Earlier text: Mr. Moody’s School for PreachersARE WE NEAR THE END OF THE AGE?
ARE we void of light as to our proximity to a new era, to begin at the close of this age of sin and death? Can we not understand when the glorious times of restitution are nearing? If Peter and Paul could talk about having entered "the last days" over one thousand eight hundred years ago, are we not living in the concluding part of the last day? If Paul could locate the return of Christ after the development and career of the man of sin, who has already passed into his decline, may we not look for Christ soon? If the numerous chains of prophecy, presenting the rise and fall of successive kingdoms on earth, have all been fulfilled, is not the heavenly kingdom about due? If, in spite of all these considerations, men scoffingly say, "Where is the promise of his coming?" is not that a new evidence that we are in the last days? Are not the minor jots and tittles of prophecy already in process of fulfillment? Are we not among the peculiar perils of the "last days"? Is not the world now "as it was in the days of Noah"? Is not the symbolic Euphrates drying up? Are not the spirits of demons already doing their work? Then where are we? Shall we be deterred from looking these facts in the face by allusions to past mistakes? Will human mistakes change the grand fact that the prophetic programme proclaims the end upon us?—American Wesleyan. MONEY is the potent thing just now in the nominal church. Money buys its way into the communion of the sects; money rules the offices there; money defies discipline, and mocks at church penalties. One need not go out of the town where he lives, to verify this, or to find illustrations of its truth. The American Review tells of a fine church edifice built in a certain city, in which a fine church congregation was gathered. The minister found that the leading man that had a mortgage on the church was an adulterer. The preacher immediately suspended the villain and the man wrote: "If I am not restored in three days I will foreclose the mortgage, and close the church." He was taken back, adultery and all. This is a typical case, and if so, what an awful condition the churches of the land must be in. Who knows of a rich man ever being turned out of the church? Truly it needs a Christ with small cords to drive out the robbers, and to cleanse the house of God that it may be a house of prayer.—Selected. MINORITIES.
By E. P. Marvin
"THESE miserable minorities!" Such remarks as the above are never made by thoughtful and good people. Minorities are generally in the right, especially at first on all great moral questions, and majorities are in the wrong. There is generally more of brains and conscience in the few than in the many. "Vox populi vox Dei" is a pagan and a Pelagian lie. It would be nearer the truth if written "Vox populi vox Diaboli." Read Bible history. The voice of the majority defied God's judgment flood, demanded a king, contrary to the will of God, and even clamored for the crucifixion of the Son of God! Every evil wrong has been sanctioned by the voice of the people, and every good and right thing condemned. Minorities have had to stand and suffer for truth and righteousness all along the ages, and so it will be until the end. Was the voice of the French atheistic mob that cried, "We must have no monarch in heaven if we would have none on earth," the voice of God? Is the popular voice that annually sanctions gigantic evils like the rum traffic, the voice of God? No, no; let no cowardly poltroon despise minorities, and flatter himself that he is always or usually on the Lord's side with the selfish and thoughtless majority. Young men, you can do nothing nobler than to espouse some unpopular and righteous cause, and give your lips to it with a heroic minority. Earth's minorities make heaven's majorities. "What is a minority? The chosen heroes of the earth have been in a minority. There is not a social, political, or religious privilege that you enjoy to-day that was not bought for you by the blood and tears and patient suffering of the minority. It is the minority that have vindicated humanity in every struggle. It is the minority that have stood in the van of every moral conflict, and achieved all that is noble in the history of the world. "You will find that each generation has been always busy in gathering up the scattered ashes of the martyred heroes of the past to deposit them in the golden urn of a nation's history. "Minority! if a man stand up for the right, though the right be on the scaffold, while the wrong sit in the seat of government; if he stand for the right, though he eat with the right and truth a wretched crust; if he walk with obloquy and scorn in the by-lanes and streets, while the falsehood and wrong ruffle it in silken attire, let him remember that whatever the right and truth are, there are always troops of beautiful, tall angels gathered around him, and God himself stands within the dim future, and keeps watch over his own. "If a man stands for the right and truth, though every man's finger be pointed at him, though every woman's lips be curled at him in scorn, he stands in a majority; for God and good angels are with him, and greater are they that are for him, than all they that be against him."—E. P. Marvin. THAT was a noble expression of the Chancellor Benevolus when directed by the Emperor Valentinian to write the bloody edict in favor of the Arians, being threatened with banishment if he refused. Taking off his girdle, the ensign of his office, he threw it at the feet of the Emperor, and said, "Take back your honors and leave me my conscience." WHAT JESUS IS ABLE TO DO.
ABLE to make all grace abound toward us; that ye, always having all sufficiency in all things, may abound to every good work.—2 Cor. 9:8. Able to succor them that are tempted.—Heb. 2:18. Able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy.—Jude 24. Able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him.—Heb. 7:25. What he has promised. Able also to perform.—Rom. 4:21. Able to keep that which I have committed unto him.—2 Tim. 1:12. Able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified.—Acts 20:32. Able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think.—Eph. 3:20. Able to subdue all things unto himself.—Phil. 3:21. "MAKING TROUBLE."
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
"AND it came to pass, when Ahab saw Elijah, that Ahab said unto him, Art thou he that troubleth Israel?" 1 Kings 18:17. This question was asked when Elijah met Ahab as he and his servants were searching for water. What had Elijah done, that he should be accused of troubling Israel? He had rebuked them for their idolatry, into which they had been led by Ahab and his father. In consequence of the almost universal wickedness, Elijah had declared, from the Lord, that there should be no rain. For three years there had been no rain, and yet the idolatry did not cease, nor did Ahab abate his wickedness. To some people it would seem that Elijah's preaching was in vain, and that, since no one heeded it, it would have been better to leave the people to worship their idols in peace. And no doubt Ahab voiced the sentiment of many of the people, when he accused Elijah of being the author of all their trouble. But what did Elijah say? "And he answered, I have not troubled Israel; but thou, and thy father's house, in that ye have forsaken the commandments of the Lord, and thou hast followed Baalim." Here Elijah threw the entire responsibility upon Ahab and his family, because they had led the people into idolatry. How could that be, when the people were enjoying peace and quiet until Elijah came with his stern message? The reason is, the people were violating God's commandments, a thing which always brings his displeasure. The judgments of God will inevitably be visited upon those who persist in violating his law. But God never punishes any people until he has faithfully warned them of their sin. This was the part which Elijah had to perform. He was God's messenger. After he had warned them to no purpose, a slight manifestation of God's wrath against ungodliness was made. But who was responsible for this manifestation of wrath? Was it Elijah? All will agree, with Elijah, that the responsibility rested upon those who had done the wrong. The case against them is clear. Now another point. Since even the people of Israel could not be induced to leave their idols and serve Jehovah (for although they did acknowledge that the Lord is God, they went back into idolatry, and were destroyed as a nation in consequence), would it not have been better to leave them alone? If they were determined not to serve Jehovah, was it not wrong for Elijah to cause them to lose confidence in Baal, by showing his lack of power? Who will say, Yes? Not one. Baal-worship would do them no good, and they might better worship nothing. There was no power in Baal to reward them for worshiping him, or to protect them from the wrath of Jehovah, and therefore they might as well be atheists as to serve Baal. No person will have the hardihood to say that the worship of Baal was any improvement on no worship at all. Now for the parallel. In these days we find that a large majority of people professing Christianity call the first day of the week the holy rest-day—the Lord's day. But God says, "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work." Moreover, as he commanded the people anciently to break their images, so he commands people to trample upon Sunday as a day of rest saying, "Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work." "Six days thou shalt work but on the seventh day thou shalt rest." Ex. 34:21. But now it comes to pass that when the truth on the Sabbath question is preached, while very many acknowledge, and many more are convicted at heart, that the seventh day—Saturday—is the Bible Sabbath, very few have the courage of their convictions, and walk in obedience to the commandment. Still further, the most of those who are convinced that the seventh day is the Sabbath, and who do not keep it, having seen the utter absence of any Bible proof to sustain the Sunday-sabbath, very naturally lose much of their respect for that day. And on this account it is often said that the preaching of the seventh-day Sabbath has an injurious effect; it unsettles the faith of many in regard to their present practice, while few make a radical change. We now ask, Is this an injury? and if it is, who is responsible for the injurious effects? Is it more pleasing in the sight of God to keep Sunday than to regard no day as holy? To keep the first day and violate the seventh, is direct disobedience to God's law. Any transgression of the law is sin. To break the Sabbath and keep no day at all, is also direct violation of the law. This also is sin. Who can say that the latter sin is worse than the former? And if it be decided that the second is the greater sin, what is the advantage, since both are sins? God does not tell us to choose the smaller of two sins, but to put away all sin. Question: Is it simply a spirit of worship that is required by the first commandment, or is it the worship of a special object? You say, It is the worship of one particular Being,—the Lord of heaven and earth. Then the design of the commandment can in nowise be met by worshiping some other object? Of course not; for that commandment particularly forbids the worship of anything except the true God. Well, the fourth commandment requires the observance of a special day of the week—the seventh—and forbids the observance of any other. The commandment does not simply require rest in the abstract, but rest on the day which he has appointed. To offer him any other day, is simply to ask him to be satisfied with a counterfeit. When a laborer goes to his employer's office to receive his wages, he confidently expects to receive the amount before agreed upon, in good coin. Will he be satisfied with counterfeit money? By no means. But will not the counterfeit money be better than nothing? Not a bit; indeed, it may prove to be worse than no money; for while he cannot purchase a morsel of bread with it, he may get into serious trouble if he attempts to pass it. We think the illustration will hold good in every particular when applied to the Sabbath question. The seventh day is the genuine Sabbath; it has God's stamp upon it. The Sunday is only a base counterfeit; it bears none of the marks of genuineness. Now while this counterfeit Sabbath is worth nothing, it may get us into serious trouble if we persist in attempting to pass it instead of the genuine. See Rev. 14:9-12. As with the counterfeit coin, so with the counterfeit sabbath,—honest ignorance that it is counterfeit may be accepted as an excuse; but when the man is told, or has an opportunity to know, that the coin is counterfeit, what excuse can he make? His unbelief will not save him. The one who detects a counterfeit coin, and informs the one who holds it that it is of no value, is not called a troublesome fellow, although he materially mars the peace of the possessor of the coin. The one who made the base coin, and they who persist in circulating it, are the real enemies of their fellows. So those who make known the truth concerning the Lord's Sabbath and its counterfeit are the friends, not the enemies, of their fellow-men. They are obeying the commandment of God: "Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and show my people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins." The man who detects the counterfeit coin in his neighbor's possession does not offer a good one in its place; but those who show the worthlessness of the Sunday-sabbath, offer in its stead the Sabbath which bears the stamp of Jehovah, and which will be accepted at the gate of heaven. If men refuse to accept the genuine, and go without any, it is their own fault. When the true Sabbath is presented, "Blessed is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that layeth hold on it; that keepeth the Sabbath from polluting it; and keepeth his hand from doing any evil." Isa. 56:2. THE RETURN OF THE JEWS.
By M. C. W.
We have received a letter from an esteemed correspondent who acknowledges that we have the truth on the nature of man, the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath, and baptism. The writer is trying to believe and obey God. We are grateful for this, and will say in the words of Scripture, "Hold fast that thou hast." Truth is precious, and we cannot afford to lose any part of it, either through unbelief, prejudice, or rebellion. But our correspondent thinks that we hold very erroneous views concerning the reign of Christ, the inheritance of the saints, and the return of the Jews. We are accused of perverting God's word, taking one part as it reads and making of none effect other parts, giving private interpretations, falsifying the word, etc. We are asked to explain the eighty-ninth Psalm, the last seven chapters of Isaiah, the thirtieth, thirty-first, and thirty-third chapters of Jeremiah, the last nineteen chapters of Ezekiel, and seven of the shorter prophets down to Malachi. A modest request, truly. We reply to these objections and queries for the benefit of this correspondent, and others who have written about these things. But we cannot reply to these questions in detail. It would take volumes to do so; and the majority of return-of-the-Jews people would listen to the whole argument in which each text was explained in harmony with the whole, and when the last was finished, would turn back and produce the first with an air of triumph, as though it had never been answered. Our correspondent also finds fault with the view that the saints go to heaven, although absolute and irrefutable proof was given, showing that they are taken there at the second coming of Christ, when the earth is desolated. We have the promise of Christ that he would take them there, the statement of Paul that they are caught up to meet Christ in the air, and the positive statements of Revelation that they are there. But to admit this and the desolation of the earth, overthrows the theory of the return of the Jews and the other theories connected with it. We hope our readers will not sacrifice truth to theory. Once more we will state our reasons why we do not believe that the Lord has any special work to do among the Jews in the Christian dispensation:— 1. Some of the promises to the Jewish nation were conditional. If that people were obedient, the promises would be fulfilled; otherwise, they would not. The broad principles of these conditions are thus stated by the prophet:— "At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it; if that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do551 unto them. And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it; if it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them." Jer. 18:7-10. These words express the principle which covers God's dealings with nations, and they are spoken with direct reference to the Jewish people. But this is not the only testimony. Says the Lord in Deut. 8:19, 20:— "And it shall be, if thou do at all forget the Lord thy God, and walk after other gods, and serve them, and worship them, I testify against you this day that ye shall surely perish. As the nations which the Lord destroyeth before your face, so shall ye perish; because ye would not be obedient unto the voice of the Lord your God." Certainly this is decisive to show that the promises to the literal seed of Jacob were based upon conditions. These conditions may not always be annexed to the promises, but that does not invalidate the principle. God's word is a unit, and when he states positive conditions relative to certain promises and rewards in one place, they are implied in all other places. For example, Peter's "Repent, and be baptized" would not be sufficient considered by itself. Faith is also necessary. If no other conditions than the "Repent, and be baptized" were given, we could justly conclude that these were all the conditions necessary to be fulfilled, in order to be accepted of Christ. But other conditions are mentioned elsewhere, and they must be included in these above mentioned. Such conditions are representative of all other necessary conditions. It is the same as regards prayer. "Ask, and ye shall receive," says one text. But the mere asking will not bring the blessing. We must not regard iniquity, must ask in faith, must ask with the whole heart, must ask according to God's will, must abide in Christ. To take any one text and its condition alone as sufficient, is "private interpretation." The same principle holds good as regards God's dealings with Israel according to the flesh. We have no right to say that certain promises will certainly be fulfilled to the nation of Israel because conditions are not immediately connected with them, when such positive and explicit conditions concerning that very people are elsewhere stated. Jer. 18:7-10 applies to Israel. This is conclusive on this point. 2. Some of the promises to Israel after the flesh were fulfilled in the return from the Babylonian captivity. See Ezra, Nehemiah, Haggai, and Zechariah. 3. The promises to Israel were, or were to be, fulfilled either under the old covenant or the new. Fulfilled under the old covenant, they are subject to the conditions of that covenant, and fulfilled under the new covenant, they are subject to the conditions of the new covenant. The old covenant made at Horeb had reference to Israel according to the flesh; the new covenant, while made with Israel, makes ample provision for all to come, not as nations, but as individuals. "Whosoever" is not limited to race and nation. It certainly is manifest, therefore, that to fulfill promises under old covenant provisions, when that covenant is no longer in force, would make null and void the new covenant which immediately followed, and which is in force when the promises are fulfilled. 4. The literal signification of "Israel" and its origin have an important bearing on this question. "Israel" is not the name according to the flesh. It denotes prevailing faith manifested in Jacob in his night-struggle at Peniel. "Jacob" was the fleshly name; it means "supplanter." "Israel" is the spiritual name; it means prince, or prevailer with God. "Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel; for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed." Gen. 32:28. The origin of the name is therefore spiritual, and its primary meaning spiritual instead of natural. True, it is used interchangeably with Jacob thereafter, but its origin and meaning must not be lost sight of in taking into consideration the fulfillment of the promises made to the fathers. 5. The promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Israel have a deeper signification than appears on their surface. The promise to Abram concerning his seed, and God's covenant with him of the same import (Genesis 15) were fulfilled to Israel, as recorded in Neh. 9:7, 8. But the promises to Abraham (an acquired name), to Isaac (the child of promise), and to Israel (the prevailer by faith), have a much deeper and broader significance. They refer not to the literal seed, but to the spiritual seed. They come under the covenant to Abraham (Genesis 17), of which circumcision was the seal. And because God made that covenant with Abraham before he was circumcised, Paul shows that it was designed to teach salvation and equal title to the promises of Abraham of all who were of the faith of Abraham, whether Jew or Gentile, circumcised or uncircumcised. Rom. 4:9-12. The apostle goes further and adds, that if the promises were only to the fleshly seed, then faith is made void:— "For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise of none effect." "Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all." Verses 13, 14, 16. Much more might be quoted on this point which confirms the position above taken; but is not this sufficient? 6. The prophetic blessings pronounced upon Jacob's sons in Genesis 49 are in perfect harmony with the ground taken above. To none of them do the predictions extend beyond the Israelitish nation and old covenant, save those concerning Judah. They were all fulfilled before the first advent; but the predictions and promises concerning Judah embrace eternity, and are the continuation of the Abrahamic promises. "Unto Him [Shiloh, of the seed of Judah according to the flesh] shall the gathering of the people [peoples (R. V.), of the nations of earth] be." See Luke 2:32; Acts 13:47, 48; 28:28; and others. It may be objected to this that Jacob said that he would tell them what should befall them "in the last days," and that this refers to the last days of the world, or, at least, to the Christian dispensation. But in reply to this it may be said that (1) the phrase, "the last days," does not necessarily mean, in the original, even the days of the Christian dispensation, although sometimes the context and import of the prophecy, in which the phrase is found, requires that meaning. Upon this point we present the opinion of as judicious a critic as Dr. Albert Barnes. He says:— "In the last days, beabharith hayyamim. In the after days; in the futurity of days; i. e. in time to come. This is an expression that often occurs in the Old Testament. It does not of itself refer to any particular period, and especially not, as our translation would seem to indicate, to the end of the world. The expression properly denotes only future time in general." The italics are his. That the term refers to the Christian dispensation in some instances is no doubt true, but that is not its meaning. All of the predictions concerning Jacob's eleven sons were fulfilled in the Jewish dispensation. (2) If it be insisted on that "the last days" means the time of Christ, then the promises are fulfilled in Judah. In either way this sublime prophecy is in harmony with the positions above taken. We will consider this subject further in our next. “WHO CHANGED THE SABBATH.”
By C. P. B.
THAT the Sabbath has been changed so far as it is possible for man to change that which God has established, all are agreed; but when it comes to stating the reason and manner of the change, there is not the same unanimity of sentiment. Some hold that the Sabbath was given only to the Jews, and was never binding upon any but the Jews; and that there is now, properly speaking, no Sabbath. Of course this view involves the abrogation of the decalogue and in this contradicts the words of our Saviour who said, “It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.” It also contradicts the divine declaration that “the Sabbath was made for man” (Mark 2:27), i. e., for the race. Others, however, admit the perpetual binding force of the law of God, but aver that Christ and his apostles changed the Sabbath; and that whereas the fourth commandment did formerly enjoin the sacred observance of the seventh day, it now performs the same office for the first day; and this without any explicit statement to that effect in all the Scriptures! It was no doubt the utter absurdity of this view which drove the antinomians into the still worse error (if indeed all errors are not equally bad) of holding that the moral law is abolished. But then assaults upon the law of God are sufficiently accounted for by Paul in Rom. 8:7, and until men come under the new covenant and have the law of God written in their hearts (Jer. 31:31-34), we must expect to see the carnality of which the apostle speaks cropping out in various ways. The very nature of the Sabbath law forbids the idea that it should at one time enforce one day and at another time another day. The fourth commandment sets forth explicitly the reason for enjoining the observance of the Sabbath, namely, the creation of the world and God’s rest on the seventh day of the creation week, and to change the day must of necessity change the reason for its observance, and to change the reason for an institution is to entirely change the institution itself, or rather it is to destroy one institution and establish another in its stead; and this is just what has been done, as far as man could do it in the case of the Sabbath, for instead of the seventh day being kept as a memorial of creation, we have another day kept for another reason. Seeing the difficulties which surround the positions already noticed, but unwilling to return to the observance of the original Sabbath, a few have taken a position even more absurd, if possible, than the others, namely, that the first day of the week, as we now have it, is the true seventh day, and that the day anciently observed is really the sixth day of the true week. According to this theory the Sabbath has not been changed once but twice, i. e., from the seventh to the sixth day of the week and then back again to the seventh, which by that time had by some hocus pocus become the first day now known as Sunday! Of course every fact of history, both sacred and profane, as well as every principle of logic and common sense, is against this view; but that makes no difference to those whose minds are so peculiarly constructed as to be able to entertain such an idea. In fact, one who can believe that theory is capable, with a very little effort, of believing almost anything except the truths of God’s word. Indeed we seriously doubt sometimes whether any do really believe this theory. But still others hold that the change from the seventh to the first day of the week was made this side of Christ and the apostles, but in harmony with the will of God. This position is thus set forth by one of its adherents:— “The selection of Sunday, thus changing the particular day designated in the fourth commandment,552 was brought about by the gradual concurrence of the early Christian church; and on this basis, and on none other, does the Christian Sabbath, the first day of the week, rightly rest.”—Christian at Work, Jan. 8, 1885. In order that none may misunderstand what is meant by “the early Christian church,” we supplement this quotation with another from the same paper under date of Feb. 18, 1886, as follows:— “We hear less than we used to about the apostolic origin of the present Sunday observance, and for the reason that while the Sabbath and Sabbath rest are woven into the warp and woof of Scripture, it is now seen, as it is admitted, that we must go to later than apostolic times for the establishment of Sunday observance.” This latter quotation shows clearly that the editor of the Christian at Work does not think that the apostles, nor the church in the days of the apostles, had anything whatever to do with the change; and in this he is manifestly correct, as can be demonstrated by the most reliable historians. We have room in this connection for only a single extract, and until that is controverted (and it never can be), it will not be necessary to cite any other proof. Neander, of whom “McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopædia” says that he is “universally conceded to be by far the greatest of ecclesiastical historians,” gives this pointed and candid testimony:— “The festival of Sunday, like all other festivals, was always only a human ordinance, and it was far from the intentions of the apostles to establish a divine command in this respect, far from them and from the early apostolic church, to transfer the laws of the Sabbath to Sunday. Perhaps at the end of the second century a false application of this kind had begun to take place; for men appear by that time to have considered laboring on Sunday as a sin.”—Rose’s Neander, page 186. This is a plain statement of an undeniable fact; but as truth on this point is not in much demand, an effort has been made to suppress Neander’s testimony, and so it appears only in the first edition of his history. Let no one think that such a historian as Neander, and such a paper as the Christian at Work would make such statements if the facts of history did not compel them to do so. The truth is that the claim made by some that the apostles observed the first day of the week, is so utterly groundless that men of learning do not care to hazard their reputation on statements which even a tyro in history can readily disprove; and so all, except those polemic divines who care more for their particular creeds than they do for the truth, refuse to longer peddle the pious frauds by which Sunday sanctity has so long been sustained. But the fact remains that the change has been made; and if Christ and the apostles did not make it, how was it accomplished? If there is no divine authority for the change what authority is there for it? And if it was not introduced in the days of the apostolic church, when was it brought in? Surely these are proper questions,—questions which history will answer, as we shall show in future articles. Cardinal Lavigerie whose anti-slavery influence seemed fair to prove fruitful if not successful, has started on a new crusade. The (San Francisco) Chronicle of August 16, in a dispatch from London, dated August 15, says:— “The insurrection in Crete, the cruelties of Turkish officials in Albana, and the suppression of Christian colleges and orders throughout the Sultan's dominions have aroused a national antagonism in the masses of Europe to Mohammedanism, and this explains the Cardinal's warm reception by the not over-religious President Carnot. “An appeal will be made in the name of humanity against the unnatural upholding on a continent otherwise Christian of a cruel and barbarous power, the tenets of whose religion command it to crush out Christianity wherever it can be found, and which haughtily imposes tribute and inflicts insult upon pilgrims to the cradle of the Christian faith.” “The Cardinal, it is understood, will shortly appeal in the name of the Holy Father to the nations of Europe to purchase from the infidel defilers the Holy City of Jerusalem and as much of its surroundings as will be necessary to form a small province, to be forever independent and guaranteed its integrity by western powers. “If successful, this victory for the cause of civilization, it is considered by the Cardinal and Pope Leo, would be the greatest triumph ever achieved by the Catholic Church, would endear it to the affections of many now alienated from its teachings and prestige, and would do much toward creating a general desire for the restoration of its temporal power.”