Review and Herald, Vol. 53, No. 10. (3/6/1879)

Review and Herald

Mar 6, 1879

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Mar 6, 1879

THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.

By Dudley Marvin Canright

ELD. D. M. CANRIGHT.

PLATONISM INTRODUCED AMONG THE ROMANS.

Rome was founded about seven hundred years before Christ; but for centuries the Romans were a barbarous, warlike people, taking little interest in theology or speculative philosophy. Enfield says it was not till the year 156 B. C. that philosophy began to be studied at Rome. It was then introduced by Grecian philosophers. At first it met with strong opposition from the leading men of the nation; but when Rome conquered Greece, and the two nations began to mingle, it was but a short time before the Grecian religion and philosophy were transplanted to Rome. Here they began to flourish with new life. “Hence,” says the historian, “Greece, which had submitted to the arms, in her turn subdued the understandings of the Romans; and, contrary to that which in these cases commonly happens, the conquerors adopted the opinions and manners of the conquered.”

That the Romans received their religion mostly from Greece, is attested by all writers who treat of the subject. “The religion of the Romans,” says a learned author, “appears to have been that of Greece—a mixture of Syrian and Egyptian fables. The principal gods of both people were the same.” “The religious system of the Romans,” says Mr. Fisk, “gives clear evidence of its Grecian descent, being in scarcely any part of it a native growth, but borrowed chiefly from the Greek colonies in Italy.” Dr. Good says, “The philosophers of Rome present us with nothing new; for they merely followed the dogmas of those of Greece.”

Very soon every Grecian sect of philosophy had its patrons among the Romans. The Epicurean, the Stoic, the Pyrrhonic, and other schools, which openly denied the soul’s immortality, had numerous followers. But Platonism also was embraced by others. Among the most noted of these was Cicero, who was born B. C. 106. He was a great admirer of Plato, and said and wrote much to prove the immortality of the soul. He did for that doctrine among the Romans what Plato had done for it among the Greeks. Yet even he confessed that he felt sure of the soul’s immortality only while he was arguing for it; in his hours of sober reflection he doubted it. Nevertheless, a goodly number adopted this view, at least in theory.

THE ALEXANDRIAN SCHOOL.

About this time a singular school was started at Alexandria in Egypt, then a part of the Roman empire. It was called the Eclectic or New Platonic School. The origin of it was this: Certain philosophers, seeing the endless disputes and contradictions among the many different sects of philosophy and religion, formed the plan of gleaning from all whatever was good and consonant to reason, and rejecting the rest. Platonism was the basis of this school, and the doctrine of the immortality of the soul held a conspicuous place in it. It was through this school, further improved in the second century by Ammonius Saccas, a Platonic Christian, that this doctrine came into the church; hence we are interested in its history. It is not certain just when it started; but probably not far from the time of the birth of Christ. So say Dr. Mosheim, Enfield, and the Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge.

Referring the reader to the above authors for a full history of this school, I will only select a few facts bearing directly on my subject. “Upon the foundation of the Platonic philosophy,” says Enfield, “with an abundance of heterogeneous materials collected from every other sect, was erected an irregular, cumbrous, and useless fabric, called the ECLECTIC SCHOOL.” One Potamon, a Platonist, is supposed to have been its founder. Says the Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, “They held Plato in the highest esteem, but did not scruple to join with his doctrine whatever they thought conformable to reason in the tenets of other philosophers.” “Potamon endeavored to reconcile the precepts of Plato with those of other masters.”

“The Christian religion, too, which had now found its way to Alexandria, became incidentally the occasion of encouraging and promoting this coalition of opinions; for when the heathen philosophers perceived that this new establishment, supported by the splendor of its miracles and the purity of its doctrines, was daily gaining credit even in the schools of Alexandria; and saw that, like the rising sun, it was likely soon to eclipse every inferior light; despairing of being able either to refute its claims by argument, or to stem its progress by authority, they determined to oppose it by every effort of ingenuity and artifice. In order to support the declining credit of their own schools, they incorporated Christian ideas and principles into their new system. Several fathers of the Christian church themselves, such as Pantaenus, Clemens Alexandrinus, and the author of the work called the Shepherd of Hermas, by studying philosophy in the Alexandrian school, injudiciously favored the views of their opponents, and from their sacred magazine contributed their share toward that confused mass of opinions, Egyptian, Oriental, Pythagoric, Platonic, and Christian, which, about the close of the second century, rose up into the ECLECTIC SYSTEM.”

Alas that the church of Christ should have left the simple truth of the Holy Bible to learn wisdom and doctrine from the “vain philosophy” of heathenism! But such was the sad fact. From this time we find innumerable errors mixing in with the pure truth of the Bible. This Eclectic school was started about one hundred years after the death of the last apostle, toward the close of the second century.

That the main object of this school was to reconcile and unite Christianity and heathen philosophy, particularly Platonic philosophy, is abundantly proved by the historians treating upon the subject. The learned Dr. Mosheim thus speaks of this school: “This [Eclectic] mode of philosophizing was changed near the close of the [second] century, when Ammonius Saccas, with great applause, opened a school at Alexandria, and laid the foundation for that sect which is called the New Platonic. This man was born and educated a Christian, and perhaps made pretensions to Christianity all his life. Being possessed of great fecundity of genius, as well as eloquence, he undertook to bring all systems of philosophy and religion into harmony; or, in other words, to teach a philosophy by which all philosophers, and the men of all religions, the Christian not excepted, might unite together and have fellowship.” “The grand object of Ammonius, to bring all sects and religions into harmony, required him to do much violence to the sentiments and opinions of all parties,—philosophers, priests, and Christians; and particularly, by means of allegorical interpretations, to remove very many impediments out of his way.”

Of this scheme Enfield says: “By combining into one system all the important tenets, both theological and philosophical, which were at that time received, either in the pagan or the Christian school, they hoped to confirm the heathen in their attachment to their old superstitions, and to reconcile the Christians to paganism.”

“In the infancy of the Alexandrian school, not a few among the professors of Christianity suffered themselves to be so far deluded by the pretensions of this sect as to imagine that a coalition might, with great advantage, be formed between its system and that of Christianity; and this union seemed the more desirable as several philosophers of this sect became converts to the Christian faith. But the consequence was, that pagan ideas and opinions were by degrees mixed with the pure and simple doctrine of the gospel; the fanatical philosophy of Ammonius corrupted the pure religion of Christ; and his church became a field of contention, and a nursery of error.”

The object they had in view is thus stated by Mosheim:—

“The Christian teachers were well aware of what essential benefit it would be in promoting their cause, not only with the multitude, but also amongst men of the higher orders, could the philosophers, whose authority and estimation with the world was unbounded, be brought to embrace Christianity. With a view, therefore, of accomplishing this desirable object, they not only adopted the study of philosophy themselves, but became loud in their recommendation of it to others, declaring that the difference between Christianity and philosophy was but trifling, and consisted merely in the former being of a nature somewhat more perfect than the latter. And it is most certain that this kind of conduct was so far productive of the desired effect as to cause not a few of the philosophers to enroll themselves under the Christian banner. Those who have perused the various works written by such of the ancient philosophers as had been induced to embrace Christianity, cannot have failed to remark that the Christian discipline was regarded by all of them in no other light than as a certain mode of philosophizing.”

The effect of this was soon manifest. The above-quoted author says: “Hence it came to pass that the greater part of these Platonists, upon comparing the Christian religion with the system of Ammonius, were led to imagine that nothing could be more easy than a transition from the one to the other, and, to the great detriment of the Christian cause, were induced to embrace Christianity without feeling it necessary to abandon scarcely any of their former principles.”

To us at this day it seems incredible that such a scheme should ever have been formed or that any Christians would have listened to it a moment. But when we remember that

the apostles had been dead one hundred years, that the church had already degenerated to an alarming degree, that nearly all the Christian converts had themselves been pagans, that they brought into the church with them more or less attachment for their former pagan notions, and that their nearest friends and relatives were still pagans, it is not so remarkable that they were induced to look favorably upon such an effort. But it was the most fatal step the church ever took; it opened the doors for a flood of error to pour into the pure stream of gospel truth, and, alas! they have never been wholly separated since.

PLATO’S DOCTRINE OF THE SOUL ADOPTED BY THIS SCHOOL.

That Plato’s doctrine of the immortality of the soul was adopted by this New Platonic school as the corner-stone of its system, is plainly declared on all hands. It will be remembered, as we have shown, that “Plato refers to the head of the philosophy of nature his doctrine concerning the human soul.” This was the corner-stone of his system, wherein it differed from all other systems of philosophy. The following testimonies are from that eminent historian, Mosheim, and show that Plato’s doctrine of the soul was received by the Alexandrian school:—

“They assumed therefore the name of Eclectics. But although these philosophers were really the partisans of no sect, it appears from a variety of testimonies that they much preferred Plato, and embraced most of his dogmas concerning God, the human soul, and the universe.”

“The grounds of this system lay in the peculiar sentiments entertained by this sect of philosophers and by their friends, respecting the soul, demons, matter, and the universe. And when these sentiments were embraced by the Christian philosophers, the necessary consequences of them must also be adopted.”

These testimonies are plain and decisive. The consequences to Christian doctrine and practice we shall soon see. The same author, in another critical history, says, “Those who originated this species of philosophy took their leading principles from the system of Plato; considering almost everything which he advanced respecting the Deity, the soul, the world, and the demons as indisputable axioms.”

“Every one who laid claim to the character of a wise man, was strictly enjoined by him [Ammonius Saccas] to assert the liberty of his divine and immortal part, by extricating it, as it were, from all connection with the body. . . . In fine, to shrink from no exertion that might tend to free the immortal spirit from all corporeal influence.”

Again: “And that he might the more readily procure for this part of his system an acceptance with the world, he endeavored, as far as possible, by means of strained interpretations, or rather perversions, to enlist on his side the tenets of the Christians respecting the Deity, the human soul, the world,” etc. “The restoration or resurrection of the dead was so interpreted as to accommodate it to the tenets of the Grecian sages.”

Another eminent author says of this school: “The philosophy of Plato, already united with that of Pythagoras, was made the basis of this new system. . . . Not satisfied with arriving at a formal and essential intuition of divine natures, they aspired after a sort of deification of the human mind.” Here our orthodox brethren may see the origin of their present doctrine that the soul is a part of God.

Ammonius probably died about A. D. 243. “The school of Ammonius was continued, and the Eclectic system completed, by the most celebrated of his disciples, Plotinus, the chief of the Alexandrian Platonists, from whom the school afterward took its name.” He was born A. D. 204. On account of his great abilities, the school became very famous, and was successful in the accomplishment of its object, as we shall see. Plotinus implicitly received Plato’s doctrine of the immortality of the soul. The following, from Enfield, will illustrate this: “It was another proof of the fanatical spirit of Plotinus that, though well skilled in the medical art, he had such a contempt for the body that he could never be prevailed upon to make use of any means to cure . . . or alleviate his pain. He had learned from Pythagoras and Plato that the soul is sent into the body for the punishment of its former sins, and must, in this prison, pass through a severe servitude before it can be sufficiently purified to return to the divine fountain from which it flowed. . . . When he found his end approaching, he said to Eustochius, ‘The divine principle within me is now hastening to unite itself with that divine Being which animates the universe;’ herein expressing a leading principle of his philosophy, that the human soul is an emanation from the divine nature, and will return to the source whence it proceeded.” This shows what a prominent place Plato’s doctrine of the human soul held in this system.

Plotinus died A. D. 270. “The succession of the Platonic or Eclectic school in Alexandria terminated in Damascius, a native of Syria.”

It would seem that very little penetration is needed to discern in this the original of the modern theological doctrine of the immortality of the soul, going to Heaven at death, etc. With this school, the resurrection of the body was either of little importance or denied entirely. This would naturally follow from their view of the impurity of matter. These facts I think sufficient to give a clear idea of the doctrines of this celebrated school concerning man, both soul and body.

“CAST THY BREAD UPON THE WATERS.”

By Mrs. L. D. Avery Stuttle

Patiently wait, my brother, Banish thy doubts and fears, Though in the dark be hidden Seed that was sown in tears. Cast thy bread on the waters deep, By-and-by thou shalt surely reap.

Cast thy bread on the waters, Cheerfully give thy mite, What though the misty shadows Cover the sun from sight? Thy reward shall be sure at last, If on the waters thy bread be cast.

Turn not away from the needy, Give to the hungry bread, Comfort the saddened spirit, Lift ye the drooping head; For thy bread on the waters cast Thou shalt find, when the day is past.

Why dost thou idly loiter? Up, there is work to do! Work in the Master's vineyard, Work for the good and true. Sweet shall be thy reward at last, If on the waters thy bread be cast.

MRS. L. D. AVERY STUTTLE.

Vernon, Mich., Feb. 16.

THE PROPER TIME FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ORDINANCES.

By W. H. Littlejohn

ELD. W. H. LITTLEJOHN.

(Concluded.)

HAVING considered those passages which favor the supposition that we are at liberty to consult our own interest or inclinations in deciding as to when this ordinance shall be participated in, it is proper that we should give our attention to several texts which are supposed to favor the opposite theory.

The first of these is quoted above, and found in the twentieth chapter and seventh verse of the book of Acts. That this verse records an instance of the celebration of the Lord's supper, is generally conceded. That it was partaken of, also, in the night season, is highly probable. This being the case, it has been cited as an illustration of the fact that the apostle Paul selected that time because he desired to conform in his practice to the example of Christ. The passage in question, however, is very far from proving that for which it is quoted.

In the first place it is submitted that it is not safe to infer an exemplary intention from a single instance where there is not one word in the context which even intimates that such an intention was entertained by the apostle. If there had been a long list of occurrences of this kind, all of which uniformly took place at the same time, there might be a bare presumption of design, unless other reasons should suggest themselves as furnishing a motive for the selection of such a time. But when the case is a single one, and when a sufficient reason may be found for the fact that the apostle attended to the matter in the night because it was his last meeting with them—since he designed to depart in the morning—then that fact, in and of itself, fully explains his object in attending to the matter when he did. It was very natural that in his last meeting with those whom he loved so dearly he should desire to commemorate an event which had brought salvation to all in common, and which furnished a pledge of future reunion which would never be broken up.

In the second place we suggest that it was not the matter of the precise time at which the ordinance should be administered which actuated Paul in selecting the night season for that work, since if that had been the case, he would have chosen the first part instead of the latter portion of the night. That the apostle did, however, break bread in the morning, and not in the evening, is easily demonstrated by the context, wherein it is stated that he preached until midnight; the narrative showing that subsequently to that time, Eutychus, having fallen from the window, was restored by the apostle, and that after this last event, Paul returned to the chamber, broke bread, and continued to talk until break of day; but the events connected with the restoration of Eutychus, the allaying of the consequent confusion, and the delay which would have been required before quiet, and order, and calmness of thought could have been sufficiently restored to allow the resumption of the apostle's discourse, must necessarily have thrown the supper forward into the morning, even though we allow no time for preaching after the coming up and before the breaking of bread. Such being the case, the text before us, instead of antagonizing with our theory, furnishes a marked confirmation of the same, by giving us the example of Paul and the church at Troas on the side of the practice which we defend; for if the element of time was essential in Paul's day, he would have been particular to administer the ordinances in the forepart of the night, as Christ did, instead of attending to them in the morning hours.

In the third place it might be well to call attention to the fact here that the meeting at Troas—occurring as it did too early in the season for the annual Passover feast—furnishes a confirmation of the hypothesis offered above, that the repeal of the Mosaic code resulted in the abolition of all the regulations respecting the annual celebration of the Passover, and, consequently, of the Lord's supper also.

By this means we are enabled to see that the Christian ordinance, so far as its regulations were concerned, must necessarily have been governed by the sayings of Christ, instead of the provisions of the Pentateuch.

The last text we shall mention—as it is the only one remaining unanswered, so far as we are aware of—is found in the eleventh chapter of first Corinthians, and the twentieth verse. The argument drawn from this passage is based upon the fact that the breaking of bread is there alluded to as the Lord's supper. From this it follows, say some, that the eucharist should be partaken of in the evening because it is styled a supper, which never could have been the case unless it was designed that it should be eaten in the evening exclusively.

This argument seems to us to be weak in the extreme. Mark you, the apostle does not say that we should partake of the sacrament at supper time; but he simply gives to the meal of which we are to partake the name of “Lord's supper.”

Now it by no means follows from that fact that we are necessarily restricted in the partaking of that meal to the precise time at which our Lord instituted the same.

Were this the case, we should be unable to comply with the command, since—as already seen—the exact time at which the disciples partook of the emblems in the first instance cannot be ascertained. It is true, doubtless, that it was done in the forepart of the night; but it is not true that the Lord's supper, as such, could not be partaken of at any time except that at which the Lord partook of it at the first; for—as heretofore proved—the same apostle who wrote the passage quoted from Corinthians did, as shown from his own example at Troas, deem it admissible to partake of the same in the morning hours.

The term supper—unfortunately for those who attach so much importance to it in the decision of the subject before us—is one which is not by any means limited in its application to an evening meal. Originally the meals of the ancients were two, the latter of which was called supper, and was eaten very frequently not only before the setting of the sun, but even as early as noon itself, or shortly thereafter. This being the case, so far as the signification of the name is concerned, any hour which should fall between noon and midnight might with perfect propriety be selected for the Lord's supper. And whenever the sacrament shall be partaken of at any hour between those points, it could with propriety be called, first, a supper, because of the time at which it was administered, and, secondly, the Lord's supper, because originally instituted by him.

But this being true, then we have both the afternoon and the first part of the night from which to select an hour for the administration of the ordinances, which shall suit either our convenience or taste, even though we should concede the argument of our friends to be true, as they draw it from the appellation of supper which was originally used to designate the sacred meal. Hence the only portion of the day wherein it might not be legitimate for us to offer the emblems of the broken body and spilled blood of Christ to any of his disciples, must be found between sunrise and noon.

The only reason, also, why any one could properly insist that such a period would not be suitable for the work in question, would be found in the fact that a meal partaken of during its hours could not properly be called a supper. In reply to such a view it will only be necessary to say that if Paul could administer the Lord's supper between midnight and daylight, then he might also have done it between daylight and twelve o'clock noon; as it would be just as improper, when governed by the consideration of time, to call a meal eaten between twelve o'clock midnight and six o'clock in the morning a supper, as it would be to give that title to one entered upon between the latter hour and twelve o'clock noon.

The simple fact is that it utterly overturns all theories which rest upon the hypothesis that the title “supper,” as applied to the eucharist, does in any way affect or determine the time when it shall be administered.

The truth, therefore, is by this time apparent to all that such an appellation was not used because of future limitation in point of time, and that the sole reason why it was selected is found in the fact that the sacred writer sought to discriminate between it and the Passover supper, in immediate connection with which it originated. Such an hypothesis is every way logical and consistent, and it harmonizes also with the words employed by our Lord in enforcing the ordinance, and with the construction which the apostle placed thereupon, as interpreted in the light of his individual practice. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, when alluding to the Passover which was eaten by the Lord and his disciples on the evening of his betrayal, speak of it as the “supper.” It was therefore needful, in order to prevent confusion, that some other title should be applied to the Christian sacrament. How natural that it should, for the purposes of distinction, take the name of Lord's supper.

Thus much by way of argument.

It only remains, now, that we present an epitome of the points made before leaving the subject. It would run as follows:—

1. The element of time is never to be regarded as essential unless it be made so by the very nature of the duty prescribed, or by explicit declarations found in the command imposing the same. Illustrations of this theory of interpretation which all have indorsed, are found in the fact that all persons pray, and that all ministers baptize, whenever occasion offers, simply because there is no limitation in the original injunctions on these subjects.

2. There is no restriction as to time in the command, as appears from the examination of the texts, since the words “as oft as ye do it” are not definitive in their character.

3. The Passover regulations do not affect the question, since the Passover was not the model of the Lord's supper.

4. If Acts 2:42–47 be treated as though the term “breaking bread,” which is employed twice in those verses, has reference in both instances to the eucharist—as it certainly does in one—then the disciples assuredly did partake of the Lord's supper in the daytime.

5. The record found in the twentieth chapter of Acts, which is quoted to prove that the Lord's supper must be partaken of in the evening, does not in fact disprove that proposition, since it is therein made to appear that—though they came together for that purpose in the evening—they did not in reality break bread until the morning hours.

6. The argument drawn from the fact that the eucharist was termed Lord's supper, really possesses no force whatever in the matter of limiting its celebration to the evening hours; since, at that time, it would have been proper to call any meal a supper which was eaten between twelve o'clock and midnight.

7. If Paul could have partaken of the Lord's supper in the morning hours between twelve and six o'clock, then he, as well as ourselves, might also do the same between six o'clock A. M. and twelve o'clock noon.

8. The appellation Lord's supper was given, not for the purpose of defining the time when that meal might be eaten thereafter, but simply to distinguish it from the Passover supper, in immediate connection with which it was instituted in the outset.

NEWSPAPER WORTH.

To estimate the worth of a man by his bodily size would be looked upon as an absurdity. Ten acres of land with a rich soil are worth more for agricultural purposes than a hundred composed of marshes or barren sands. A sermon of forty-five minutes may have more matter and argument than another which occupies an hour and a half or more in delivery. And this is equally true of newspapers; the size of the sheet is no indication of the worth of the paper. Three things are always to be taken into account in determining the value of a newspaper: 1. A sheet by the use of a great deal of small type may contain much more than one that is a great deal larger; 2. The amount of fresh news and living thoughts compressed into the columns is a still stronger test of the real value of a journal; and 3. The moral and religious force carried by the journal is the crowning evidence of superiority or inferiority. If any paper can show that it has more brains, that it employs them more effectively, and that it carries more moral force than any of its contemporaries, then its pre-eminence over them will be admitted; but not till then. Superiority in journalism depends on something more than a few inches of white paper dotted with ink.—Presbyterian Banner.

THE EASTERN OUTLOOK.

By Harns

The following is the substance of a conversation which recently occurred between a “Russian General well known in the Russian world as the Emperor’s personal friend and one of his confidential advisers,” and a reporter of the Boston Journal. The conversation took place at Batoum, on the Black Sea. It was published at length in the Boston Journal.

R.—Do you think a war between England and Russia will grow out of the Afghan question?

G.—No.

R.—Do you think a war between England and Russia will grow out of the Eastern question?

G.—Yes.

R.—Why?

G.—England will be prompted, if not obliged, to take Constantinople as a consequence of the colonial and foreign policy she is now pursuing. Prompted, because the possession of Constantinople would put her in such a splendid position before the world; she would be Queen of the seas and mistress of all the straits worth having; prompted, because she has inaugurated an imperial, towering style of doing things akin to that of Napoleon III. of France, meddling in the affairs of the East, conniving to get Cyprus, fighting the Afghans, sending the Prince of Wales to India to play the prodigal, sending the Princess Louise to Canada to govern the Canadians; prompted, because she is intoxicated with the Earl of Beaconsfield’s unparalleled success and his dark, sinuous, Asiatic way of doing things; prompted, because she is a grasping nation anyway.

R.—But the English whom I have met say they don’t want Constantinople, and wouldn’t take it if they could.

G.—Very true; and a fortnight before Cyprus, with a possible protectorate over Asia Minor, became the property of England, if the English people had been asked, Do you want these new responsibilities? they would have answered, No. But these considerations may be very properly left out of the question; for it is almost certain that England will be obliged, as a means of securing her own safety in dealing with the Sultan, to take Constantinople whether she will or not. Turkey is already coquetting with her. She says, Give me money. England says, I won’t. Then Turkey says in a half-aside, I shall throw myself into the hands of Russia. No one knows how soon the complications of the Eastern question may compel a forward move. England is

morally pledged by the treaty of June 5 to reform Asia Minor; but she cannot reform Asia Minor without reforming the Sultan, in whom all the corruption in the Ottoman empire centers; and if England reforms the Sultan she will get into such difficulties with him and with European Turkey that she will be obliged to seize Constantinople to protect herself.

R.—Will Russia resist the English occupation of Constantinople?

G.—Most assuredly.

R.—Has Russia herself abandoned the traditional policy of the Emperors to take Constantinople?

G.—By no means. It is true many Russians say, “Russia has enough, let her develop what she has;” but these same Russians, if they could see a way to take Constantinople, would be filled with enthusiasm, and they would strain every nerve to realize a long-cherished ambition; for down in their hearts they desire Constantinople as much as any one, and are secretly determined to have it. Constantinople will eventually fall into the hands of the Russians—I have no doubt about that. It is theirs by right. They ought to have it. Six months in the year, when her Baltic ports are frozen, Russia is commercially a prisoner, or liable at any moment to be made so, unless she controls the Bosphorus. If you had a farm the way to which lay through a neighbor’s premises, and he your worst enemy and liable at any time to cut you off from your market, would you not fight him, if necessary, to keep your communications open? It is just so with Russia. She chafes under her confinement. She beats her prison bars from morning till night. And she will never rest easy, and the Eastern question will never be settled, until Constantinople is within her grasp, and Turkey is no more. I look forward hopefully to the time when the English and the Russians will face each other all the way up and down the famous water-way between the Black Sea and the Grecian Archipelago, the English on the Asiatic side and the Russians on the European, the English at Scutari and the Russians at Constantinople—a condition of things which will effectually dispose of the Eastern question, reduce the alarm, hence the armies of Europe, and not only that, but be the best thing in the world for the Turks.

R.—Then you believe the hold upon Asia Minor which the English acquired last summer will develop into a complete protectorate?

G.—Yes, a complete protectorate, amounting to actual possession and control. The English Liberals will press the government to reform Asia Minor, and the Conservatives will be disposed to yield to the pressure the better to preserve their prestige. By the terms of the treaty which Disraeli so slyly concluded, the English were to occupy Cyprus and in return to guarantee the integrity of Asia Minor, provided the Turks reformed it to the satisfaction of the English. But the Turks never reform anything. Hence the English will have to do it themselves (if it is ever done), gradually settling down, in the course of the process, as the masters of the country.

R.—Was the Berlin treaty, properly speaking, a great success?

G.—It did all it could. It unsettled the Eastern question more than ever, and, combined with the Anglo-Turkish treaty, revealed to every Russian that that question could not be disposed of by peaceable means. It did all it could do under the circumstances.

R.—What is the feeling in Russia toward England?

G.—Very bitter. We feel we must forever alienate from our minds all thought of being agreeable to England in time to come. We look forward to fighting her, and to fighting her successfully, if our money doesn’t give out. We have the men, she has the money. It is a conflict between men and money. We can lose a million of men and then whip England, provided our money doesn’t give out.

R.—And meanwhile what will Austria do?

G.—She will occupy all the western parts of European Turkey.

R.—And Turkey will disappear as a nation?

G.—In the interests of civilization.

R.—But the great powers of Europe—will not they step in, and, by erecting Constantinople into a free city under their special patronage and protection, put to flight all these nice little arrangements?

G.—The great powers will never erect Constantinople into a free city. There is nothing in Constantinople to make a city government out of. There is the Turk fearing the Christian, and the Christian fearing the Turk. Each lives in mortal fear and terror of what the other may do. Each fears the sword wielded by the hand of the other. Each fears the torch applied by the hand of the other. If Constantinople is erected into a free city, the reign of anarchy on the Bosphorus will be perpetuated, and crime, bloodshed, and all the horrors of hell, receive a new lease of life. The diplomats will never be guilty of trying an experiment so hazardous.

R.—Perhaps the diplomats will give the southern part of Turkey, including Constantinople, to Greece.

G.—I do not believe it; for what is Greece?—It is a little power which has never cared for its own affairs properly. It hasn’t a city of 50,000 inhabitants, and up to 1872 it had but one railroad—the Grecian Grand Trunk—seven and a half miles long, extending from Athens to Piraeus, and I doubt if at present it has another line of equal importance. To give Constantinople to Greece would be putting a head so prodigious upon shoulders so feeble that the shoulders could not stagger under the burden. It would be ridiculous.

Such was the gist of our conversation, if not the exact language thereof. The General’s views were particularly edifying, and, it seemed to me, entirely sound. The reader can accept them with confidence as being unqualifiedly Russian—a true Muscovite’s view of the case. Isn’t there some sense in the same? HARNS.

JOY IN SORROW.

By Mrs. G. W. Pierce

One by one our friends are falling In the still and silent grave, Dropping like the leaves in autumn— Is there no kind hand to save? Must they cross the silent river? Must they go whence none return? Must our drooping hearts forever Sadly here their absence mourn?

Must we never hear their footsteps We have known in days of yore? Must we list in vain their voices We are doomed to hear no more? Must our hearts be ever mourning For the faces hid from view? Must the tear-drops ever gather For the friends we've bid adieu?

Oh, yes; man was doomed to slumber In the cold and silent grave; But when Jesus comes in power, He'll redeem them, he will save. Then the long-closed tombs will open, And the sleeping dead arise; Then they'll rise on heavenly pinions To the mount of paradise.

Blessed thought our lone hearts cheering, As our friends pass to the tomb; Precious Saviour, keep us near thee Till the jubilee shall come; Then to realms of joy and gladness, Free from sin and grief and care, Then we'll never more know sorrow— Death will never enter there.

—Mrs. G. W. Pierce, in Northern Indianian.

Continue reading: CAN SAINTS APOSTATIZE?