Earlier text: EditorialBearing of the Recent Massacres on the Eastern Question
By H. P. H.
THE TURKS AND ARMENIANS. No. 3.
Bearing of the Recent Massacres on the Eastern Question.
OUR last article closed with a study of Dan. 11:40, where the Turkish power is introduced, and where we learned that in 1798 there would be a conflict, first between the Egyptians and the French, and then between the Turks and the French. We now look to history, not to see if this took place, for by the fact that it is in the prophecy we surely know that it would occur, but to learn how it was accomplished. History answers that in 1798, in May, the French declared war on Egypt. Napoleon headed the expedition. First, Alexandria was taken and fortified; the French gained victory after victory till the great battle of the Pyramids was fought, which placed them in possession of Egypt. In the meantime, the sultan of Turkey declared war against the French and marched towards Egypt. Napoleon at once set out to meet him. The two armies met in Palestine, at Acre, just north of Mt. Carmel, on the shores of the Mediterranean. The manner and result of this meeting are described in the latter part of verse 40. While the forces of Egypt made but a feeble resistance, fitly expressed by the term "pushed at him," the king of the north, the Turks, came down against the French like a "whirlwind," or with irresistible power. They came with "chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships." The Turks and Arabs are a wandering people; their ideal is to have a fine riding horse and good arms. Nearly all travel in Turkey is on horseback, or with camels or ponies. Hence, in case of war, Turkey can easily assemble large numbers of horsemen. This is a characteristic feature of the nation; the prophetic description contains these distinguishing features of nations, making the application easy and certain. Note also the expression "many ships." At this time, Turkey had a strong fleet; and it followed near the shore, abreast of the land forces. The British, fearing that the French might gain the ascendancy in the Orient, sent their fleet to aid the Turks; thus there were most literally "many ships" in this conflict. The outcome of this strife is plainly indicated by the words, "and he," the king of the north, the Turks, "shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over." Napoleon was not able to resist this "whirlwind" from the north, and for the first time sounded the note of retreat. The remainder of the chapter is devoted to a description of the career of the Turk till his end. Verses 41-43 describe his conquests after this victory over the French, specially naming Egypt as one of the countries that should "not escape." Egypt was conquered by the Turks and placed under tribute, as indicated in the expression, "But he shall have power over the treasures of gold and of silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt." Then follows the expression, "The Libyans and the Ethiopians shall be at his steps." One is forcibly reminded of this expression on viewing the sultan when he goes to the mosque on Friday for prayers. He goes in state. Large bodies of cavalry and footmen are drawn up, guarding both sides of the way from the palace to the mosque; and prominent among these are the black soldiers from Africa; thus, even today, "Libyans and Ethiopians" are "at his steps." "But tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble him; therefore he shall go forth with great fury to destroy, and utterly to make away many." Verse 44. This verse indicates very plainly that after this conflict and victory in the south, the Turk would have trouble from the north and east. Turkey has had trouble with the Persians and Armenians from the east and Russians from the north. Those familiar with the history of the Crimean War will at once observe how strikingly it fulfilled the statement made in the latter part of this verse. "And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him." Verse 45. All the previous part of this prophecy has been fulfilled. Verse 44 brings us down to our day; the events described in verse 45 have not yet taken place; but as we shall see by a study of the verse, these events are in process of fulfilment, and hence this becomes to us one of the most interesting parts of the Bible. It is of interest not only in a general way, but in a specific sense; it brings to view the end of the Turk; and when the Turkish Empire comes to an end, it means more than simply the cessation of one of the many nations of earth; for in the following verse, which is but a continuation of the conversation of the angel, we read:— "And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people; and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time; and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book." Michael is Christ; to "stand up" is to reign. Hence at the very time when the Turk is overthrown, Christ comes to establish his kingdom, the resurrection takes place, and this is a time of trouble for the world such as never has been. Hence every nation and every soul is concerned in the end of the Turk; for his end means the end of all things earthly. Every man, whether he is indifferent to the fact or not, is certainly interested in this question; he can not help being, even if he would not be, for when the end comes, all are involved. Therefore, every man should study with special care this verse and the course of events here described. After his troubles from the east and north, it is said of the Turk, "He shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain." This plainly indicates that his capital, or palace, will be transferred before he comes to his end. It also makes very plain to what place it will be removed. "The glorious holy mountain" is an expression applied to Mount Zion. See Ps. 48:1, 2; Zech. 8:3. This is in Jerusalem, and is also "between the seas,"—the Dead and the Mediterranean. Hence, before his end the palace of the sultan will be transferred from Constantinople to Jerusalem. It is an interesting fact that some of the Turks expect the same. While in Nicomedia in 1895, holding Bible studies with believers, we learned what a Turkish judge had to say on this subject. Said he, "We know that sooner or later the powers of Europe will drive us out from Constantinople; and when they do, we know where we shall go; it is to Jerusalem; and when we are there, the nations of earth will gather about us; but at this juncture, Mohammed and Jesus will come [they believe that Jesus is a prophet, but inferior to Mohammed] and give us victory over all these nations." We will have occasion to refer to this later. In our next, we shall consider more fully the end of the Turk. H. P. H. “CONSECRATED PATRIOTISM.”
By W. N. G.
THIS is the term used by Dr. Charles Roads, editor of the Keystone Endeavorer, to indicate the duty of Christians to hold and control the Government of the United States. In claiming that America is founded in Christianity, that “the past is securely Christian,” he says:— We might form a sublime group of our Christian founders by setting Columbus kneeling on San Salvador and claiming this New World for Christ, by showing Washington on his knees at Valley Forge, and Franklin moving to call in a chaplain at the Constitutional Convention, and even Jefferson appealing to God in the Declaration of Independence. In the foreground we would put Lincoln finding peace with God, as he declares on the Gettysburg battle-field, and holding coins with the words, “In God We Trust.” Inasmuch as this sentiment was sent forth in conjunction with the Christian Endeavor prayer-meeting topic for July 4 (we quote from the Christian Statesman), it should receive at least a passing notice. As to Columbus “claiming the New World for Christ,” let history testify:— At sunrise, the boats being lowered, Columbus, with the royal standard of Castile, and the brothers Pinzon bearing each a flag with a green cross, were rowed to the shore. Columbus first stepped on the beach. All knelt down, kissing the ground, with tears and thanks to God. Then, rising and drawing his sword, Columbus, as grand admiral and viceroy, unfurled the royal banner, took possession in the name of the crown of Castile, and named the island (one of the Bahama group) San Salvador.—American Cyclopædia. The same authority states that seven years after the death of Columbus, “a marble tomb was placed over his remains, with an inscription ordered by the king,” which in English reads, “To Castile and Leon a new world gave Colon” (Columbus). So, instead of taking America (he took only some adjacent islands) for Christ, Columbus, with drawn sword, took what he did take for the “crown of Castile.” Now if this meant an authoritative taking of America for Christ, an act at all binding upon Americans of to-day, and as no one has a right to take anything from Christ, whom the Endeavorers claim is this world’s King, then it is the duty of Americans to restore America to “the crown of Castile,” now Spain. But this is not all of the logical outcome of the idea that Columbus claimed the New World for Christ. The admiral had his commission from Ferdinand and Isabella, sovereigns of Leon and Castile, who were Roman Catholics of the most radical type. By their decree the Inquisition was established; and by their support it was maintained; and for their loyalty to “the church” they were preeminently entitled “The Catholics.” When Columbus landed on San Salvador, he carried the royal standard of Castile and a green cross and a sword. Thus he went not only under the auspices of the government of Castile, but also of the Roman Catholic Church; and whatever of religion there was in his claiming the New World for Castile was confined to the Catholic religion and loyalty to Rome. This was the extent of his “consecrated patriotism.” Therefore if his claiming this New World in the name of the Roman Catholic Church meant taking it for Christ, then that church is still entitled to it, and a “consecrated patriotism” must acknowledge the right. The reference to “Washington on his knees at Valley Forge” shows only an individual act of worship; he represented no one but himself while in that attitude, and his sentiment, as expressed in at least one public document, was that the government of the United States “is in no sense founded on the Christian religion.” As to Franklin’s calling for a chaplain for the Constitutional Convention, it is not at all surprising for one to do this who had been reared under a Church-and-State government, from the influence of which many of the patriots of that transition period never became entirely emancipated. As to Jefferson, his emphatic declaration was that “it is wicked and tyrannical to compel any man to support a religion in which he does not believe.” But the climax of incongruity is in the thought of “Lincoln finding peace with God” while on a battle-field “holding coins with the words, ‘In God We Trust.’” His speech “on the battle-field of Gettysburg” was on a memorial occasion in commemoration of the nation’s trust in its army,—in the efficiency of its weapons, the prowess of its generals, and the endurance of its troops. The very fact of his or any of the people’s having coins at all is evidence of trust in the government; and the words on those coins, “In God We Trust,” do not add a farthing to their value in the estimation of any one. The sole value of that coin as metal is in itself and in the demand for its kind, and its sole value as money is in the government’s stamp, regardless of the sentimental inscription, “In God We Trust.” There is but one way for any man to find peace with God, namely, by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. “Being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” Rom. 5:1. Patriotism means loyalty to one’s own country. Webster says it is “the passion which aims to serve one’s country.” Then the patriotism of the Arab, the Moslem, or the Zulu may be as “consecrated” as that of the American. The “consecrated patriotism” of Columbus, or Washington, or Franklin, or Jefferson, or Lincoln, would have led them to take the sword against any and every other nation, yea, against parts or parcels of their own nation. However commendable such patriotism may be from the standpoint of civil government, it has no claim to being in any sense Christian. Loyalty to one earthly government is no more Christian than loyalty to any other earthly government. When the Scripture says, “The powers that be are ordained of God,” there is no distinction as to which of the powers. They are all classed together. When the first universal civil government was ordained, God placed over it Nebuchadnezzar, a gross idolater, who took the vessels of the temple at Jerusalem and laid them up in the house of his false god in Babylon. Three universal kingdoms succeeded Babylon, in the providence of God, and all were governed by pagan rulers. “The Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men.” Dan. 4:17. And when the last of these universal kingdoms, Rome, formally espoused the Christian religion, and essayed to enforce its recognition upon all subjects (as the “Christian Citizenship” votaries are striving to do at the present time), it became more corrupt, more cruel, and more intolerant than all of its predecessors. And the “consecrated patriotism” that is now being urged in the name of Christianity is most certainly, if unwittingly, leading to the same goal. The only true Christian patriotism is loyalty to the kingdom of Christ, which he has himself said “is not of this world.” W. N. G. IN the fourth chapter of Ephesians, verses 21-24, occurs one of the most striking illustrations of the way of conversion found in the Scriptures. Here are the words: "That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; and be renewed in the spirit of your mind; and that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness, and true holiness." The very science of conversion is revealed in these words. By "old man" we are to understand a natural man, anyone, before converted to Christ. The change from nature to grace, from sin to righteousness, is so great that it is illustrated by the idea of an old man who is made young again, or is all made over. The old man is full of sin. He is "corrupt." He has been seduced and molded by "deceitful lusts." He has been led to believe that there is happiness in those things, but he is deceived. "There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." The "pleasures of sin" are followed by quick remorse, loss of peace, unhappiness, misery, and often by disease and death. Finally "the second death" is the portion of all who do not repent. Sin is a great deceiver; it promises everything and restores nothing. Happiness here and hereafter can only be attained by putting it away. It must be "put off." The word "consecration," as used in verse 22, means more than our words,—it means the whole bent of the mind and manner of life. All must go. The old man, selfish and corrupt, must take his departure forever. The new man—the new tenant, will not come in until the old man vacates. In another illustration of the same truth (Rom. 6:6) Paul insinuates that the old man comes to his end by death. "Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him [Christ], that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin." Christ by his crucifixion and death made a way whereby all our sin may be destroyed. This includes the sinful nature which we inherit from Adam. It may be crucified with him and the body of sin destroyed, so that we no longer are his servants. So that we may say:— "My sin, O the bliss of the glorious thought!
My sin, not in part, but the whole,
Is nailed to His cross, and I bear it no more.
Praise the Lord, praise the Lord, O my soul!" Not only is the former life put off—crucified and destroyed, but there is a change wrought, so that the new man appears. "Be renewed," says Paul, "in the Spirit of your mind." The mind is changed, converted, and becomes a new mind, hence, the new man. But my friend, the scientist, tells me that character is fixed by formation and structure of the brain cells, that a long period of time is necessary to cause the formation of the brain in a certain way, and that a long time must be required to make a change in the brain; and hence in the character. This idea of the scientist that character is denoted by the structure of the brain only adds a new beauty to the work of conversion. No doubt it is true that the very structure of the brain in the shape of all its minutest cells denotes the character of the man; that those cells have taken their peculiar shape because of his conduct; that all of the continuous actions of his life have left their impression, so that if we could understand it, we could see and read in the very shape and convolutions of the brain lust, hate, envy, selfishness and every sin.7 A man starts out in life with but one object, to secure property. His whole soul is devoted to the cultivation of the plant of selfishness. How that plant under his careful tending does grow! He has nothing to give to the cause of God or for any benevolent purpose. He turns a deaf ear to the widow's prayer, or perhaps takes her little all through some carefully planned scheme, duly sanctioned by law; drives sharp bargains everywhere, and, like the horse leech, ever cries, Give, give. Even his own children, bone of his bone, and flesh of his flesh, are scrimped in food, poorly clad, and dwarfed in mind, that his hoard may grow larger; and at every step in this direction his brain takes on a more decided cast to intensify and perpetuate his evil disposition. But granting all this, can not God change it? "Is there anything too hard for the Lord?" His power, who can measure it? He can change a thing gradually, or he can do it suddenly, as it shall please him. At the creation his Spirit moved upon the face of the deep, and order, beauty, and light came from chaos and darkness. So when God's Spirit moves upon the more wonderful deep of the human mind, and that mind, responding to the good revealed, submits to the better way made known, the whole is changed, the very structure of the brain is altered, so that as one might previously read in its very structure and shape every evil, he now may see every good. "For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." 2 Cor. 4:6. God would put something of the knowledge of his glory of character in our minds. He reads our minds more easily than we read the printed page, and no experienced printer could change the type and make a new proof so easily or quickly as almighty power can change the human mind from sin to righteousness. True conversion brings this change, so that, as Paul himself said, "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature; old things are passed away, behold, all things are become new. And all things are of God." 2 Cor. 5:17. So the new man, with a new mind, "which after God," according to God's wonderful working and character, "is created in righteousness and true holiness," takes the place of the old man. To use it is a miracle, but there are no miracles with God. It is easier to him than the performance of our simplest tasks are to us. Who does not desire to submit his mind to the influence of the Spirit of God, so that it may be changed, recreated in the likeness of the mind of the Son of God, and put on the "new man," "created in righteousness and true holiness," thus becoming a new creature in Christ Jesus?
M. E. K.
Battle Creek, Mich. JEWISH CUSTOMS AND TRADITIONS.
THE Saviour when on earth performed many mighty miracles, and a large share of them were accomplished upon the Sabbath day. It was doubtless a wise purpose upon the part of the Master to select this sacred day to do these wonderful cures, as the meaning of the Lord's day was almost entirely forgotten because of the multitude of traditions built up to interpret its proper observance. Referring to the miracle performed at Bethesda upon this day another has written the following: "A controversy now took place in regard to the true claims of the Sabbath law. Jesus had purposely chosen the Sabbath day upon which to perform the miracle at the pool. He could have healed the sick man upon any other day of the week; also he might have cured him, and avoided arousing the indignation of the Jews, by bidding him take up his bed and depart. But a wise purpose underlay every act of Christ's life on earth; everything he did was important in itself and its teaching. . . . The Sabbath, instead of being the blessing it was designed to be, had become a curse through the added requirements of the Jews. Jesus wished to rid it of these incumbrances and leave it standing upon its own holy dignity." It would be impossible in one brief article to do more than touch upon a few of the Sabbatic laws; for it must be remembered in order for a Jew, in the time of Christ, or even at the present day, to keep a Sabbath aright, he must know 400 laws in addition to the command in the Decalog. And Rambam, one of the great Jewish commentators, who lived somewhere in the eleventh century (?) in his compendium of "Sabbath Laws" occupies more than 170 folio pages. The reader can form some idea why Christ accused the scribes and Pharisees of binding heavy burdens upon the shoulders of the people which it was impossible for them to bear. The apostle Peter mentions this fact later in his experience. And, according to the Talmud, the man who did not perform each detail of every such law, made himself liable to punishment of flogging or even death. And doubtless it is this thought that called forth the following statement from the Saviour, "Is it lawful to do good on the Sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill?" To show that this is not an exaggerated statement I quote the following:— To rest on the seventh day from work is an affirmative precept; for it is said, "On the seventh day thou shalt rest." Whosoever therefore does any work annuls an affirmative and transgresses a negative precept; for it is said, "Thou shalt do no manner of work." What is meant by being guilty on account of work?—If it be done voluntarily and presumptuously, the meaning is that he is liable to excision, and if there were witnesses and a warning, he is to be stoned.—Hilchoth Shabbath. Some of these laws are cruel, as they deny man the common comforts of life as well as the privilege of saving his own life or of any other person:— Whosoever does any work on the Sabbath, even tho he does not do it for the sake of the work itself, is nevertheless guilty. How so? If, for instance, a man extinguishes a lamp, because he wants the oil or the wick, and wishes that it should not waste nor be burned, or that the earthenware part of the lamp should not be cracked; inasmuch as the extinguishing is work, and his intention was to extinguish it; altho the mere act of extinguishing it was not the ultimate object, but, on the contrary, the saving of the oil or the wick or the earthen lamp, he is, nevertheless, guilty. And in like manner whosoever removes thorns a distance of four ells in a public place, or whosoever extinguishes coals to prevent the public from being injured, is guilty; altho the ultimate object was not the extinguishing or moving, but he simply intended to prevent the injury, he is guilty; and so in similar cases.—Ibid. It was Christ's purpose to save life; the Pharisees' object to destroy it. Perhaps this thought can be better appreciated by the following law:— A Gentile woman is not to be delivered upon the Sabbath, not even for payment, neither is the enmity to be regarded. It is not to be done tho no profanation of the Sabbath should be implied. But the daughter of a sojourning proselyte may be delivered, . . . but the Sabbath is not to be profaned on her account. What a contrast to the Saviour's interpretation of the law,—"The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." Mark 2:27. The exactions and precisions of Sabbath observance had gone so far that it was made almost the test of a man's religion. By the good works performed on this day he should secure a home in the kingdom of God. Thus a premium was put on the performance of external rites, while a man who was really fearing God and not observing the day according to the ideas of the scribes and Pharisees was considered a blasphemer, and worthy of death. And this is why they hunted the Saviour so much, and put spies on his track to watch him, hoping they might learn of many things he did on this day, and obtain for him the death sentence. Some of the laws putting a premium upon those who keep the Sabbath only from an outward point of view are as follows:— Rabbi Chiia, the son of Abba, says, in the name of Rabbi Johannan, whosoever keeps the Sabbath according to its constitutions, even tho he were an idolater like Enosh, he shall be forgiven. . . . Rabbi Judah says Rav says, to every one who makes the Sabbath a delight, the desires of his heart are given. . . . Rabbi Judah says Rav says, if Israel would keep the first Sabbath according to its constitutions, no nation or tongue should rule over them.—Arbah Turim, Orach Chaim, 242. In many of these laws quite a distinction is made between Jews and Gentiles; some things that are lawful for the Jew are unlawful to be done for the Gentile. For instance:— If Gentiles and Israelites live together in one court, even if there be only one Israelite and a thousand Gentiles, and a ruin fall on one of them, the rubbish is to be cleared away on account of the Israelite. If one of them had gone by himself to another court, and that court fell upon him, the rubbish is also to be cleared away, for perhaps this one was the Israelite, and the rest were all Gentiles. But if they all set out to go from this court to another court, and during the time of their moving one of them separated and went to another court, and a ruin fell upon him, and it is not known who he is, the rubbish is not to be cleared away. For as they all moved together it is certain that the Israelite was not amongst them; and every one who separated from them whilst going is to be reckoned as belonging to the majority.—Hilchoth Shabbath. What a different spirit was manifested by the Saviour! It made no difference to him whether it was a Jew or Gentile that needed help on the Sabbath or upon any other day. The thought uppermost in his mind was that a human soul needed help. He came to the world to heal the sick, raise the dead, and release men and women from bondage. God so loved the world, and not the Jew simply. There is scarcely a thing possible for man to do upon the Sabbath but what there is a law that covers that point. It matters not whether he lies in bed, whether he walks in the streets, whether he is at his meals, or whether he is in the synagog. Everything is noticed by precept, and must be obeyed under penalty of the law. It makes no difference how wicked the law in itself may be, it must be enforced. As a result a great deal of hypocrisy is manifest in some of the laws; but this was merely the logical8 conclusion of their position, as they decided that they only could interpret the law. Space forbids more than two illustrations:— If a man traveling on the Sabbath eve be overtaken by night, and has with him a purse, and there be also with him a Gentile and an ass, let him give his purse to the Gentile, even after it be dark, but let him not lay it on the ass. But if he find anything he may not give it to the Gentile, unless it came into his hand whilst it was yet day, for then it is a case similar to that of his purse. If there be no Gentile with him, then let him lay it on the ass whilst he is moving, but let him take great care to take it off every time he stands still. . . . If there be with him an ass and a deaf and dumb person, an idiot, and a child, then let him lay it on the ass, but let him not give it to one of these, for they are human beings like himself. . . . If there be with him neither one nor the other, let him move it along gradually each time less than four ells.—Orach Chaim, sec. 266. An Israelite who tells a Gentile to do a certain work on the Sabbath for him, altho he has transgressed, and is to be flogged with the flogging of the rebellion; yet he may lawfully make use of that work when the Sabbath is over, if he wait as long as it would take to accomplish the work.—Hilchoth Shabbath, chapters 6, 8. There are laws forbidding people to carry anything, even to a pocket handkerchief or the carrying of money. Laws also forbidding letter writing or reading; and should a person receive a letter on the Sabbath day, it matters not how urgent it may be, the document is not to be opened till the close of the Sabbath. An incident happened many years ago in London which illustrates how this latter code of laws works evil sometimes. The chief rabbi of the United Kingdom, who is now deceased, received an urgent letter, being brought by special delivery. Being scrupulous for the strict observance of the Sabbath, he passed it by unheeded till sunset. When the letter was opened it was found to be a message from a dying man in the hospital who wished to make certain requests before his decease, asking for the immediate presence of the rabbi, as he could live but few hours. When the visit was made in the evening, the man had passed away, and the synagog dignitary was informed by the hospital nurse that the dying man's last words were, "Has the rabbi come?" Do we wonder then that Christ came to earth on a mission of mercy to destroy such cruel laws as those which regarded not the life of man nor beast? We then can appreciate why he labored so arduously in performing the mighty works of God on the Sabbath, that man might know that the Sabbath was made for man, and God wanted them to know how it ought to be kept.
F. C. GILBERT.
South Lancaster, Mass. THE Bible Echo, of Australia, quotes the following from a Catholic journal, showing the funds at the personal disposal of the pope: "Pope Leo XIII. derives his revenue from three sources. One is the interest of the vast sum left by Pius IX. in the pontifical treasury invested chiefly in English consols. This interest amounts to £125,000 a year. Another source is the Peter's pence contribution, which, in spite of the very great reduction in late years, averages about £23,000 annually. The third source is the Apostolic Chancery, the receipts of which include sums received for titles and decorations, privileges of the altar, private chapels, etc., and aggregate about £104,000 a year. The entire annual income of Leo XIII., therefore, is about £252,000." "Enquire, and make search, and ask diligently." No. 599. The Greek Church.
WHERE and by whom was the Greek Church established? The official name is the "Holy Oriental Orthodox Catholic Apostolic Church," often called the Eastern Church in contradistinction to the Western or Roman Church. It became an independent church gradually. It has as much right to call itself apostolic as does the Roman. Both divisions were in the beginning apostolic; both sprang from the same source, a corrupted and perverted gospel, altho there is every reason to believe that the Greek Church retained its purity much longer than the Roman Church. The bishops of the east were considered equal to the bishop of Rome till the fourth century, the rivalry beginning about 340; the division came because of jealousy, Rome's assumption, and doctrinal differences. What may be called the final separation occurred in 1054, when Rome excommunicated the Eastern Church. The Greek Orthodox Confession of Faith appeared in 1643. No. 600. Without the Gate.
The explanation is found in the verse before. The bodies of the sin-offerings of beasts, the blood of which was taken into the sanctuary, were burned without the camp. These sin-offerings were types of Christ, "wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate;" that is, outside of the temple and city. His was not a sacrifice for the Jews alone, but for all. John 11: 52. He tasted "death for every man." The verse reads: "Let your women keep silence in the churches; for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law." The context shows that in the church at Corinth there was confusion. Verse 33. It was to correct this abuse that this instruction was given. Man and woman are equal in God's sight, each in the sphere where placed of God. To man was given the rulership, and woman was not to usurp authority over man in teaching and ruling in the church. This is what the Lord says. 1 Tim. 2: 12. We are willing to believe this; aren't you? Perhaps the opposite of this may have been the case in Corinth. But is it right for women to speak in meeting?—Yes; for the apostle gives us instruction relative to the dress of women who pray and prophesy in public. See 1 Cor. 11: 5, 6, 13. See the godly women helpers in the Gospel mentioned by Paul in Rom. 16: 1-15. Priscilla seemed to have instructed Apollos. Acts 18: 26. Philip had four daughters who prophesied. Acts 21: 9. See also Acts 2: 17, 18. Read Mal. 3: 16; Eph. 5: 19. Do what the Lord wants you to do. Leave the obscure texts till the Lord makes plain. "I will stand upon my watch, and set me upon the tower, and will look forth to see what He will speak with me." COULD any right-minded person see death as it is, he would not choose it; and yet it is possible, it is more, it is common, for men to choose death by choosing the very thing which produces death. Thus is the Scripture fulfilled: "He that sinneth against me [wisdom] wrongeth his own soul; all they that hate me love death." Prov. 8:36. Even thus it is with every nation which starts on the perilous path of union of Church and State. Those who advocate the placing of religious dogmas in organic or statute law would not choose the ruin of the State or the Church, which they seek to control in the State, yet nevertheless by choosing to unite the two by law in that very thing they choose the ruin of both. It is this thing which many church-members are seeking all over the world to-day. Our Australian sisters are in the fierce struggle. Not long ago the Federal Convention appointed to draw up a constitution for the basis of a confederation of the colonies, rejected the religious declaration or acknowledgment of God in the constitution, as proposed by religious bodies in Australia, and now these bodies are storming the various parliaments of the colonies to accomplish their desire. For instance, the Presbyterian Assembly of Victoria, which met May 6, voted "that in view of the coming general elections, ministers be instructed to press upon the people [not the Gospel, or the Word, but] the imperative duty of supporting only such candidates as will vote for Scripture instruction in the State schools, and such as promise to maintain the recognition of God in the Constitution of the proposed Commonwealth."—Melbourne Age, May 6. Other religious bodies are taking the same course, and the battle is on. But there are those on the other side. The Australian Sentinel and the Bible Echo are making a strong battle for Gospel liberty, and other noble men stand with them. Those who are contending for this religious state are working upon the superstitions of the people by attributing the recent earthquake, and the drought now existing in Australia, to the refusal of the Federal Convention to acknowledge God in the constitution. We need not argue as to what the results will be in Australia, if the parliaments yield to the demand of these earnest yet deceived religious people. It was written all over the so-called Christian countries in blood and fire and flame, during the Dark Ages between the sixth and eighteenth centuries. It looks good—the seed sowing—but its fruit is ruin to both Church and State thus united. "Whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also reap." May the conflict in Australia turn on the side of liberty and truth, not only for the sake of those who must ultimately meet persecution if it turn otherwise, but for the sake of those who will be forced to persecute the innocent, to maintain "national dignity."