Earlier text: The Assyrian EmpireBaal Worship and Worldly Compromise
By Alonzo Trevier Jones
faithful seven thousand served the Lord. More than this, when by all these considerations they were induced to forsake their duty to God and their respect for his commandments, the restraints of conscience and the law of God were loosed, for Baal demanded nothing of this kind. No self-denial was ever asked of the worshipers of Baal; no pleasure, be it what it would, was ever denied to the followers of Baal. THEN, it was just as fashionable to go to a feast in the house of Baal, as it now is to go to a festival in the house of the Lord. Then it was just as honorable to bow the knee to Baal in the house of Baal, as it now is to gamble in the house of the Lord. Then it was just as entirely proper to offer the young women to the highest bidder, in the temple of Baal, as it now is to put them up and sell them at auction, or sell their kisses, to the highest bidder, in the house of the Lord. And then, for the servant of the Lord to reprove those, was to make himself an unpopular, and as much of a troubler of Israel, as it now is to reprove these. Then, it was counted just as stubborn fanaticism to acknowledge Jehovah in the first commandment, as it now is to acknowledge Jehovah in the fourth commandment. AND this fashionableness, and popularity, and worldly honor, and worldly advantage, and abundance of pleasures, were what caused the people then to halt between two opinions as to whether they would follow the Lord or follow Baal, just as it now causes people to halt between two opinions as to whether they will keep the Sabbath of the Lord, or keep the Sunday of the papal church. "How LONG halt ye between two opinions?" If the Bible says that "the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord," keep it; but if the Bible says that the first day is the Sabbath of the Lord, then keep that. What matters it though four hundred and fifty prophets, with the second Jezebel (Rev. 2: 20) at their head, all say that Sunday—the first day—is the Sabbath; until they point to a verse in the word of God that says plainly. The first day is the Sabbath of the Lord—until then their word on that subject is no more to be taken as the truth than was the word of the four hundred and fifty prophets of Baal that Baal was God. THERE is no disguising the fact that this Sabbath question is fast gaining the lead of all public questions. The great multitude, as governments, and as nations, are rapidly wheeling into line in support of the claim that Sunday is the Sabbath and must be so kept under penalty of law. There are a few, a little company, who, in opposition to this, maintain that the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord, and must be so observed. And this question, as to which day is the Sabbath, is not left for our decision, any more than the question as to who was the true God was left to theirs in the day of Elijah. The Lord himself has decided this question as well as that. And after the manner of Elijah we say to all: Write these two questions, 1. Is the seventh day the Sabbath? 2. Is the first day the Sabbath? Then which ever one that the word of God in the Bible says is the Sabbath, let that day be the Sabbath. And that holy word answers, with no uncertain sound, to every man in the wide world, "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work." "If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the Sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honorable; and shalt honor him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words; then shalt thou delight thyself in the Lord; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father; for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it." Isa. 58: 13, 14. A. T. J. Individual Work for Christ
THE world can never be converted en masse, nor by human machinery, however well devised and arranged. If men are ever converted, they must be converted, as individuals, and the influence that is brought to bear upon them to lead them to Christ is individual influence. The way to advance the cause of Christ is for every man to perform his individual duty, work faithfully in his own sphere, and do all he can in the circumstances in which God has placed him, to bring others to a knowledge of the truth. It is the individual workers, the lonely toilers, that do the most for God and humanity. Their names, perhaps, are seldom seen in the papers; they are not prominent in conventions, associations, and institutes; they have little to do with the popular, sensational movements of the day; but they may be found visiting the sick, supplying the wants of the poor and needy, comforting the disconsolate, lifting up the degraded, and, like the Master, going about doing good. These are the men that are doing efficient work in advancing the cause of Christ, blessing society, and saving the souls of their fellow-men.—Sel. EVERY well-wisher of children wishes them to grow in grace; but not every well-wisher is willing to give them time to grow. You cannot make a boy of six as wise as a man of forty, by simply reading to him the maxims of Confucius; you must plant the principle of wisdom in his heart, and let it grow with his growth, and gain strength with his strength. You can make a perfect little image of a man in an evening with a jack-knife and a piece of wood, but, after all, your man is only a wooden one. That is not the model on which you would construct the men your boys are going to be. Give them time, then, to grow. Act for them as if you wish them to be oaks whose trunks and limbs are compacted with each year's slow growth; not as if you wish them to be mushrooms, springing up in a night, and falling to pieces at the first rough touch.—Sel. I know of more than one mother and teacher whose Bible goes with them from sitting-room to kitchen, keeping close company with the work-basket or kneading-board, whichever happens to be on duty. Praise the Father for such women! He will "thoroughly furnish" them unto acceptable service for him. Whatsoever he calls them to do, will be done "heartily, as unto him."—Sel. Home Discipline and School
WHAT can the school accomplish for children who are suffered to be disobedient, selfish, and self-willed at home?—Northern Advocate. It is the one duty of the hour that we are to recognize as our duty for the hour. To ascertain that duty, to distinguish the one real duty from the many apparent duties, may require a careful balancing of various interests, and of conflicting feelings and relations; but, when that immediate duty is ascertained, it must be recognized as, for the time being, above all else; as practically standing alone, the only present duty of our lives. Then, we must move on in that direction, even though we seem to be moving to sure destruction, or to the disregard of interests and of loved ones dearer to us than life itself. We may seem to be risking our influence, endangering our good name, compromising our position, neglecting important enterprises, causing needless discomfort to others, failing to improve the great opportunities of our life course, bringing discomfort to ourselves, and yielding that which it would be a priceless privilege to enjoy;—but there is no proper alternative to us; this is the one thing for us to do. And, so sure as God is true, if we do go forward fearlessly, it will ultimately be found that the doing of this duty is perfectly consistent with every other duty of our lives.—S. S. Times. The Sabbath of the Decalogue.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
IN the third article by Dr. Dobbs, on the Sabbath question, we find the following:— "The Sabbath of the Sinaic decalogue was essentially and designedly a ceremonial institution of the Mosaic law, and as such was given and confined to that people whom the Lord their God had brought out of the land of Egypt. It was a sign between God and Israel only." In the next paragraph, he says:— "Some good brethren, while assenting in the main to my proposition, have thought the use of the word 'ceremonial' unfortunate and misleading. I class the Sabbath institution with the other positive rites of Judaism. To my mind, the Sabbath is no more spiritual nor moral than are the passover and the new moon festival observances, commanded in the law of Moses. It, as well as they, was but a part of the 'shadows' which were to 'pass away' when the 'body' should come." In answer to the Doctor's statement that to his mind there is nothing spiritual or moral about the Sabbath, we would quote the words of Paul, in 1 Cor. 2:14: "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." This scripture has direct application in this case, for the apostle plainly declares that the one who refuses submission to the law of God, is not spiritual, but carnal. Rom. 8:7. The same apostle plainly declares that "the law is spiritual;" that "the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, and just, and good." Rom. 7:12, 14. If the law is spiritual, then the fourth precept of the law is spiritual. It is impossible to separate the fourth commandment from the rest of the decalogue. It is, as a whole, the moral law. The psalmist was speaking of the law as it was pronounced from Sinai, when he declared that it "is perfect" (Ps. 19:7), and he certainly referred to the words which were spoken amid the thunders of Sinai, when he said, "Thy word is true from the beginning; and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth forever." Ps. 119:160. Is the decalogue ceremonial and shadowy? If489 the fourth commandment is, the whole must be. When God said, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me," what did that typify? When God said, "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain," what portion of the work of Christ was shadowed forth? Can any one tell? The truth is, there is not a single one of the ten commandments which has in it anything whatever of a ceremonial nature. Think a moment, reader. Did you ever hear anybody mention anything in the life, sufferings, or death of Christ, of which the Sabbath was typical? No one ever attempted to show in Christ's work the antitype of the Sabbath. The antitype of every portion of the ceremonial law may be traced in the work of Christ, but not so with the moral law. That is not a shadow, but the substance which, when trampled upon, made it necessary for Christ's work to be performed. The apostle says, "Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God." 1 Cor. 7:19. Some men claim that the Sabbath was given as a type of the saint's eternal rest. We have never seen any proof of such a thing, and we do not accept the statement as true; but if it were true, it would show that the Sabbath is still binding on mankind, for the saints have not yet received their eternal rest, and the shadow can never stop until it reaches the substance. The declaration of our Saviour, in Matt. 5:17, 18, is of itself sufficient to show that the law of God is not typical or shadowy: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Till all what be fulfilled? Till all the prophets be fulfilled. Christ's coming to earth was, as he said, in fulfillment of prophecy, for unto him all the prophets gave witness. Acts 10:43. But Christ did not at his first coming fulfill all that the prophets had spoken, for David, prophesying of him, said: "My mercy will I keep for him forevermore, and my covenant shall stand fast with him. His seed also will I make to endure forever, and his throne as the days of Heaven." Ps. 89:28, 29. Here is a prophecy that cannot be completely fulfilled as long as the days of Heaven exist,—in other words, it reaches to eternity,—and therefore since not a jot nor a tittle can pass from the law till all be fulfilled, it is evident that the ten commandments will exist in full force, without the slightest change, as long as eternity endures. Now what about the statement that the Sabbath was given because God brought the Jews out of Egypt? The falsity of that assertion has already been shown, by the fact that the Sabbath was given to man in Eden. If it was given in Eden, and was kept centuries before the Egyptian bondage, as we have already shown, then it was not given to commemorate the deliverance from that bondage. There was something given which, while it served as a shadow of something good to be done for the race, commemorated the deliverance from bondage. This was the passover, described in Ex. 12. But the passover was eaten in the night, and therefore Moses said: "It is a night to be much observed unto the Lord for bringing them out from the land of Egypt; this is that night of the Lord to be observed of all the children of Israel in their generations." Ex. 12:42. The objector, as he reads this, will think of Deut. 5:15, which reads thus: "And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm; therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the Sabbath day." That passage can afford no help to the opposers of Sabbath observance. Mark it well. It does not say that the Lord gave them the Sabbath day because he brought them out of Egypt, but that for that reason he commanded them to keep it. There is quite a difference. The Sabbath was given to man at creation. When the children of Israel were in hard and cruel bondage in Egypt, they had grievous tasks placed upon them, and their taskmasters would not allow them any respite. They were not allowed to keep the Sabbath. Moses demanded of Pharaoh that he should let the people go, so that they might serve the Lord. Pharaoh refused, and the Lord compelled him to let them go. When God, with a wonderful exhibition of his power, had brought them out of bondage, that they might serve him, what could be expected but that he would command them to do so. The fact that God at that time commanded them to keep the Sabbath is no evidence that a previous command had not been given to do the same thing. If it were, then it would appear that it was never wrong to steal, nor to do any other thing forbidden in the ten commandments, until the deliverance from Egypt, for we read in Lev. 19:36, 37, as follows:— "Just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin, shall ye have; I am the Lord your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt. Therefore shall ye observe all my statutes and all my judgments, and do them." Even Dr. Dobbs would scarcely claim that there was anything shadowy or ceremonial in dealing justly, or that the obligation to do so has passed away. Then why should he make that assertion in the case of the Sabbath? The Sabbath was in no sense a memorial of the deliverance from Egypt; but the fact that God had miraculously delivered his people so that they might serve him, made it eminently proper that he should renew his command to them to keep an already existing institution. E. J. W. The Church. No. 16.
By Editor
THE reader will understand that, in speaking of baptism as an initiatory rite, we do not mean that it is the object of baptism. This is spoken only in reference to its place in the gospel work—to its relation to other duties and ordinances. When we speak of receiving a person into the church, all will understand that we speak of a local or individual church, as it is not possible to take a vote of the church at large in such cases. The responsibilities of church membership, therefore, must be considered principally in a person's relation to that individual church of which he is a member. A man may be a Christian without belonging to any church, provided he has had no opportunity to become a member of any church; but that does not entitle him to church privileges, nor does it render him subject to church discipline. We trust it has been shown to the satisfaction of every one that the church is of the Lord's arrangement; that it is an organized body; and that the duty of discipline is imperatively laid upon it. But the duty of organization and discipline belongs of necessity to local bodies. This being so, it follows that the privileges of church membership are conferred only within the bounds of that church of which a person is received as a member. The vote of any one church to receive a person as a member, does not constitute that person a member of any other church. This is recognized by all, and the proof of such recognition is found in the fact that such person cannot remove or transfer his membership to another church without a vote of dismissal from his own church, and a vote of acceptance by that other church. And again it follows of necessity that a member of any one church cannot claim the right of communion with any other church. The privilege may be conferred as a matter of Christian courtesy, and it may be quite proper under certain circumstances to confer it; but it ought to be carefully guarded, as it is liable to great abuse. The following came under our notice: Brother A was a member of the church of B, but he was frequently more or less at variance with somebody in his church. This was of such continuance that a state of distrust between him and his brethren became almost chronic. But a strong sympathy sprung up between him and some of the members of the church of C, and he made it in his way to be with the church of C on quarterly meeting occasions, thus absenting himself from the communion of his own church and partaking with the church of C. And this occurred not a few times. This proceeding was all disorderly. It was disorderly for Brother A to absent himself from the communion of that church of which alone he was a member. It was disorderly for the church of C to admit him to its communion, time after time, when it could but know that he intentionally absented himself from his own church. And it was neglect of duty on the part of the church of B to suffer such a state of things to continue without calling him to account. It may be said that courtesy to Brother A required the church of C to extend this privilege to him when he was present. But we say that courtesy to the church of B would have required the church of C to inquire into the reason of such a course on the part of this member. If courtesy is demanded, it should be extended toward the side of unquestionable right, and not toward the side which is questionable in its every feature. And this shows the abuse which is liable to attend a general invitation to members of other churches, even of "the same faith and order," to partake of the communion. It will often occur, under such invitations, that members of other churches will be present, whose standing may well be questioned; and sometimes those whose standing is questioned at their own homes. But it is generally the case that those are the very ones who consider their standing first rate, and think that they have undisputed right to church privileges wherever they are, and the church giving the invitation cannot know their actual standing; cannot know that they are doing injustice to the church whose members they are accepting without sufficient knowledge of their cases. But some kind-hearted and well-meaning brother may ask: If there would possibly be unpleasant feelings, were the member to partake of the Lord's Supper with his own church, would it not be better that he should partake where such unpleasant feelings would not exist? By no means. Quarterly meetings—occasions of the ordinances—ought to be very profitable seasons to every church. On such occasions, if unpleasant feelings exist, they should be healed, and not covered by dodging. And how can the church, which confers the privilege under such circumstances, know but that if the transient member had been in his place in his own church, ill-feelings might have been removed and wrongs made right? How can it know that it has not been instrumental in confirming and strengthening wrongs in a sister church? There is as great obligation to cultivate and maintain friendly and brotherly relations between the churches, as between the individual members of the churches. We would lay it down, then, as a rule, that the privilege of communion is, by right, under the control of the churches individually; and that the fact that a person is a member of a church, does not prove that he has a right to commune with any other church. Disregard of this rule opens the way of great abuses. The following statement has often been made, because it refers to facts of actual occurrence:— A member of a church being subject to discipline, refuses to hear the church, and of course fellowship is withdrawn from him. Without any confession or any change of feeling, he goes to another church where, it may be, he has personal friends, and is received as a member. Returning to the church to which he first belonged, on the occasion of a quarterly meeting, he demands and receives the privilege of communion as a member of another church, this church all the while knowing that he has made no confession of his wrong, and is therefore unworthy of the privilege. If any inquire if we would not admit him out of respect to that other church of which he is a member, we answer: Not by any means. If the other church received him without knowing his standing, or that he had forfeited the right of membership, it would indorse our action in rejecting him when it learned the facts, if it had the Spirit of the gospel. But if it received him knowing the facts, then it has violated the rules of the gospel, and subjected itself to censure for subverting discipline. Here the question may be raised: Do we not in this deny the independence of the churches, by denying them the right to judge of the qualifications of their own members? We have already, in another place, noticed this point. But we answer: We do indeed deny the right of any church to act independently of the rules laid down by Christ and his ambassadors. We have considered the words of Christ, that if his instructions were followed, and a member would not hear the church, he was to be considered as a heathen and a publican, and the action of the church, under such circumstances, shall be ratified in Heaven. If this be so, what is the standing of that church which disregards this action, and upholds the insubordinate member in his sin? For no one can deny that, to receive a man to membership in such a case, is to confirm and strengthen him in his rebellion against discipline. And the church of which such person was formerly a member, should duly report the case to the Conference to which the erring church belongs. If the positions herein taken be true, and we think none can deny them, then the practice which is advocated by some, of indiscriminate communion with all churches, and on all occasions, cannot possibly be justified. And if baptism is an initiatory rite, without which a person cannot be a member of a church, and therefore cannot be entitled to church privileges, we can have no legal right to commune with, or to admit to our communion, those who have not been baptized, even though they may be members of some church. And it is a fact not disputed among us, that a person who has not been buried with Christ by baptism into death, has not been baptized. The formula may have been observed as far as speaking all the words is concerned, yet if the action of baptism be lacking, there is no baptism. And if no baptism, then no church membership; and if no church membership, no church privileges. This is sufficient to show the inconsistency of partaking of the communion with those who, however much we may esteem them otherwise, recognize and admit of church membership without baptism. There are yet some other phases of this subject which must be reserved for future notice. "Who Was Melchizedek?"
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
HOW MANY times this question has been asked, and how many quires of paper have been used up in vain attempts to answer it! The number almost equals the number of those who have ever thought about the matter. Some, in answer to the question, will have it that he was Shem, and others insist that he must have been our Lord in disguise. And, strange to say, when a person has one of these ideas in his mind, it is almost impossible for any one to rid him of it. Now to us the discussion over this question has always seemed something strange. We cannot yet conceive how it is possible for anybody with even a slight knowledge of the Scriptures, to be bothered over the matter, for the Bible tells us who Melchizedek was, in just as plain terms as could be desired. For the benefit of all who are troubled over the question, "Who was Melchizedek?" we will give a direct answer from the Bible. Turn, if you please, to Gen. 14:18-20. There you will read:— "And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine; and he was the priest of the Most High God. And he blessed him [Abram], and said, Blessed be Abram of the Most High God, possessor of Heaven and earth; and blessed be the Most High God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand." Here we are told, not only who he was but an incident in his life. He was both king of Salem and priest of the Most High God, and in that capacity he blessed the patriarch Abraham as he was returning from the slaughter of the five kings. He also received from Abraham a tenth part of all the spoil. See also Heb. 7:1-4. If this does not satisfactorily answer the question, we do not know what would. Take other instances: Who was David? Answer, He was king over Israel, and a prophet of God. Who was Moses? He was a prophet, and the leader and commander of the children of Israel. In the wilderness of Sinai, he went up into the mount; and God spoke to him face to face. Who was Paul? He was an apostle, called of God to carry the gospel to the heathen. All must admit that these answers tell plainly who David and Moses and Paul were. And in like manner, to say that Melchizedek was king of Salem, and priest of God, fully answers the question, "Who was Melchizedek?" Suppose that in answer to the question, "Who was Moses?" I should say, "He was John the Baptist;" or that if some one should ask, "Who was David?" the answer should be given, "He was Hezekiah;" or that if when speaking of my neighbor Mr. Jones, I should be asked who he is, and should answer, "He is Mr. Brown;" what would be thought? People would think that my mind was wandering. To us it seems just as absurd to say that Melchizedek was Shem, or that he was Christ, as it would be to say that David was Paul, or that Mr. Jones is Mr. Brown. To be sure, we have a more full record of Moses and David and Paul, than we have of Melchizedek, but what of that? We have by no means a complete record even of their lives. It is not necessary that we should know all of a man's history, in order to know who he was. Of Enoch we only know that he walked with God and was translated; yet no Bible student ever raises the question, "Who was Enoch?" "But," some one will say, "we know the parents and descent of these men, and of Melchizedek's parentage we know nothing." How many are there who can tell who Elijah's parents were? or who were his descendants, and how old he was when he was translated? No one knows. We are told only his office and some of the incidents of his life, just as in the case of Melchizedek. The school-boy, in his reading, chances to find references to a man by the name of Paulding. He will ask, "Who was Paulding?" His teacher, or the Biographical Dictionary, will answer, "He was one of the American soldiers who, in 1780, captured Major Andre." We know nothing of his parentage, and are told only one incident of his life, yet we do not straightway conclude that he must have been Anthony Wayne. "Yes," says the objector, "but the Bible says that Melchizedek had no parents." If that were so, it ought to put a stop to the folly of calling him either Shem or Christ, for we know who Shem's father was, and we know the age of Shem when he died. Likewise, of Christ, we know that as to his earthly life he was born of the virgin Mary, and that before he came to earth he was known, as he is still, as the "only begotten Son of God." But the Bible does not say that Melchizedek had no parents. King James' version reads, "Without father, without mother," but this, in the Revised Version is correctly rendered, "without genealogy," thus agreeing with the margin of the old version, "without pedigree." His ancestry is not given, and in this he differs from the Levitical priests, in that their descent must be traced to Aaron. This was that which made his priesthood a type of Christ's. Christ has no predecessor nor successor in his priestly office, and therefore he is set forth as the antitype of Melchizedek, who stands as the sole representative of his order. The type and the antitype, the shadow and the substance, cannot be identical. Christ is a priest "after the order of Melchizedek," and therefore it is impossible that they two should be one. Every attempt to go beyond the record and show the origin, descent, etc., of Melchizedek, is in reality an attempt to show that his priesthood was not a type of the priesthood of Christ. Let us give ourselves wholly to "those things which are revealed," and not waste time in vain attempts to be wise above that which is written. The Arrest of Jerome.
By Stephen N. Haskell
THE same council that condemned Huss to be burned, and deposed Pope John XXIII., also apprehended and condemned Jerome of Prague, so called from the city in which he was born. Jerome was a few years younger than Huss, and of nobler birth. His real name was Faulfisch. He was endowed with great natural ability, and was full of life and ardor; not disposed to remain quiet in one place long at a time. He visited and became personally acquainted with all the universities in Europe. This enabled him to avail himself of the advantages of each, so that he gained a great reputation for learning. At the Oxford University he became acquainted with the writings of Wycliffe, and at once enlisted with great enthusiasm in defense of the doctrines of the Reformation as taught by him. "Until now," said he, "we had nothing but the shell of science; Wycliffe first laid open the kernel." Although in some respects possessing superior qualifications, and enjoying peculiar advantages, his character seems wanting in those essential elements of firmness and discretion which characterized the movements of Huss, and gave permanency to his efforts. During his long and severe imprisonment, however, Jerome gained an experience which carried him through his final trial and martyrdom with all the fortitude and Christian forbearance manifested by those who went before, or have followed him to a martyr's grave. While in Oxford, he transcribed several of Wycliffe's books and brought them home with him to Prague. Here he proclaimed, without hesitation or reserve, the views therein contained. In Moravia, Austria, Germany, and other countries, he also spread the doctrines of the Reformation. Notwithstanding Huss and Jerome were so unlike in their dispositions and methods of labor, they deeply sympathized with each other, and were warm friends to the last. "Dear master," said Jerome, as Huss was taking his final leave of Prague, "stand firm; maintain bravely what you have preached and written, against pride, avarice, and other vices of the churchmen, with arguments drawn from the Scriptures. Should this task become too severe for thee, should I learn that thou hast fallen into any peril, I will fly at once to thy assistance." On learning of the arrest of Huss he immediately hastened to Constance, with the hope of rendering some assistance to his beloved master. To this act he was prompted not only by his affectionate regard for Huss but also by the unwise complaint of friends in Bohemia that he had left his companion and brother in faith to contend alone, unsupported, against a host of enemies. It was, however, against the advice of Huss, who exhorted him to preserve himself for better times. He entered Constance disguised, but his friends there were terrified for his safety, and urged him to leave the city without delay. There is reason to believe that he gained access to Huss in prison, but only for a short time, and with no satisfactory results. It is said that the hopeless and suffering condition in which he found Huss, led him to flee from the city. He however only went as far as Überlingen, a free city, about ten miles distant, where he was comparatively safe from sudden arrest. From here he wrote to the emperor, and also to the council, demanding a safe-conduct, and soliciting a hearing in behalf of himself and Huss. In response to this the council summoned him to appear before them within a fortnight to answer to charges brought against him. "We grant you a safe-conduct to this place," said they, "but not back again." Notwithstanding this threatening aspect, Jerome made another brief visit to Constance, and posted in all the public places, on city gates, doors of churches, monasteries, and palaces of cardinals, his appeal for a safe-conduct. After this, yielding to the entreaties of his friends, he turned his face toward Prague. On his way he gave free expression to his feelings concerning the council, etc., at one time going so far as to call it "a school of the devil, a synagogue of iniquity." As the result he was seized before he arrived home, while almost in sight of his own country, cast into prison, and bound in chains. One month later he entered Constance, loaded with fetters, and in a cart. On his arrival he was surrounded by a multitude, at the head of which was Louis, Duke of Bavaria, who began to pull and drag him about by his chains, and in this cruel and savage manner he was led like a wild beast through the whole city. After this he was taken to a convent to be examined. Among other charges that were brought against him he was accused of having diffused errors in the different universities which he had visited, and at which the fame, if not the vanquishing force, of his eloquence had excited the envy of many who were there present. "Jerome," said a Parisian doctor, "when you came to Paris, you fancied yourself with your eloquence to be an angel from Heaven. You troubled the university, broaching in our schools many erroneous propositions with their corollaries, and especially in the matter of universals and ideas, besides many other things of a scandalous nature." "Master Gerson," replied Jerome, "I answer you, that in what I answered to the arguments of the masters, I answered philosophically, and as a philosophical thinker and a master of that university. And if I proposed anything which I ought not to propose, let me be instructed in what respect it was erroneous, and I will be corrected, and set right, with all humility." At this point he was interrupted by a doctor of the university of Cologne, who arose and said, "When you were at Cologne you brought forward several erroneous arguments." "Will you mention, first of all, one error that I maintained?" asked Jerome. "None occur to me at present, but they shall be objected to you hereafter," was the reply of the disconcerted doctor. A doctor from Heidelberg now became Jerome's accuser. "When you were at Heidelberg," said he, "you maintained grave errors with regard to the trinity." "What I wrote and represented at Heidelberg," said Jerome, "I am ready to assert, write, and represent again. Let me know in what respect I have erred, and I will humbly recant the error." A murmur now arose in the assembly, several calling out, "Let him be burned, let him be burned." "If it be your pleasure that I should die," resumed Jerome, "in the name of God be it so." The clamor and tumult became so great that order could not be maintained, and the assembly broke up.