Signs of the Times, Vol. 1, No. 34. (7/1/1875)

Signs of the Times

Jul 1, 1875

Pacific Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Oakland, Cal. · Jul 1, 1875

The Sermon.

By Ellet Joseph Waggoner

CONSTANTINE.

BY ELD. J. H. WAGGONER.

THERE are few names which have been favored with greater celebrity for a thousand years past, than that of Constantine. Almost all classes have united in styling him "the great," though they have not always agreed as to the reasons why he should bear the title, yet all agree that he was a man of no ordinary ability; a brave and successful general, and a shrewd and politic statesman. Some have also given him credit for the qualities of a sincere and earnest Christian, but in this there is little agreement. The number of authors, that is, of credible historians, who account him a Christian is by no means large.

Constantine was born in A. D. 272. He was proclaimed Emperor, upon the death of his father, in 306, at the age of thirty-four. For six years he was not fully established in the Empire. Maxentius claimed or usurped dominion in Italy. He was defeated in 312, after which Constantine had sole authority. He died in 337, aged 65. Hence "the age of Constantine" properly dates from 306 to 337 — a period of 31 years.

His father was at least lenient toward Christianity, if not favorable to it, and enacted laws of toleration. His mother was a believer in the Christian religion, which fact may have had much to do with the mild and tolerant course of his father. His mother has by some been esteemed as a devout and intelligent Christian; while others have considered her a religious enthusiast or bigoted fanatic, full of the superstition of those times. The times in which she lived, and especially the court influences by which she was surrounded, were not favorable to the development of a high type of Christianity; and the manner in which she treated the supposed "relics" which she found in Jerusalem, or pretended to find there, shows that she was easily deceived, or tried to deceive others. She is also supposed to have molded the mind of Constantine in favor of Christianity. But that is to be doubted, as he appears to have been actuated entirely by State policy in his first efforts in favor of the Christian religion. Or, if he was at all influenced by her position as a believer, it was no more than to this extent, that he was willing to place Christ among the gods, without according to him any supremacy. That Constantine did, for a long time, hold the Saviour in this relation, is testified by many historians.

There is no room to doubt that, in the minds of many religious theorists, Constantine has occupied a position which does not at all belong to him. This false view has been aided by a few authors of the fourth century. A man is not always most correctly judged in his own day. In the case of Constantine, some of those whose writings concerning him have come down to us, were his flatterers, and were dazzled by the splendor of his court or by the richness of his favors. But mostly they were blinded by the benefit which they supposed he conferred on the cause of Christianity. Some of them held him up as worthy to be classed with the apostles! When such senseless adulation is indulged in we must use judgment to glean the truth from a field fruitful of error.

After ages, beholding the consequences of his course, the formality and hypocrisy which were introduced by his adopting Christianity as the religion of the empire, and being beyond the influence of the gaudy tinsel which he threw over that religion by which its loveliness was obscured instead of being increased, others have been better able to discern the motives which led to many of his acts; and they have discovered that he was not so much the adherent to real Christianity as the patron of a religious system which was likely to give strength to his empire and to add glory to his reign.

It must not, however, be inferred that it was left altogether to after ages to settle the question that he was not a true Christian. Some, in his own day, were amazed at the extent of his crimes. But we can easily believe it was not considered prudent to say much to disparage a monarch so illustrious, and so jealous of his fame and reputation. It is a truth learned from observation of all ages that they who exert the greatest influence in molding public opinion are generally the interested ones, who are the most likely to mislead, and by reason of whom the more candid are held in check, or, as is often the case, the testimony of the latter class is withheld for a time from view. Also, in judging of the merits of powerful monarchs we must remember that flatterers and sycophants are the only ones who are generally admitted to their presence. They who are too upright to dissemble soon give offence, and are dismissed from the courts in disgrace, if not condemned to death as criminals, or as men dangerous to the peace of the State.

In offering historical evidence of the character of Constantine, instead of being crippled for want of testimony, we may need to apologize for offering so much. We desire the reader to bear in mind that the name and influence of Constantine have been used to give weight to certain innovations in the church, and there may be some who will be interested to bring in question the facts presented. Inasmuch as we have taken upon us to give a historical view of these things, we have deemed it fitting our purpose to cite authorities to such an extent that it may appear to all that we are moving on safe ground, and that our statements are not to be disputed as the opinions of a few, or of a minority.

As a man fitted to govern an empire, or, in a worldly view, merely, Constantine would not stand much behind the first rulers of Rome. Mercy, and even justice, was not often to be found in the breasts of emperors, not even for their own kindred and families, when they stood in the way of their ambitious schemes. Constantine, instead of being an exception in this respect, was jealous, cold, and vindictive. His own wife and offspring were sacrificed, apparently without compunction, to his selfishness and ambition. Even the heathen were shocked at his crimes, especially at the causeless murder of an amiable son, and considered him beyond the reach of pardon.

But our chief interest in Constantine is in regard to his relation to the cause of the Christian religion. Were we to confine ourselves to the best accredited facts of his profession of Christianity we should notice his life only from 323 to 337, a period of 14 years. But there has been made a strong effort to present him as a conscientious disciple, as well as the courtly patron of Christianity from the time of his battle with Maxentius. And it has been claimed that the most remarkable event of his life took place at that time which directly led to his reception of Christianity. We refer to the reputed vision of the cross. There is, however, no need to distinguish between particular periods in his life; as historians are well agreed that his selfishness and his crimes were increased rather than diminished, after his profession of Christianity.

Eusebius, bishop and historian, is more than all others relied upon to prove the excellent character of Constantine, and the great service he rendered to the cause of Christianity. But it will be shown by unquestionable testimony and evident considerations that he was biased by court favors, and, like most of the eminent men of the church of that day, considered the favors shown to himself as so much in favor of the cause he professed. Passing from an age of bitter persecution, none of them seemed to realize that there could be any motive but to glorify God which could lead to the toleration, not to say to the upholding, of a religion which had been so deeply despised. The scripture says, A gift blindeth the wise. Constantine was not slow to attach to his court eminent dignitaries by such means. Nor were the ambitious bishops, who were already full of jealousy against each other slow to accept the favor of the Emperor and turn it to their own advantage. Eusebius was a favorite of Constantine, and in turn became his adulator. He could not, indeed, be blind to his faults nor ignorant of his crimes; but in some instances he passed over the more flagrant of them without notice, showing more of the politician and courtier than of the faithful historian. To such a degree did he manifest this disposition to gloss the character of his hero, as to greatly damage his writings as historical evidence and to bring upon himself the condemnation of just and discriminating minds.

Lest the readers who have not extensively examined this subject, should think we are speaking in strong terms, we will at once proceed to lay before them some statements which we have gathered from credible and reputable sources. Without pretending to exhaust the evidence we shall present enough to satisfy all that we have good reason for the remarks which we have here made.

It will be remembered that Constantine fought the decisive battle with Maxentius in 312 under the banner of the cross. Yet there are few who pretend to think that he had any faith as a Christian at that time. It was a superstitious notion with him, believing as he did in a diversity of gods, among whom he reckoned Christ. And thus Mosheim viewed him, as the following from his Historical Commentaries will show:

"If that man is a Christian who thinks the Christian's manner of worshiping God is a good and holy one, then I have no doubt that Constantine was, at that time, a Christian. But if no man should be called a Christian, unless he believes that Christianity is the only true religion, and that all other religions are false, then I suppose Constantine became a Christian at a later period."

—Page 459.

There are strong reason to doubt that Constantine ever became a Christian in that sense unless it was a short time before his death. Stanley has the following striking passage:

"We may remember the striking remarks of Niebuhr: 'Many judge of Constantine by too severe a standard, because they regard him as a Christian; but I cannot look upon him in that light. The religion which he had in his head must have been a strange jumble indeed. * He was a superstitious man and mixed up his Christian religion with all kinds of absurd superstitions and opinions. When certain oriental writers call him equal to the apostles, they do not know what they are saying; and to speak of him as a saint is a profanation of the word.'"

Page 292.

Mosheim was not wont to speak harshly of Constantine, yet he speaks as follows of his favors to the Christians for which a few have been willing to think that he was a true believer in their religion:

"Constantine, therefore, in obedience to the commands of his father, as he himself admits, in his edict, preserved by Eusebius, wished to be accounted a worshiper of the one God. And yet, when occasion seemed to require it, and lest he should alienate the minds of the people, and soldiers from him, he supplicated the gods, gave thanks to them, and offered them sacrifices and gifts. Such being the character of Constantine, before his conversion to Christianity, I fully believe that the favors he conferred on the Christians, from the very commencement of his reign, did not proceed either from his humanity and justice, or from any love for the Christian religion, but were owing solely to his desire to establish his own authority in the empire.—His. Com.*, p 450.

Stanley, in harmony with his quotation from Niebuhr, makes this excuse, that Constantine's life "describes the religion of many in that time;" yet this affords no great relief to the dark picture which his life presents, for it was his patronage of the church, his secularization of Christianity, hiding its inherent simplicity under the pomp of his court, and enforcing conformity with all the weight of imperial power, which led to the very things to be condemned in the bishops as well as in himself. For it cannot be shown that this was the state of the church before he made Christianity subservient to his own ambition. And Stanley himself proves all this as the following shows:

"His leading idea was to restore peace to the church, as he had restored it to the Empire. [His object was to preserve the peace of the Empire].

In the execution of this idea two courses of action presented themselves to him, as they have to all ecclesiastical statesmen ever since. . . . In him both the latitudinarian and the persecutor may find their earliest precedents. . . . No scheme of comprehension has been broader, on the one hand, than that put forward in his letter of advice to Alexander and Arius; and on the other, when this failed, he still pursued the same end, with the same tenacity, by the directly opposite means of enforcing uniformity, to us long familiar, but first introduced by him into the church, the hitherto unknown practice of subscription to the articles of a written creed, and the infliction of civil penalties on those who refused to conform."—Stanley, pp. 294-295.

This testimony makes Constantine the instigator of the Nicene creed, and goes to show that the Inquisition was built upon the foundation laid by him. Certainly the legacy which he left to the church does not entitle him to the reverence of those who love Christianity in its purity, and we are led to marvel at the credulity of those who style him "the first Christian Emperor." Had his life been marked with the practice of Christian morals we could give him credit for sincerity of heart even in introducing such roots of evil into the church. Marsh speaks as follows:

"The sincerity of the man, who in a short period effected such amazing changes in the religious world, is best known to him who searches the heart. Certain it is that his subsequent life furnished no evidence of conversion to God. He waded without remorse through seas of blood, and was a most tyrannical prince."—Marsh's Eccl. Hist., period 3, chap. 5.

It will not be considered out of place to give the testimony of Gibbon who speaks only in harmony with that of so many reliable Christian authors:

"Crispus, the eldest son of Constantine, and the presumptive heir of the empire, is represented, by impartial historians, as an amiable and accomplished youth. . . . He deserved the esteem, and he engaged the affections of the court, the army, and the people.

"This dangerous popularity soon excited the attention of Constantine, who, both as a father and as a king, was impatient of an equal. Instead of attempting to secure the allegiance of his son by the generous ties of confidence and gratitude, he resolved to prevent the mischiefs which might be apprehended from dissatisfied ambition. . . . By all the allurements of honors and rewards, he invites informers of every degree to accuse without exception his magistrates or ministers, his friends or his most intimate favorites, protesting with a solemn assertion, that he himself will listen to the charge, that he himself will revenge his injuries.

"The informers, who complied with so liberal an invitation, were sufficiently versed in the arts of courts to select the friends and adherents of Crispus as the guilty persons: nor is there any reason to distrust the veracity of the emperor, who had promised an ample measure of revenge and punishment. The policy of Constantine maintained, however, the same appearance of regard and confidence toward a son, whom he began to consider as his most irreconcilable enemy. . . . . The time was now arrived for celebrating the august ceremony of the twentieth year of the reign of Constantine; and the emperor, for that purpose, removed his court from Nicomedia to Rome, where the most splendid preparations had been made for his reception. Every eye, and every tongue, affected to express their sense of the general happiness, and the veil of ceremony and dissimulation was drawn for a while over the darkest designs of revenge and murder. In the midst of the festival, the unfortunate Crispus was apprehended by order of the emperor, who laid aside the tenderness of a father, without assuming the equity of a judge. The examination was short and private; and it was thought decent to conceal the fate of the young prince from the eyes of the Roman people; he was sent under a strong guard to Pola, in Istra, where soon afterward he was put to death, either by the hand of the executioner, or by the more gentle operation of poison. The Cæsar Licinius, a youth of amiable manners, was involved in the ruin of Crispus; and the stern jealousy of Constantine was unmoved by the prayers and tears of his favorite sister, pleading for the life of a son, whose rank was his only crime, and whose loss she did not long survive. The story of these unhappy princes, the nature and evidences of their guilt, the forms of their trial, and the circumstances of their death, were buried in mysterious obscurity; and the courtly bishop, who has celebrated in an elaborate work the virtues and piety of his hero, observes a prudent silence on the subject of these tragic events." pp. 158-161, Chap. 18.

The following remark of Gibbon is neither harsh nor uncharitable considering the occasion of it:

"According to the strictness of ecclesiastical language, the first of the Christian emperors was unworthy of that name." pp. 249.

(To be Continued.)

Under the Shadow.

"He that dwelleth in the secret place of the Most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty."

WHEN dark Misfortune's rising gale Shall toss my bark so weak and frail; How sweet to turn the helm and sail— Under the shadow.

And when beneath a cheerless sky, My fondest hopes in ruins lie; How sweet for comfort then to fly— Under the shadow.

And when bereaved, my heart distressed, E'en like a bird unto its nest, My wounded spirit flees for rest— Under the shadow.

And when the shades of night appear, And steal the sense and stop the ear; How sweet to sleep without a fear— Under the shadow.

And e'en by day, as well as night, When busy cares distress the sight, To nestle with divine delight— Under the shadow.

But, O frail heart! I ofttimes chide Thy wanderings from my Saviour's side! O that I ever might abide— Under the shadow.

There love immortal, love divine, Her sacred tendrils shall entwine Around this happy heart of mine— Under the shadow.

Then draw more near, my wayward soul, Beneath his smile and kind control, Where not a wave of care shall roll— Under the shadow. —Standard

Hope of the Gospel.

By John Norton Loughborough

"But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts; and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear." 1 Pet. 3:15.

ETERNAL LIFE.

In Titus 1:2, Paul speaks of eternal life as the hope: "In hope of eternal life." Not that eternal life is a hope independant of the possession of the future kingdom, but eternal life is a necessary preparation for the bringing of the people of God into possession of the heavenly inheritance. Suppose the Lord should beautify the kingdom and fit it up as he has promisd in his word, yet it would be of no avail to give to a race of mortal beings, for they must needs die and leave it. In order to receive and possess an immortal inheritance we must ourselves be made immortal, or in other words come into possession of eternal life. So Paul reasons, "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. Behold, I show you a mystery; we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump; for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed; for this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality." 1 Cor. 15:50-53. Before we pass into that kingdom we must have eternal life given to us. When, then, we cherish in our minds the hope of entering that immortal kingdom, and look forward to it as something that we shall receive, we connect with it, in our minds, our own change to immortality, preparing us to receive that kingdom. So that eternal life becomes one branch of the one hope of the future kingdom.

HOPE OF THE RESURRECTION.

But it may be asked, Does not Paul speak of the resurrection of the dead as the hope? Yes, and we will quote a few of the texts where he thus speaks of it. "He cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee; of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question." Acts 23:6. "But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and the prophets; and have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust." Acts 24:14, 15. "And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers; unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God, day and night, hope to come. For which hope's sake, King Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews. Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should raise the dead?" Acts 26:6-8. The above texts clearly present the resurrection as one branch of the hope, or one step in the fulfillment of events that are essential to the ushering in of the hope. It is at the resurrection that the saints are to be made immortal. "We shall all be changed in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump; for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed." 1 Cor. 15:51, 52. As the saints are to be made immortal at the resurrection, if there were no resurrection, the eternal life would never be given, and so the hope of receiving a future kingdom would prove a failure.

HOPE OF CHRIST'S COMING.

But you may ask, Is not the coming of Christ called the hope? Yes. Paul says, "The grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared unto all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; looking for that blessed hope, and [even] the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ." Titus 2:11-13. The coming of Christ is also a branch of the one hope. It is at the coming of Christ that the resurrection is to take place. "For the Lord himself shall descend from Heaven with a shout with the voice of the Archangel, and with the trump of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first." 1 Thess. 4:16. "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the first-fruits, afterward they that are Christ's at his coming." 1 Cor. 15:22, 23. If there were no second coming of Christ, there would be no resurrection. The resurrection is spoken of as an event to transpire at the coming of Christ, hence, if there should be no coming of Christ, the saints would not be raised. If the saints are not raised, immortality will not be given. If immortality be not given, the hope of the future kingdom must all prove a failure; for "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom." Thus it is evident that the coming of Christ is the grand event which must take place to usher in the consummation of the hope of God's people. With this view of the subject there is no wonder that importance is attached in the Scriptures to the great theme of the second coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. Receiving the idea that our hope centers in his coming to raise the dead and bestow immortality upon his people, that they may possess the immortal kingdom, there is glory clustering around the event of Christ's coming like the glorious dawning of the morning. Thus we see that the coming of Christ is the grand door that must be opened to usher us into the kingdom of God.

PROMISES OF REWARD.

With the foregoing facts before us, we can understand why the Bible promises respecting the reward of God's people are made in the manner they are. The reward is an event invariably connected either with the coming of Christ, the resurrection, the reception of immortality and eternal life at the resurrection, or the possession of the kingdom beyond the resurrection of the dead. We now refer to a few instances illustrative of the whole scope of Scripture promises of reward. Job, when speaking of death, says, "If I wait, the grave is mine house; I have made my bed in the darkness. I have said to corruption, Thou art my father, to the worm, Thou art my mother, and my sister. And where is now my hope? as for my hope, who shall see it?" Job 17:13-18. He certainly does not speak, here as though his hope would be consummated at death; but rather to the contrary, as though it was otherwise than the realization of his hope. Job does not speak thus because of a lack of knowledge of the true hope; for, in chapter nineteen, he sets the matter forth in its true light. He says: "Oh, that my words were now written! Oh, that they were printed in a book! That they were graven with an iron pen and lead in the rock forever! For I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth; and though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God; whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me." Job 19:23-27. Here he points, in a clear manner, to the resurrection as the time when for himself he shall see God.

The above is in harmony with other testimony of Job. "Oh that thou wouldest hide me in the grave, that thou wouldest keep me secret until thy wrath be past, that thou wouldest appoint me a set time, and remember me! If a man die shall he live again? all the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change come. Thou shalt call and I will answer thee: thou wilt have a desire to the work of thine hands." Job 14:13-15. The change to which Job here refers is not death, but the change from mortal to immortal at the resurrection. For Job simply to say, I will wait until I die, would not settle the question as to whether he should "live again" if he did die. But he is willing to risk it, to "wait," in the "grave," his "house," all his "appointed time," till his "change," the resurrection, comes. When Ezekiel had his vision, recorded in the thirty-seventh chapter of his prophecy, he clearly portrays the resurrection of God's people. He says, "The hand of the Lord was upon me and carried me out in the spirit of the Lord, and set me down in the midst of a valley which was full of bones, and caused me to pass by them round about; and, behold, there were many in the open valley; and, lo, they were very dry. And he said unto me, Son of man, can these bones live? And I answered, O Lord God, thou knowest." It looked like a doubtful matter to Ezekiel that they could live again, but he meekly submits it to the Lord. "O Lord God, thou knowest." Now the Lord shows him how it is: "Again he said unto me, Prophesy upon these bones, and say unto them, O ye dry bones, hear the word of the Lord. Thus saith the Lord unto these bones, behold I will cause breath to enter into you, and ye shall live; and I will lay sinews upon you, and will bring up flesh upon you and cover you with skin, and put breath in you and ye shall live; and ye shall know that I am the Lord. So I prophesied as I was commanded; and as I prophesied there was a noise, and the bones came together, bone to his bone. And when I beheld, lo, the sinews and the flesh came up upon them, and the skin covered them above; but there was no breath in them. Then said he unto me, Prophesy unto the wind, prophesy, son of man, and say to the wind, Thus saith the Lord God, Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe upon the slain, that they may live. So I prophesied as he commanded me and the breath came into them, and they lived, and stood up upon their feet, an exceeding great army." This clearly describes the resurrection. "They lived," that is, they came to life. But Ezekiel continues, "Then he said unto me, Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel"—Israel meaning all God's people in any age. "If ye be Christ's then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." Gal. 3:29. "Behold they say, our bones are dried, and our hope is lost; we are cut off for our parts." This was the language of Israel when they lost sight of God's promise to redeem them from the curse and from death. When we look at the grave, the body mouldering back to its mother earth, we gain no light respecting our hope. Infidelity, looking at death has said, "Death is an eternal sleep." Israel despondingly said, "Our bones are dried, our hope is lost." But God replies to them: "Therefore prophesy and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God, Behold, O my people [called house of Israel in verse 11], I will open your graves and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel; the "land of Israel," referring to the land promised to Abraham—the future kingdom. "And ye shall know that I the Lord have spoken it, and performed it, saith the Lord." See Ezekiel 37:1-14.

These words of Ezekiel are not only clear evidence that the hope of God's people is to be consummated beyond the resurrection, but if the resurrection does not take place, the "hope" will indeed be "lost," and God's people "cut off" for their parts. Paul, when desirous of placing the true hope before his Thessalonian friends, says, "But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from Heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first; then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these words." 1 Thess. 4:13-18. These words of Paul are very important in the bearing they have on the subject of the true gospel hope. Let us look carefully at what is embodied in Paul's preface to the grand statement he here makes. 1. We learn that those he addresses were sorrowing like those who had no hope. 2. That the reason why they were thus sorrowing was because they were ignorant concerning their friends who had died. 3. He tells them he would not have them ignorant, which proves conclusively that he was not ignorant concerning them. 4. Having intimated to them that they were ignorant concerning their friends, and that not ignorant, and that he would not leave them in ignorance, he could not discharge his duty as a faithful apostle of Christ, unless he should write in such a manner as to remove all their ignorance on the subject, and place the true grounds of hope before them. But what, under these circumstances, does he tell them? That their friends are in Heaven receiving their reward? That they are already happy in the full fruition of their hope? No! he has no such statement to make; but, that the Lord is coming to raise their friends from the dead, and take them up, with the living saints, to meet the Lord in the air when he comes to be forever with him. And he concludes by saying, "Wherefore comfort one another with these words." This, then, is the true hope, and the comfort he gives to relieve their sorrow. The beloved apostle John says, "Behold what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be; but we know that when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself even as he is pure." 1 John 3:1-3. Here, again, we are pointed to the coming of Christ as the time of the realization of the hope.

J. N. LOUGHBOROUGH.

(To be Continued.)

Missionary Needs in Turkey

By Editor

A missionary writing from Turkey says that a region about the size of New England, containing about a million and a quarter of inhabitants, is committed to the charge of three ordained missionaries (only two at present), and two lady teachers, with no other Protestant agency of any kind in the field. If there is any art by which missionary forces can be spread out any thinner than that, and continue an appreciable element as a moral power, we should be most happy to learn it. Rather than undertake that task, would it not be better to thin out a few of those who spend their energies largely in elbowing each other in little villages of five hundred to a thousand inhabitants in New England or the West? I fancy a hundred of that class could easily be gathered up whose departure for Africa would, in many ways, be a blessing to our own land. Home churches do not give at the rate of one cent per member for foreign missions.

Social Opinion as a Sharp Knife

SOCIAL opinion is like a sharp knife. There are foolish people who regard it with terror, and dare not touch or meddle with it. There are more foolish people who, in rashness or defiance, seize it by the blade, and get cut for their pains. And there are other wise persons who seize it discreetly and boldly by the handle, and use it to carve out their own purposes.

Continue reading: THE WORD COVENANT