Earlier text: General ArticlesThe Ten Kingdoms in the Dark Ages.
THERE remains yet one more to be noticed,—the Burgundians. It will be remembered that when the Burgundians, with the Vandals and Suevi, ravaged Gaul in 407, they took for their possessions the country that lay on the Saone and the Rhone. Their kingdom occupied "the whole valley of the Saone and Lower Rhone from Dijon to the Mediterranean, and included also the western half of Switzerland."—Hallam's Middle Ages, chapter 1, part 1, sec. 9, note 8. In A. D. 493 it included all of Switzerland that lies west of that part of the Rhine that flows from the south into the lake of Constance.—Labberton's New Historical Atlas, map 22. It will also be remembered that the conquest of this kingdom was begun by Clovis, and was completed by his sons in 532; and that in the quadruple division of the Frankish dominion in 561 Burgundy with some additional counties in the north fell to Gontran, who fixed his capital there. When the Frankish dominions, having been united under Charles Martel, were again divided between Pepin the Short and Carloman, Burgundy fell to the share of Pepin. And when Carloman became a monk, and Pepin became king by the grace of Pope Zachary, of course Burgundy was but a province of his kingdom, as it was also of the empire of Charlemagne, the son of Pepin. In the division of the empire of Charlemagne, by the treaty of Verdun, 843, Burgundy was included in the portion of the Emperor Lothair, which, it will be remembered, reached from the Mediterranean to the North Sea, and included the Italian territory. In the time of Charles the Fat, 877, Burgundy became again independent, under Boso, or Boson, husband of Ermangarde, the daughter of Emperor Louis II. This kingdom was called Provence as well as Burgundy, and sometimes Cis-Jurane Burgundy, or as the real title ran, regnum Provinciae seu Burgundiae. It "included Provence, Dauphine, the southern part of Savoy, and the country between the Saone and the Jura" Mountains. There was formed another kingdom of Burgundy on the other side of the Jura Mountains. This was called the kingdom of trans-Jurane Burgundy, or by title, regnum Iurense, Burgundia Transiurensis, and was founded by Count Rudolph in A. D. 888, and was recognized by the Emperor Arnulf the same year. It included the northern part of Savoy and all Switzerland between the Jura Mountains and the River Reuss. In 937, Rudolph's son, Rudolph, traded his rights to the Italian crown for the Cis-Jurane Burgundy, and thus the two Burgundies—the Trans-Jurane and the Cis-Jurane—were united in the one kingdom of Burgundy or Arles, by title, regnum Burgundiae, regnum Arelatense. This kingdom continued independent till A. D. 1032, when, in accordance with a treaty which had been made between the Emperor Henry II. and Rudolph III., its last king, the kingdom of Burgundy was received into the empire by the Emperor Conrad II.; Rudolph III. confirming it by will, as his niece Gisela was Conrad's wife. The emperor thus assumed the Burgundian crown, and this "beautiful kingdom," "full of prosperous cities," became a part of the empire. Of this kingdom and country, at this time, Hallam says:— "The kingdom of Burgundy, or Arles, comprehended the whole mountainous region which we now call Switzerland. It was accordingly reunited to the Germanic Empire by the bequest of Rodolph along with the rest of his dominions. A numerous and ancient nobility, vassals one to another, or to the empire, divided the possession with ecclesiastical lords hardly less powerful than themselves. Of the former we find the counts of Zahringen, Kyburg, Hapsburg, and Tokenburg, most conspicuous; of the latter the Bishop of Coire, the Abbot of St. Gall, and Abbess of Seckingen. Every variety of feudal rights was early found and long preserved in Helvetia; nor is there any country whose history better illustrates that ambiguous relation—half property and half dominion—in which the territorial aristocracy under the feudal system stood with respect to their dependents. In the twelfth century the Swiss towns rise into some degree of importance. Zurich was eminent for commercial activity, and seems to have had no lord but the emperor. Basel, though subject to its bishop, possessed the usual privileges of municipal government. Berne and Friburg, founded only in that century, made a rapid progress, and the latter was raised, along with Zurich, by Frederick II., in 1218, to the rank of a free imperial city."—Middle Ages, chap. 6, sec. 20. In the northern part of what is now Switzerland, between Lake Constance and Lake Lucerne, and along the left bank of the Rhine, the Alemanni had settled when they first took the country from the Romans. The Castle of Hapsburg was possessed by Rudolf, the Alemannian nobleman who was made emperor in 1273. His ambitious descendants, the dukes of Austria, endeavored to enlarge their authority and possessions at the expense of the cantons. "Several changes in the principal Helvetian families took place in the thirteenth century, before the end of which the House of Hapsburg, under the politic and enterprising Rodolph and his son Albert, became possessed, through various titles, of a great ascendancy in Switzerland. Of these titles none was more tempting to an ambitious chief than that of advocate to a convent. That specious name conveyed with it a kind of indefinite guardianship, and right of interference, which frequently ended in reversing the conditions of the ecclesiastical sovereign and its vassal. . . . Among other advocacies, Albert obtained that of some convents which had estates in the valleys of Schweitz and Underwald. . . . The people of Schweitz had made Rodolph their advocate. They distrusted Albert, whose succession to his father's inheritance spread alarm through Helvetia. It soon appeared that their suspicions were well founded. Besides the local rights which his ecclesiastical advocacies gave him over part of the forest cantons, he pretended, after his election to the empire, to send imperial bailiffs into their valleys as administrators of criminal justice."—Id. Some authorities make Frederick III. the one who sent these bailiffs, but whether it was Frederick or Albert the facts are the same. One of these bailiffs was Gesler, whom William Tell resisted. "Their oppression of a people unused to control, whom it was plainly the design of Albert to reduce into servitude, excited those generous emotions of resentment which a brave and simple race have seldom the discretion to repress. Three men, Stauffacher of Schweitz, Furst of Uri, Melchthal of Underwald, each with ten chosen associates, met by night in a sequestered field, and swore to assert the common cause of their liberties, without bloodshed or injury to the rights of others. Their success was answerable to the justice of their undertaking; the three cantons unanimously took up arms, and expelled their oppressors without a contest. Albert's assassination by his nephew which followed soon afterwards fortunately gave them leisure to consolidate their union (A. D. 1308). . . . But Leopold, duke of Austria, resolved to humble the peasants who had rebelled against his father, led a considerable force into their country. The Swiss, commending themselves to Heaven, and determined rather to perish than undergo that yoke a second time, though ignorant of regular discipline, and unprovided with defensive armor, utterly discomfited the assailants at Morgarten (A. D. 1315). "This great victory, the Marathon of Switzerland, confirmed the independence of the three original cantons. After some years, Lucerne, contiguous in situation and alike in interests, was incorporated into their confederacy. It was far more materially enlarged about the middle of the fourteenth century by the accession of Zurich, Glaris, Zug, and Berne, all of which took place within two years. The first and last of these cities had already been engaged in frequent wars with the Helvetia nobility, and their internal polity was altogether republican. . . . The eight already enumerated are called the ancient cantons, and continued, till the late reformation of the Helvetie system, to possess several distinctive privileges and even rights of sovereignty over subject territories, in which the five cantons of Friburg, Soleure, Basel, Schaffhausen, and Appenzell did not participate. From this time the united cantons, but especially those of Berne and Zurich, began to extend their territories at the expense of the rural nobility. . . . Many feudal superiorities they obtained from the owners in a more peaceable manner, through purchase or mortgage. Thus the house of Austria, in which the extensive dominion of the counts of Kyburg had devolved, abandoning, after repeated defeats, its hopes of subduing the forest cantons, alienated a great part of its possessions to Zurich and Berne. And the last remnant of their ancient Helvetie territories in Argovia was wrested, in 1417, from Frederick, count of Tyrol, who, imprudently supporting Pope John XXIII. against the Council of Constance, had been put to the ban of the empire. These conquests Berne could not be induced to restore, and thus completed the independence of the confederate republics. The other free cities, though not yet incorporated, and the few remaining nobles, whether lay or spiritual, of whom the Abbot of St. Gall was the principal, entered into separate leagues with different cantons. Switzerland became, therefore, in the first part of the fifteenth century, a free country, acknowledged as such by neighboring States, and subject to no external control, though still comprehended within the nominal sovereignty of the empire. . . . "Though the House of Austria had ceased to menace the liberties of Helvetia, and had even been for many years its ally, the Emperor Maximilian . . . endeavored to revive the unextinguished supremacy of the empire. That supremacy had just been restored in Germany by the establishment of the Imperial Chamber, and of a regular pecuniary contribution for its support, as well as for other purposes, in the Diet of Worms [1495]. The Helvetie cantons were summoned to yield obedience to these imperial laws. . . . Their refusal to comply brought on a war, wherein the Tyrolese subjects of Maximilian, and the Suabian league, a confederacy of cities in that province lately formed under the emperor's auspices, were principally engaged against the Swiss. But the success of the latter was decisive; and after a terrible devastation of the frontiers of Germany, peace was concluded [1499] upon terms very honorable for Switzerland. The cantons were declared free from the jurisdiction of the Imperial Chamber, and from all contributions imposed by the Diet. . . . Though, perhaps, in the strictest letter of public law, the Swiss cantons were not absolutely released from their subjection to the empire until the treaty of Westphalia, their real sovereignty must be dated by an historian from the year when every prerogative which a Government can exercise was finally abandoned."—Id. And thus the kingdom of the Burgundians of A. D. 407 is represented in the independent confederacy of Switzerland to-day. J. The Restoration of the Jesuits.
THE recent change in the policy of Pope Leo XIII. is exciting more interest in European political and religious circles to-day than any other topic. The present pontificate was distinguished at the outset for its moderation, and for its skillful trimming of sails to avoid shipwreck upon political rocks. But at last Pope Leo has taken a step even in advance of his belligerent predecessor, by his letter confirming all the privileges of the Jesuit order—"the fertile mother of men distinguished for holiness and wisdom, and the guardian of solid, sound learning," to quote the language of the Papal brief. This famous order was established by a bull issued by Pope Paul III. on September 27, 1546, three hundred and forty years ago. Its members, chief among whom were Ignatius Loyola, St. Francis Xavier, Laynez, and Le Fevre, added to the usual vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, a fourth vow of absolute submission to his Holiness the Pope as their supreme earthly lord and master; and they elaborated into a thousand forms of practical action the pernicious principle that one may do evil that good may come, or, in other words, that the end justifies the means. Under this false moral philosophy deceit, intrigue, lying, assassination, and almost every crime known to the courts, and many not thus known, were allowed, and even transformed from their own hideous depravity into virtuous conduct. The conscience of mankind could not stand such a doctrine when it worked itself out into manifold forms of political chicanery, fraud, violence, and civil revolution. And therefore the opposition with which the great University of the Sorbonne in Paris met this infamous order during the first ten years of its existence, crystallized finally in 1773 into a combined movement on the part of France, Spain, Naples, and Parma for its absolute suppression. These Powers, determining to rid themselves of such an incubus, secured from Ganganelli a written declaration that a Pope without acting against canonical laws was at liberty to suppress this order, and then they elected him Pope, with the name of Clement XIV., on purpose to put his opinion into practice. After hesitating four years to lift his hand against such a powerful and compact organization, Clement finally issued the famous bull: Dominus ac Redemptor noster, and the Society of Jesus went down externally. But times change and we change with them. The Jesuits, never guilty of the sin of idleness, kept up increasing activity, and resorted to every artifice to secure a recognition and liberty. Finally in 1801 Pius VII. permitted the Order, which had existed as a secret society, to reorganize itself in Russia. In 1814 the same Pope extended a similar privilege to all countries, thus virtually annulling the bull of his predecessor. Since that date the Jesuits have been persistent in their demands upon the several Popes to disavow the interdiction of Pope Clement. It might have been supposed impossible for the present mild and conciliatory pontiff—whose election was opposed by the Order—to bring his mind to this disavowal. Yet that is precisely what he has done, and henceforth the Catholicism of to-day is that fashioned by the Jesuits, the most implacable foes of Protestantism. It is the complete triumph of Ultramontanism, which proclaimed the Papal infallibility, and which would unite all Christendom in the absolute monarchy, to the utter repressal of all spontaneity and free institutions. And so it is, after generations of struggles and a most remarkable experience of vicissitudes, this Order at the moment of its deep humiliation in France rises into a splendid exaltation at Rome. The evidence of their renewed life and restoration to privileges has been showing itself in many ways, but especially in their open purchase of the magnificent Hotel Costanzi and much adjoining property, and in other preparations for doing some kind of extensive business. Denial is made by Cardinal Manning that they have regained completely all the pontifical favor which they once enjoyed, but the Cardinal makes admission as follows:— "What has now happened may be taken to be that without being absolutely restored to the position made for it by the bull of Paul III. it has been put by the present Pope into possession of privileges most important to its independent and successful administration in different parts of the world." Here, then, is a long step backward by Pope Leo XIII. This act of putting the Jesuits, whose name is a synonym for most that is bad, into possession of exclusive privileges bodes no good to society; to Governments, to mankind. Christendom has drunk of the Jesuit cup of abomination until nauseated and disgusted by the bitter dregs at the bottom. Many philanthropists of no particular creed, as well as Protestants of all creeds, were hoping that this prolific source of secret meddlesomeness with Governments, of tyranny, malignity, and a thousand infamous procedures, was forever checked and prospectively abolished. But just when its power seemed to be broken, it shows its perennial life by springing into new activities, and regaining its old privileges, or so many of them as to insure its independent and successful administration in different parts of the world. Let the world take sharp notice of this new move in the game of Papal lust for dominion regardless of the means employed. Prime ministers will henceforth have more diplomatic problems to puzzle over. Courts will be on the lookout for new and subtle combinations of the cunningest of intriguers. Everybody will glance nervously at those splendid buildings in Rome which signalize the Jesuit restoration, and will wonder what revolutions are being hatched therein.—Christian at Work. THE Roman Catholic idea of the dangers of intellectual culture may be gathered from the following passage in the Dublin Review:— “We are far from meaning that ignorance is the Catholic youth’s best preservative against intellectual danger, but it is a very powerful one nevertheless, and those who deny this are but inventing a theory in the very teeth of manifest facts. A Catholic destitute of intellectual tastes whether in a higher or a lower rank, may probably enough, be tempted to idleness, frivolity, gambling, sensuality, but in none but the very rarest cases will he be tempted to that which (in the Catholic views) is an immeasurably greater calamity than any of these or all put together, viz., deliberate doubt on the truth of his religion. It is simply undeniable, we say, that the absence of higher education is a powerful preservative against apostasy, and those who watch over souls will reasonably refuse to bear a part in withdrawing that preservative.” We are free to say that we believe the more intellectual culture abounds among the laymen of the Romish Church, the more will they be likely to drop Rome’s superstitions. But there is nothing contrary to true culture or intelligence in the unadulterated gospel of Christ. Of course, the perverted gospel that Rome proclaims thrives most luxuriantly on the soil of ignorance. There is, undoubtedly, danger in educating human beings in the knowledge of the books, if the wisdom of the Book of books is withheld from them. A little human knowledge serves at times to make men self-satisfied, and in their pride of intellect they refuse to consider their need of the knowledge that alone insures life eternal. A man would surely need very little intelligence, however, to make him doubt the truth of a religion that would classify such doubt as “an immeasurably greater calamity” than idleness, frivolity, gambling, and sensuality “all put together.” God puts the sensual and the unbeliever in the same catalogue. They are alike hell-bound, the children of wrath, only to be saved by turning from their evil ways, and seeking pardon through Christ. The church of Rome has much to answer for in forcing such falsehoods as it does upon a people whom it purposely keeps in the darkness of ignorance.—New York Observer. The Missionary and the Infidel.
I REMEMBER, says the Bishop of Saskatchewan, many years ago listening with great delight to a story I heard from a missionary in North Canada. He said that some years before then a humble missionary was traveling through the Canadian backwoods. He lost his way; but presently was rejoiced at the sight of a glimmering light. Soon reaching it, to his surprise he found a large congregation of settlers gathered round a fire, listening to an able discourse. The missionary found that the man was trying to prove that there was no God, no Heaven, no hell, no eternity. A murmur of applause went through the audience as the orator ceased. The missionary stood up, and said: “My friends, I am not going to make a long speech to you, for I am tired and weary; but I will tell you a little story. A few weeks ago I was walking on the banks of the river, not far from here. I heard a cry of distress, and, to my horror, I saw a canoe drifting down the stream and nearing the rapids. There was a single man in the boat. In a short time he would near the water-fall and be gone! He saw his danger, and I heard him scream, ‘O God, if I must lose my life, have mercy on my soul!’ I plunged into the water, and reached the canoe. I dragged it to land, and saved him. That man, whom I heard when he thought no one was near, praying to God to have mercy on his soul, is the man who has just addressed you, and has told you he believes there is neither God nor Heaven nor hell.”—Sel. Aim at Truth.
By S. S. Times.
NO DISCUSSION is likely to prove profitable to a disputant whose chief purpose is to prove that his view is the right view. The only proper aim in discussion is the discerning of the truth in the matter at issue. If two persons have this aim in common, they can discuss any question to advantage; for each of them will be readier to see the truth as brought out by his opponent than to seek an answer to his opponent’s arguments. But if each of the two, or if either of the two, has less of a desire to learn whether or not he is in error than he is to prove that his adversary is in error—then his lack of openness of mind toward the truth will only tend to confirm the victory-loving disputant in his preconceived determination of truth. If you have no readiness to revise your own opinions on a given point at issue, never enter into a discussion on that point with a person who has obviously no desire to revise his opinions on the same subject. A discussion would probably be worse than useless to both of you.—S. S. Times. The Hardness of Losing the Soul
By Dr. Pusey
LISTEN not to Satan, telling thee existence is hard. It is hard when thou beginnest. It is hard to resist sin, it is hard not to follow thine own will, it is hard to save thy soul; but it is harder far and unendurable to lose it and the sight of God.—Dr. Pusey. Did the Patriarchs Know Christ?
By W.
A VERY common answer to the above question is that they did not, or that they had at the most a very limited knowledge of Christ and his work, and had no just conception of the plan of salvation. Such a position we believe to be wholly erroneous, and subversive of Bible truth. If it were true, it would show that God's ways are not equal, and that in different ages of the world he has different ways of saving men; and still worse, the holding of such a view dishonors Christ, by virtually denying that in all things he has the pre-eminence. We therefore wish briefly to give a scriptural answer to the question. Going back to the time of the fall, we find Christ promised to Adam and Eve, as the one who should conquer sin and Satan. Said the Lord to the serpent: "I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it [her seed] shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." Gen. 3:15. Some may say that this is so slight a reference to the Messiah, that the fallen pair could not possibly have derived much, if any, hope from it. We are not to suppose that the very brief record in the first three chapters of Genesis contains more than a bare outline of what the Lord spoke to our first parents. But whether this was all the information that was given them or not, it is certain that they fully understood the consequences of their sin, and knew just how they might find pardon. This we know from the fact that in process of time both Cain and Abel brought offerings to the Lord, to the latter of which the Lord had respect, while he rejected the former. Why was this difference shown? Because Cain's offering, being only the fruit of the ground, indicated no faith in the promised Redeemer, while Abel's offering, being of the firstlings of his flock, showed faith in the Lamb of God, who alone could take away the sin of the world. This is what the apostle Paul says in Heb. 11:4: "By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts; and by it he being dead yet speaketh." That is to say that Abel's sacrifice was the sacrifice of faith, and by it he obtained that righteousness "which is through the faith of Jesus Christ, the righteousness of God by faith." Coming down to the time of Abraham we find the clearest evidence of a full knowledge of Christ. The covenant that God made with him was confirmed "in Christ." Gal. 3:17. It was therefore Abraham's faith in Christ that was "counted unto him for righteousness." Moreover, Abraham's faith was so great that he was called the father of the faithful; and the highest position to which a person can now attain is to be a child of Abraham. The most perfect Christians on earth only "walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised." Rom. 4:12. This is because Abraham saw Christ's day and was glad. John 8:56. He saw and understood the complete work of Christ, and being justified by faith he rejoiced in hope of the glory of God. See Rom. 5:1, 2. Still later we have the record of Moses. Paul tells us that it was his faith in Christ that led him to leave the court of Egypt. "By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter; choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt." Heb. 11:24-26. This shows not only that Moses had full faith in Christ, but also that unbelievers had a knowledge of him, for if it were not so Moses could not have suffered the "reproach of Christ." Those Israelites who were willing also to suffer the reproach of Christ were sustained by him, for Paul says that "they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them; and that Rock was Christ." 1 Cor. 10:4. And this shows that the pious Jews were as truly Christians as are any people who may believe in Christ at the present time. By the sacrifices which they offered they indicated their faith in the Redeemer who was to die on Calvary, just the same as we who in the Lord's Supper eat the bread and drink of the cup "show the Lord's death till he come." To say that they did not understand Christ's mediatorial work is to deny the Scriptures of truth. But there were many Jews who did not believe in Christ. So there are now in the church many professed Christians who know nothing of Christ. The preaching of the cross is really foolishness to them as much as it ever was to the Greeks, although they may not scoff at it. When Christ appeared in the flesh the great body of the Jewish nation rejected him. Even so he has told us that when he comes the second time faith will be a rare thing on the earth. But we must remember that the reason why the Jews rejected Christ was because they did not believe the sacred Scriptures, just as the reason why the Son of man when he comes will scarcely find faith on the earth, will be because of the growing skepticism in regard to the Bible. Already professors of religion openly say, "Where is the promise of His coming?" To those unbelieving Jews Christ said: "Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father; there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?" John 5:45-47. Taking a more general view, we learn that not only Moses but all the prophets taught the facts concerning Christ and his work. Peter says that the prophets "prophesied of the grace that should come unto you; searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow." 1 Peter 1:10, 11. And even a slight acquaintance with the prophets will serve to show that every feature in Christ's ministry, both on earth and in Heaven, was foretold by them. In Dan. 9:25-27 we find the time when the Messiah should appear given with the utmost exactness. Micah (chap. 5:2) told that he should be born in Bethlehem of Judea. Isaiah foretold the fact that he should be born of a virgin. Compare Isa. 7:14 and Matt. 1:23. Zechariah foretold Christ's triumphal entry into Jerusalem. Zech. 9:9. Daniel's vision revealed the exact time when Christ should be crucified. Dan. 9:27. In that wonderful chapter, the fifty-third of Isaiah, the people were told of his life of humility and of his final ignominious death; that "the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all;" that his soul was to be poured out unto death as an offering for sin, and that "with his stripes we are healed." Moreover the fact that he should be buried with the rich, is plainly stated. David foretold a well-known incident of the crucifixion when he said by the Spirit: "They gave me also gall for my meat; and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink." Ps. 69:21. He also speaks of the piercing of Christ's hands and feet (Ps. 22:16) and prophesies of the action of the Roman soldiers in these words: "They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture." Verse 18. He also understood that Christ should be born of his line, and knowing that his throne is to endure "as the days of heaven" (Ps. 89:29) he prophesied of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul should not be left in the grave, and that his flesh should not see corruption. Compare Ps. 16:8-10 and Acts 2:25-31. David also describes Christ's ascension to Heaven after his victory over death (Ps. 24:7-10) and also declares that Christ is to sit at the right hand of God until his foes are made his footstool. Ps. 110:1. The prophet Zechariah declared that Christ was to sit as a priest upon his Father's throne, securing, in conjunction with the Father, peace for troubled humanity. Zech. 6:12, 13. And Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of the glorious second coming of Christ to execute judgment on the ungodly. Jude 14. But time and space would fail to speak of all that the prophets have said concerning Christ. Let one more text suffice to cover the whole ground. The apostle Paul declared himself to be a "servant of the Lord Jesus Christ;" he gloried in the cross of Christ, and preached nothing but Jesus Christ and him crucified. Christ was his constant theme, yet when he stood before Agrippa he said: "Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which Moses and the prophets did say should come; that Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should show light unto the people, and to the Gentiles." Acts 26:22, 23. If the apostle Paul in all his preaching did not go outside of what Moses and the prophets had said, they certainly must have given very accurate information concerning Christ. Who can read how Isaiah saw Christ "sitting on a throne high and lifted up," and how Ezekiel saw "visions of God," or how Enoch "walked with God," and doubt but that these men had a most intimate knowledge of Christ and of his work for fallen man? And that not only they, but multitudes of others, had a saving knowledge of Christ, is proved by the fact that they "through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises," and that besides Christ there is no salvation in any other, "for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." Acts 4:12.