We dare not," he says, "pronounce such interpretations of the plainest statements foolish and insolent; for our very tolerant generation would declare that intolerance. But I would like, in all modesty, to ask these philological illuminators, not whether a single philologist for the last seventeen hundred years can be found who stumbled upon the idea that the words, 'Jesus walked upon the sea,' are to be translated, 'Jesus walked near the sea on the shore,' but whether, indeed, the three evangelists intended to teach that Jesus, like ourselves, was able to walk on terra firma! Wonderful statement! Oh! most marvelous of miracles!"—Joseph Cook, in N. Y. Independent.

Knowing and Doing God’s Will

DUTY known but neglected will only add to our condemnation; while duty diligently learned, and faithfully performed, will render us acceptable to God. We should endeavor both to know and do the will of God.

Continue reading: Constantine.—VII