p. 6 | Signs of the Times, Vol. 20, No. 20. (3/19/1894)

Digression on the Principles of Rome

By Percy T. Magan

A REVIEW OF SUNDAY LEGISLATION IN CENTURY NINETEEN. NO. 15.

DIGRESSION ON THE PRINCIPLES OF ROME (CONTINUED).

THERE is not, and there never was on this earth, a work of human policy so well deserving of examination as the Roman Catholic Church.—Macaulay.

That the fundamental principles and constant practice of Pagan Rome were robbery, oppression, and self-exaltation, has already been demonstrated. Moreover, charges of being possessed of similar traits of character have been preferred against Papal Rome. We now propose to prove them.

Constantine the Great was crowned emperor of the Romans, at the city of York, in Britain, A. D. 306. This coronation, however, only gave him sovereignty of Britain, Gaul, and Spain. He desired to be monarch of the whole empire; but never did a candidate for the PURPLE enter upon the race for political greatness with such stupendous odds against him, as did CONSTANTINE THE GREAT. On the other hand, never did politician play his cards more shrewdly than did this famous prince. Says Kouns:—

To those who take a more rational view of his magnificent but criminal career, and who, looking behind the mask of reverence for paganism which he cast aside at precisely the politic moment, in order to assume a false pretense of reverence for Christianity, discern the cool, deliberate atheist, who was ready to profess any creed and foster any superstition that might best serve to smooth the road to absolute power, and make mankind his slaves; to them the astute politician, the successful warrior, the consummate ruler of men, assumes such colossal proportions that, compared with him, Alexander, Cæsar, and Napoleon seem to sink into the lower grade of butchers and stabbers, only half taught in the science of government, of which Constantine alone was master. For it is no more certain that he despised and pitied paganism while he was solemnly offering sacrifices to Jupiter, and winning the admiration and love of the Roman world for his imperial piety, than it is certain he pitied and despised the church of Christ, even while he was manipulating the faith into a sure and reliable support of the empire; in both courses he only played with the world, giving men any religious toy which the greater part might desire to have in exchange for the liberty of which he robbed them so plausibly and successfully that they scarcely perceived his theft, and enthusiastically caressed the royal thief.

By craft, and intrigue, and bloodshed not a little, he fought his way past all other competitors for the royal seat of the undivided Roman world. "He realized the lifelong ambition

of his soul, the restoration of the unity of the Roman Empire under his own authority; AND DID IT BY THE AID OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, WHICH HE BRIBED, CORRUPTED, AND SECULARIZED, UNTIL IT ACKNOWLEDGED HIM TO BE KING INSTEAD OF JESUS CHRIST."

This was the first alliance that the Christian religion had ever made with the pagan State, and it was an ill-omened day for both. To it "must be referred the commencement of the dark and dismal times which oppressed Europe for a thousand years." The reason why the Christian (?) bishops wanted an alliance with the State was twofold. They desired State support, knowing that their lives would be easier and their burdens lighter than when depending for a living on the voluntary contributions of the faithful, which of late, on account of their extravagant habits, had become too small to keep them. The second reason for which they desired the alliance was because they wished to force their views upon all the world, and to do so by the aid of civil power.

The reason why Constantine desired the alliance with the Christians is told by Draper in a single paragraph:—

The attempt to make an alliance with this great and rapidly growing party was nothing new. Maximin tried, but was distrusted. Licinius, foreseeing the policy that Constantine would certainly pursue, endeavored to neutralize it by reviving the persecution, A.D. 316, thinking thereby to conciliate the pagans. The aspirants for empire at this moment so divided the strength of the State that, had the Christian party been weaker than it actually was, it so held the balance of power as to be able to give a preponderance to the candidate of its choice. Much more, therefore, was it certain to prevail, considering its numbers, its ramifications, its compactness.

Constantine worsted all his civil foes; but if his own words may be believed, the Christian bishops outwitted him. In the year 312 A.D. they sent a deputation into Gaul to confer with him. Constantine ruled in Gaul, Spain, and Britain; Maxentius ruled in Italy and Africa. The bishops represented to Constantine that if he would deliver them from the tyrant Maxentius, and espouse their religious views, they would guarantee him the allegiance and swords of the Christians, who at that time were a numerous, and, according to Gibbon, "powerful party" all over the empire.

When the bishops promised the emperor the allegiance of all the Christians all over the empire, they promised something that they were powerless to fulfill. They stated to him that the Christians were indissolubly united. But that was a lie, and the bishops knew it. The Christians were very much divided, and at enmity with one another, and the bishops knew it.

Constantine took these pious liars at their word. Afterwards he found that he was sadly deceived, for the united support of all the Christians was not forthcoming. Says Dean Stanley:—

He [Constantine] entered upon his relations to the church as a traveler entered a new country—with high expectations, with hasty conclusions, with bitter disappointments. Of these disappointments none was so severe as that which he felt when he first became acquainted with the fact that the Christian as well as the heathen commonwealth was torn by factions. . . . In the celebrated letter which he addressed to the Alexandrian Church [he says], "But, O divine and glorious Providence, what wound has fallen on my ears—nay, rather, on my heart!" And then with an earnestness which is difficult not to believe sincere . . . he entreats the [Christians (?)] combatants "to abandon these futile and interminable disputes, and to return to the harmony which became their common faith." "GIVE ME BACK MY CALM DAYS, AND MY QUIET NIGHTS; LIGHT AND CHEERFULNESS INSTEAD OF TEARS AND GROANS."

Such was the experience which the most artful politician of century four had with the Christian(?) bishops.

Now all this transpired in the striking of the alliance between the apostate Christian church and the pagan State. But that church was the Papal Church. Therefore it stands as a literal fact that the Papacy EXALTED herself to the supreme place in the Roman world by the means of LIES,—lies told by PROFESSED Christians, desiring supreme exaltation—and they are in principle the worst kind of lies. After describing this disgraceful union between the Church and the State, Draper well says: "Such was the compact that had been established between the Church and the State. As might be expected, the succeeding transactions exhibit an alternate preponderance of one and of the other, and the DEGRADATION OF BOTH IN THE END."

Pagan Rome had ruined and depopulated whole countries; Papal Rome did the same thing. Says Draper, speaking of a later period, after the Papacy had had time to prove its character:—

We have now approached the close of a thousand years from the birth of Christ; the evil union of the Church and State, their rivalries, their intrigues, their quarrels, had produced an inevitable result, doing the same in the West that they had in the East, disorganizing the political system, and ending in a universal social demoralization. The absorption of small properties into large estates steadily increased the number of slaves; where there had been once many free families, there was now found only a rich man. Even of this class the number diminished by the same process of absorption, until there were sparsely scattered here and there abbots and counts with enormous estates worked by herds of SLAVES, whose numbers, since sometimes one man possessed more than twenty thousand of them, might deceive us, if we did not consider the vast surface over which they were spread. Examined in that way, the West of Europe proves to have been covered with forests, here and there dotted with a convent or town. From those countries, once full of the splendid evidences of Roman civilization, mankind was fast disappearing.

It is clear from this, and many more citations might be given would space permit, that the principles of Papal Rome were exactly the same as the principles of Pagan Rome—the ruin of countries, and the oppression of the bodies of men. Bishops of Rome—POPES if you please—even went so far as to engage extensively in the slave trade.

Great was the extravagance of the wealthy Romish laity:—

Clement of Alexandria bitterly inveighs against "the vices of an opulent and luxurious Christian community—splendid dresses, gold and silver vessels, rich banquets, gilded litters and chariots, and private baths. The ladies kept Indian birds, Median peacocks, monkeys, and Maltese dogs, instead of maintaining widows and orphans; the men had multitudes of slaves."

Pagan Rome had oppressed the bodies of men; Papal Rome went farther, she undertook to oppress, not only their bodies, but their minds and souls.

Constantine was united to the lower orders of the pagans and the Christians (?). Both of these classes were illiterate and ignorant. And together they joined in a crusade against learning and philosophy of any and every kind. In this the Papacy has debased the minds of men. Thus Draper again says:—

The course of political affairs had detached the power of the State from the philosophical and polytheistic parties. Joined to the new movement, it was not long before it gave significant proofs of the sincerity of its friendship by commencing an active persecution of the remnant of philosophy. It is to be borne in mind that the direction of the proselytism, which was thus leading to important results, was from below upward through society. As to philosophy, its action had been in the other direction; its depository, in the few enlightened, in the few educated; its course, socially, from above downward. Under these circumstances, it was obvious enough that the prejudices of the ignorant populace would find in the end a full expression; that learning would have no consideration shown to it, or would be denounced as mere magic; that philosophy would be looked upon as a vain and therefore sinful result.

And to this character Papal Rome has ever remained consistent. Thus Pope Innocent III., A.D. 1215, regulated the courses of study in the schools of Paris. He permitted the study of the Dialectics of Aristotle, but prohibited the study of physics and metaphysics. (To be continued.)

THE UGLY THINGS IN IT.

By Elder H. A. St. John

BY ELDER H. A. ST. JOHN.

"At that time Jesus went on the Sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungered, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat. But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the Sabbath day." Jesus said, "But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath day." Matt. 12: 1, 2, 7, 8.

The Sabbath of which Jesus was Lord, and which he and his disciples observed according to the divine command, was the same day as that observed by the Pharisees. But in the spirit and manner of observance there was an essential difference. They were identical in time only. The Sabbath of the Pharisees had in it the spirit of fault-finding, accusation, and tyranny. The spirit of criticism and accusation is clearly seen in the quotation above, and the spirit of tyranny in the Jewish or Pharisaical Sabbath keeping is clearly inferred by the Saviour's statement to these religious opponents, that "the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." Mark 2: 27.

"And he was teaching in one of the synagogues on the Sabbath. And, behold, there was a woman which had a spirit of infirmity eighteen years, and was bowed together, and could in nowise lift up herself. And when Jesus saw her, he called her to him, and said unto her, Woman, thou art loosed from thine infirmity. And he laid his hands on her; and immediately she was made straight, and glorified God. And the ruler of the synagogue answered with indignation, because that Jesus had healed on the Sabbath day, and said unto the people, There are six days in which men ought to work; in them therefore come and be healed, and not on the Sabbath day." Luke 13: 10-14.

Here was manifested another ugly characteristic of that Jewish Pharisaical Sabbath. It was a spirit of indignation manifested by a high church dignitary toward Jesus for healing upon the Sabbath day, and toward the poor woman for submitting to be healed, and toward all the people because they rejoiced for all the glorious things that were done by Christ. Behold the bigotry, the ugliness, the hypocrisy of this professed Jewish Sabbath observance. Jesus so glaringly exposed their

hypocrisy that they were ashamed, but only hated him all the more.

"And it was the Sabbath day when Jesus made the clay, and opened his eyes." "Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the Sabbath day." John 9: 14, 16.

Again we find these hypocritical professors finding fault with the Lord of the Sabbath. Jesus, in presenting to the world an example of true Sabbath observance, came in direct conflict with these self-righteous Pharisees, and they say of him that he is not of God. Again the ugliness of Pharisaical Sabbath keeping crops out:—

"Jesus saith unto him, Rise, take up thy bed, and walk. And immediately the man was made whole, and took up his bed, and walked; and on the same day was the Sabbath." "And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the Sabbath day." John 5: 8, 9, 16.

Said Jesus, "Are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the Sabbath day? Judge not according to appearance, but judge righteous judgment." Worse and worse. Here we learn that these wicked observers of a man-made and Satan-inspired Sabbath, identical with the divinely-made and Christ-inspired Sabbath only in time, persecuted and sought to slay Jesus. Hence the Jewish Sabbath as observed in the days of Christ had the ugly things of persecution and murder in it.

"And it came to pass also on another Sabbath, that he entered into the synagogue and taught: and there was a man whose right hand was withered. And the scribes and Pharisees watched him, whether he would heal on the Sabbath day; that they might find an accusation against him. But he knew their thoughts, and said to the man which had the withered hand, Rise up, and stand forth in the midst. And he arose and stood forth. Then said Jesus unto them, I will ask you one thing: Is it lawful on the Sabbath days to do good, or to do evil? to save life, or to destroy it? And looking round about upon them all, he said unto the man, Stretch forth thy hand. And he did so; and his hand was restored whole as the other. And they were filled with madness; and communed one with another what they might do to Jesus." Luke 6: 6-11. "And the Pharisees went forth, and straightway took counsel with the Herodians against him, how they might destroy him." Mark 3: 6.

Could a more wicked spirit animate anyone than the spirit that possessed and actuated these great leading religionists in their high profession of Sabbath sacredness and Sabbath observance?

Now let us put together the expressions of Holy Writ which reveal the spirit of the prominent, bigoted, hypocritical sticklers for a Sabbath loaded down with human traditions: "Condemned the guiltless," "Not lawful," "He keepeth not the Sabbath day," "Not of God," "Indignation," "Filled with madness," "Persecute," "Sought to slay Jesus," "Sought to destroy him," "Counseled with the Herodians [government favorites] how they might destroy him." Nor did they rest till they did crucify him, and by that wicked act they brought about the everlasting overthrow of their place and nation.

History repeats itself. God has set to his hand a second time to gather a remnant of Israel preparatory to the second coming of his Son in glory. This remnant will be like Jesus. They will observe the Sabbath that Jesus made and sacredly observed. They will honor the Lord of the Sabbath by honoring the Sabbath of which he is Lord, and they will honor it after the faithfulness and example of Jesus. For their loyalty and faithfulness, like Jesus, these true Sabbath keepers will be accused, despised, persecuted, and condemned. All this reproach will come upon them through leading professors and rulers in modern Israel, who are great sticklers for a man-made Sabbath, one, too, that does not even possess the one point of identity of time with the true. It is altogether another day, observed for altogether other reasons, and rests wholly upon tradition. Everywhere among its boastful advocates and adherents is manifested the spirit of accusation, indignation, condemnation, persecution, madness, fines, imprisonments, chain-gangs, and death. All these ugly things are in the Sunday sabbath movement, and some of them are already painfully manifest in different localities. Already these prototypes of the ancient Pharisees are counseling with the Herodians, or those in governmental favor, that their Sabbath ideas may be enforced upon all, under the pains and penalties of law. Already they begin to say that all this is to save their place and nation. But God doth know, and we and they all may know if we want to know, for it is revealed in the prophetic word, that, instead of saving anything, it will result in the everlasting overthrow of place and nation, and the eternal ruin of all who are on the wrong side, and make void the commandment of God by a tradition. Momentous times are upon us. Who will be on the Lord's side?

THE SITUATION IN EUROPE.

By E. E. Parlin

BY E. E. PARLIN.

THE North American Review for March contains an interesting article from Archibald Forbes, on the "Outlook for War in Europe." He confines himself to a consideration of the subject in two divisions, first, whether the present extensive military preparations must inevitably result in a great war; and, second, when the outbreak of the tremendous conflict may be looked for.

The enormous expenditures for military preparation, to one who looks at the burden of taxation, is referred to as satisfactory evidence to many that an early war is inevitable, but he argues that, however burdensome as is the armed existing peace, resort to war would, in the nature of things, be infinitely more costly. He suggests that even the expenses of war would be readily borne if, by such means, a permanent reduction in military expenditures could be obtained, but experience has demonstrated that modern wars have been invariably followed by increased armaments. He reasons, because of the "Triple Alliance" and the "Dual Alliance" which have been formed in Europe, that there are no longer five powers whose action is liable to precipitate a general war, but only two great powers. That the five great powers no longer possess the independent, individual freedom to declare war, and that the initiative must be taken either by the Dual Alliance, consisting of France and Russia, or by the Triple Alliance, consisting of Germany, Austria, and Italy.

The end of the year 1895 is as far in the future as his intimate acquaintance with the situation in Europe leads him to postpone the clash of arms. Germany, the leading power of the Triple Alliance, is stronger to-day than ever before, by the addition of the 70,000 men which the Army Act of last October sanctioned, and with a large amount of treasure in reserve as a war fund, is ready for war on short notice. Austria, while not as fully equipped for war as Germany, is supplied with all modern appliances, and is in a position to furnish a formidable army with but little delay. Italy is referred to as not being in the highest condition of efficiency, and would be a very uncertain factor in the event of hostilities.

Of the Dual Alliance France is said to be at the very apex of her military strength and preparedness. By the system of drilling which has been in operation since 1889, every man fit for service and of proper age has received military training. As the population of France is no longer increasing, she cannot add to the numbers of available men, but her naval armament is constantly being augmented by the adoption of the latest and most approved devices of marine warfare. Russia for many years has been gradually concentrating her regular army on the western frontier, thereby not only protecting the weakest and most exposed portion of her territory, but also increasing the facility of mobilization in case any difficulty should arise with her neighbors. At the first outbreak of war the reserves would be called for from the interior, and this, owing to the distance and the lack of proper railroad facilities, would necessitate a delay of two or three months, during which time the Russian army on the frontier would no doubt confine itself to the defensive. As to finances, Russia seems to be in a fairly prosperous condition. Her Minister of Finance has just announced that the treasury has funds on hand to meet "any considerable disbursements during the year, and that there is not the slightest necessity for incurring a fresh loan." She has accumulated a fund of $20,000,000 in gold to meet the expenses of her army operating on foreign soil where her paper would not be received. The only obstacle which Russia would have to meet in the event of an early conflict would be that of securing, on short notice, modern implements of warfare. Because of the lack of proper arms, and which could not by any possibility be provided earlier than the spring of 1896, an outbreak before that time is hardly thought to be probable.

The total number of field troops available which could be brought into action in case of war, is estimated at 10,413,905. This large number of men is almost equally divided between the Dual and the Triple Alliance.

The general situation is summed up as strange, lurid, and in a sense humiliating. Armed Europe waits for the ultimate mandate of one man, and whether it shall be peace or war is the problem which Tsar Alexander III., alone and single handed, is to determine. One thing only is certain, that, when the conflict comes, it will be a struggle to the death, and the vanquished nations must reckon on suffering dismemberment.

DID YOU EVER KNOW?

A CHURCH that died because it paid too much.

A revival of religion that spoiled the missionary collection.

A missionary pastor who did not build up all sides of his church.

A man who paid liberally to missions and then felt meanly about it.

A Christian who amounts to much who did not believe in missions.

A man who does not believe in foreign missions who takes much stock in home doings.—Epworth Herald.

LIFE AND IMMORTALITY ONLY THROUGH CHRIST.

By W. N. Glenn

BY W. N. GLENN.

REV. DR. KUMMER, pastor of the First Methodist Episcopal Church of this city, has been delivering a series of discourses on the subject of immortality. He takes the ground that man possesses naturally an inherent, never-ending life. Whether righteous or wicked, he must live on eternally, and he cannot help it.

A peculiar phase of his argument is that the Old Testament does not teach the doctrine directly, but indirectly; that it is not directly stated, but is everywhere implied, everywhere taken for granted. Now any man who imagines a doctrine taught, by implication where it is not directly stated, must have previously imbibed the idea from some other source. And this reading a preconceived doctrine into the word of God, which is confessedly not squarely stated there, is doing violence to the word.

That the doctrine of man's natural immortality is not taught in the Bible, either directly or indirectly, is evident from various emphatic statements to the contrary. These statements are so directly against the idea of natural immortality in man that to assume that such a doctrine is taught there, even by the remotest inference, is to force a self-contradiction upon the Scriptures.

Man was made in the image of God; it is agreed that the image was spiritual, as Dr. Kummer declares, and the question as to whether it were also a physical image will not here be discussed. That man was created in the spiritual image of his Creator is shown by the statement that "God hath made man upright." Eccl. 7:29. So long as he retained his upright character, he was in the spiritual image of God, for God is upright. But when he sinned against God by disobedience, and transferred his allegiance to Satan, he ceased to be upright and lost his godlike image. To say that a sinner is in the spiritual image of God is to charge God with sin.

Had Adam continued faithful, he would have continued to live. But the source of his continued existence was not in himself, as is shown by the fact that he had access to the tree of life as a means of prolonging his life. And when he proved disobedient by eating the forbidden fruit, he was driven out of the garden and cut off from the tree of life, lest he should eat of its fruit and live forever. The way to the tree of life was guarded by cherubim and a flaming sword, to keep the sinner from living forever in his sinful condition; yet Dr. Kummer tells the people that the sinner must live forever, whether he wants to or not.

It requires but a few quotations from the Scriptures to show what they directly teach in regard to the nature of man. And when we know the direct teaching, we need not have any trouble about understanding that which is indirect. When a teacher interprets any Scripture language into a contradiction of that which is plain and positive, he becomes, to say the least, an unsafe guide. "If they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." Isa. 8:20.

As to positive statements, we have, first, the warning of God to Adam against eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil: "In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Of course Adam died a spiritual death when he disobeyed God. No one who claims to believe the Bible will dispute that in that very day he became "dead in trespasses and sins." Eph. 2:1. That the penalty was physical death or cessation of existence is evident by this further declaration of God, after the disobedience of Adam: "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken; for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."

The thirty-seventh psalm, verse 10, gives this positive testimony: "For yet a little while, and the wicked shall not be; yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place, and it shall not be." And verse 20 says: "The wicked shall perish, and the enemies of the Lord shall be as the fat of lambs; they shall consume; into smoke shall they consume away." And all the burnt offerings of the Mosaic ministration signified this very thing. David says, in the seventy-third psalm, "I was envious at the foolish, when I saw the prosperity of the wicked, . . . until I went into the sanctuary of God; then understood I their end."

In Eccl. 9:5, 6 we have this testimony: "The living know that they shall die; but the dead know not anything, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion forever in anything that is done under the sun." To this may be added the testimony of Job concerning the dead, that "his sons come to honor, and he knoweth it not; and they are brought low, but he perceiveth it not of them." Chap. 14:21.

Malachi tells us that "the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble; and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of Hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch."

Could there be any expression more direct, more emphatic, more explicit than these. Is it dealing honestly with the word of God to assume that it indirectly teaches that which is diametrically opposed to these positive, unqualified assertions? No reader would for a moment think of so treating any other book.

Dr. Kummer laid great stress on the expression so often used in the Old Testament that men when dying were "gathered to their fathers." He insisted that this was a spiritual gathering, and instanced the case of Abraham in proof. He said it was impossible that Abraham was gathered to his fathers in a physical sense, for he was buried in the land of Canaan, while his ancestors lived and died in the distant land of the Chaldees. This argument is fatal to some other dogmas of the immortal-soul theory. The expressions "was gathered to his fathers," "slept with his fathers," etc., are used of the good and the wicked indiscriminately; so that, if reference is had to a separate spiritual existence, we have all classes sojourning together in the "spirit land." When Abraham was alive, God called him out from his heathen fathers, but, according to Dr. Kummer's theory, as soon as he died his spirit was remanded to association with their heathen spirits. If the spirits of all the dead, good and bad, are gathered together in the "spirit land," the question arises, What is their condition? are they enjoying the bliss of heaven, or suffering the torments of hell, or enduring the uncertain issues of purgatory? This is but a sample of the confusion in which they are placed who persist in believing the serpent's deceptive assurance to Eve, "Thou shalt not surely die."

It is claimed, however, that in the New Testament the doctrine of inherent immortality is asserted more and more directly. The preaching of life and immortality by Christ and Paul is specially cited by Dr. Kummer as proof of his immortal-soul assumption. He seems to overlook the fact that Christ and Paul did not proclaim eternal life as something that man already has, "and cannot help himself," but that they proclaimed it as a boon to be obtained only through Christ. "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16. "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." Verse 36.

What is the wrath of God?—It is the penalty of sin. "The wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Rom. 6:23. Does the unrepentant sinner have anything in Christ?—Nothing whatever. Said Christ to the Jewish leaders, "Ye will not come to me, that ye might have life." John 5:40. "The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy; I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly." Chap. 10:10. "This is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life." 1 John 5:11, 12.

Thus we see that the New Testament is just as direct, as positive, as explicit, as the Old in its declaration that man has neither life nor immortality in himself. It assures us that the King of kings and Lord of lords "only hath immortality" (1 Tim. 6:15, 16); and that eternal life is the reward of those who "by patient continuance in welldoing seek for glory and honor and immortality." Man is a lost sinner, a creature of the dust, condemned to death, and his only hope of redemption from that low estate is in accepting pardon and life through Jesus Christ. The invitation is general, is universal. "The Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely." Rev. 22:17.

THE SIFTING OF PETER.

By Longfellow

In St. Luke’s Gospel we are told How Peter in the days of old Was sifted; And now, though ages intervene, Sin is the same, while time and scene Are shifted.

Satan desires us, great and small, As wheat to sift us, and we all Are tempted; Not one, however rich or great, Is by his station or estate Exempted.

No house so safely guarded is But he, by some device of his, Can enter; No heart hath armor so complete But he can pierce with arrows fleet Its center.

For all, at last, the cock will crow, Who hear the warning voice but go Unheeding, Till thrice or more they have denied The Man of Sorrows, crucified And bleeding.

One look of that pale, suffering face Will make us feel the deep disgrace Of weakness; We shall be sifted till the strength Of self-conceit be changed at length To meekness.

Wounds of the soul, though healed, will ache, The reddening scars remain, and make Confession; Lost innocence returns no more; We are not what we were before Transgression.

But noble souls through dust and heat Rise from disaster and defeat The stronger; And, conscious still of the divine Within them, lie on earth supine No longer. —Longfellow.

Continue reading: THE DEVIL'S MISSION OF AMUSEMENT