Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

ESTABLISHED I*2l. The Christian Index •«» a van n»<:***• AMtto* *i «»i« u* •ffßh •< '*♦ Hfmmhlmllm la • V *»• I* *!»<'• V** rc| • ?*•’ •• UHl* < * *lt MfMßtil* ,»...«»»». I M AMlMima *•" •KeH’*’ • W• •bull • r> »arr U» Mt* m.r r*Habl* fMirtlw l«» «*r Mr rob MB . (MltVI ahi** “4H»» hnt»drwl Wr»r4* fro* of •Wl« >»*r o*rb •*i»< •ori eoet *|wc•«>*»»•r'X'•«. (in mm um- aaa**vi• MtoM to »ttr* <<*r*fttl Hl •mint to<‘l“ r K’-.”:m:;£ •at bunn-•• II""' ••« »am» •*•**' l*«t< Wrtto all naan-t. ant a***’ •*re>4l«ilnrilx la "Marl nt arkaht- «!«■• itould •• ••!! a«tk» «<•• a<l<tr«-M Th<-4a(* M *a ,H l la4l--alto '*» llm» »•••« auliarHpUon MMr* • If j»<»u do n<»t • i*n tl root Uiuml. or* {•fit a Iwforr W«-ronald*! »eb ••bacribor ortmanrnt until hr order* bl* r dlrn-o«*il»»u»*d. Wb*n you order II MMfo d ii|» to dntr RluirtAUtba by reg I*l*rod letter. mone> •Tder txoial note I Fnr th* David * Kindles* Sunday School Letton for Auk 2. i«*6 —2 Sam BY B. G. II ILLY UK Those who have mui these nr ticlea regularly u.ay remember that alxiut the 3d Sunday of hut December the Sunday school les son was entitled “DAVID AND JONATHAN." In my comments upon that les sou. I find I anticipated the inci dent which forms the subject of the present lesson. I do not wish to repeat in full what was then said; but propose to use it only so far as may seem useful. There was, in my December pa|>er. an error which 1 will take this opportunity to correct Through my own carelessness I spoke of Mephibosheth as the son of Saul. 1 should have called him the son of Jonathan—the grandson of Saul. The present lesson illustrates the “kindness of David" by the beautiful story’ of Mephibosheth —the very story to which I re ferred six months ago, when treating of the love which united David and Jonathan Ii is a story which docs honor to human nature. Man is vile, unjust, cruel and selfish; but there are,amidst the moral wreck of his character, flashes of virtue and goodness leading on, some times to deeds of mercy and of brotherly kindness and love, which -how that the likeness of his great Creator is not alto gether effaced from his moral na ture. It seems to be a peculiar prop erty’ of ’.he historical portions of the Old Testament to put on rec ord many things which a superfi cial reader will often pass over without special attention. But when the light of the Gcspel is turned upon them,we find in them a significance that invests them at once with interest and impor tance. Many such examples could be cited and their signifi cance easily explained. A case in point is David’s kind ness to Mephibosheth. David was a great king. He had come to his throne in a most remarka ble manner.and by great achieve ments. sufficient to immortalize his name. And there yet remain ed other achievements which he must accomplish in the near fu ture. One might suppose that his biographer would find enough to till his pages in giving us a full account of the great events of David’s reign. As a king, a burden of cares rested upon him. It was his function to maintain order in the State, to administer justice, to provide for the safety of his people, and of en to lead his armies against the hostile na tions that were on every side of him. and who were ever ready to invade his country for revenge and plunder. With such prolific subjects for history, why should the writer stop to tell the simple story of Mephiooshetb? Os course the obvious answer to this question that will occur to the mind of the general reader is, that the writer intended to make the story illustrate David's generosity and magnanimity. Well, this may have been the writer s design. He may have intended to do no more than to embellish the character of his hero by relating so striking an instance of mercy and grace. That scribe did not comprehend the full significance of the story; but there was a Spirit guiding his hand; of which he may have been unconscious. The design of that Spirit was not so much to ennoble David’s character as to illustrate a great principle of human nature which has its source in the bosom of God himself. For the want of a better name, I call it the principle of transferred affection. Call it by THE ( IIUISTIAN INDEX. what name you plea**’, there is Miiuetliing in the human heart that lead* u* Io love one |M*raun on account of hi* relation to an other whom we had prevloualy loved. Indeed.among men theprin dpi* often vxtvtida to inantuiato or material objects. How often n uiolbvr kwp Mith II (Ml At** <‘IUV A !<»)’» A •!< Cklm.'*’ OF a glove that once belonged to her little darling who in aleoptng in the grave-yard’ Thia feeling may impivkk a whole nation It account* for the interest which all Americana take in .Mt. Ver non. They love that old matt *ioti iwcauav it waa the home of Washington The piinciple ia only the more valuable when it haa living per •ona for ita object. You have, perhaps. a brother in a distant State whom you have not iwvn for many years, and whom you tenderly love. Suppose now, a atrangei call* at your door. You know nothing, at d perhaps care nothing, about him. You might feel dia|»oaed to let him paaawtth indifference. But presently he hands you a letter. It is from your beloved brother. It intro duces to you the bearer as the in tiinate friend of your brother. At once, for your brother's sake, the stranger shares your kindest hospitality. This would Im* a ease of transferred affection* Such waa the sentiment that animated the heart of David When he remembered Jonathan, his beloved friend, who had been to him as a brother, his heart yearned for him. But Jonathan he could not reach. He there fore inquired of his servants whether there yet remained any one of the house of Saul, that he might “show him kindness for Jonathan's sake." And, to his great joy, he found Mephibos heth, the son of his lost friend. I need not enlarge; you know the story. Here we find in a human life a real and a striking case of transferred affection. I have said that this principle has its source in the bosom of God; and, for this reason, it is for us a principle of transcen dent value; for it permeates com pletely the whole scheme of our salvation. In proof of this, no tice the Savior's words: “Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name he will give it you. * * * * for the Fath er himself loveth you. because ye have loved me, and nave believed that 1 came out from God.” Joi n 16:23 27. Here we learn that the Father loves us because we love Jesus; and because he loves us, he an swers our prayers. Ii deed the meaning of the whole passage may be condensed into these lew words: GOD DOTH SHOW US KINDNESS “FOR JESUS’ SAKE.” The story of Mephibosheth had lain for a thousand years among the sacred records of Israel, and nobody had regarded it as anything more than an interest ing incident in the life of David. But as soon as it is illuminated by the words of Jesus, it rises to the dignity of a prophetic type that points to God himself, exer cising mercy and grace towards men and showing them kindness “for Jesus' sake." Behold what power abides in these three words, “for Jesus’ sake.” When rightly used they move the arm of omnipotence. This, however, is only a general statement of their power. Let us consider them in some partic ular cases. You come to the throne of grace with a petition for some special blessing. You know that you have no claim, in yourself, upon the Almighty's bounty. So you enforce your prayer with the plea, for Jesus’ sake. Here is a plea which, if rightly offered, God himself catnot evade. He may not answ’er it according to its terms. But he will answer it according to his own wisdom and mercy; and by and by you will know that he has done it. There fore, the name of Jesus is your argument at the throne of grace. But, brother,this case is some times reversed. Not that the Lord ever comes to you as a sup pliant. But he does come to you as one having a claim upon you. And he presses that claim upon you in the name of Jesus, which means for Jesus’ sake. Yes, he actually holds back, for the time being, his sovereign authority over you, that you may enjoy the pleasure of bringing your free will offerings to him, for Jesus’ sake. Paul says “the love of Christ constraineth us,” and pres ently adds, as the conclusion of his reasoning, “they that live | all Christians] should henceforth live not unto themselves, but to him who died for them and rose again.” Hence we may conclude that the name of Jesus is the Christian’s strongest motive pow er in every good and holy enter prise. Finally. This precious name is the basts —the very rock—on SUB I which the hope of the Christian I rests in the hour of death. It is | the name that Khali lie his pass ' |M>rt through the gate into the I holy city. The Rai'tisu <>i England in the Six teenth and Seventeenth Centuries It was during the reign of Henry the Eighth that thvehurch of England cam* into existence a* a religion* organixxtion inde pendent of the Roman Catholic church. It wh* duringthe reignuf Eliza both, his daughter by the unfor tunate Anne Boleyn, that an other schism ua> made, but this tune not in the Romish hierarchy, but in the church of England herself. In the preceding reign of “Bloody Mary," an ardent Cath olic, hundreds of Protestants tied from England to different parts of the continent for safety. Among these refugees were many who were confessedly the very flower of the English clergy. During their exile, especially in Geneva, they caught thespirit of religious freedom; and from a continued and more untraiuineled study of the Scriptures, these exiles saw, as never before, I lie nature of Christ's church. Upon Elizabeth's accession to the throne, with happy hearts they returned to their English homes, bringing with them these advanced ideas. “Halcyon days were come, winter was past, the rain was over and gone." A new star had arisen to lead the Lord's people and to shed beams of grace upon the church of the liv i ig God. These pilgrims returning to their long-wished for homes, were e.ueered by happy visions, which alas, were too early de stroyed by the stern realities of the strife awaiting them. They saw in a very short time that Elizabeth, with clear, mas culine intellect, cold heart, and iron will, moved but at the bid ding of one passion, and that the least religious of all passions, the love of power. Religion to her was simply the right hand of that power. It was plain that she valued the Reformation, not so much for the truth it propa gated, as for the foundation it offered for her own supremacy. From thoughts of discontent, scarcely whispered, to bold words of condemnation, the wide-Spread disaffection in the church became to be known. Nor did the disaf fected stop at speaking these words both in private and from their pulpits; the very entrench ments of the church were thrown into consternation by the famous admonition sent to the Queen’s Parliament. And those who thus thought and spoke and wrote were stigmatized as Puritans. L?t it be r< membered that this term has both a wider and more restricted sense. In its wider sense the term was applied to Episcopalians, Presbyterians, In dependents, Brownists and Bap tists. John Bunyan was no less a Puritan divine than John Owen, in this wider sense. But in its more restricted and proper use, the term was applied to those re formers who, within the pale of the church of England, were dis satisfied with the popish impuri ties retained by Elizabeth and her parliament and the ob servance of which was made compulsory, under the severest penalties, by the infamous act of uniformity, passed in 1559. Those who within the church hoped and labored to purge it of doctrines and ceremonies con ceived oy themtobeunscriptural, and who in great numbers suf fered the loss of all things for their persistent non-conformity, were stigmatized as Puritans. But as far in advance of the church of England as were these Puritans, they were yet far be hind the Anabaptists in respect to both the nature of Christ’s church and its relation to the State. The Puritans were willing to subscribe to the thirty nine articles of religion, revised by Elizabeth, says Underhill. Their controversy with the church was rather on account of the dress which the Act of Uniformity re quired the clergy to wear, the sufficiency of the Scriptures as a rule for ecclesiastical discipline, and the nature and extent of the magistrate’s authority over the church. Conspicuous among.the Puri tans as a leader - was Thomas Cartwright, whose writings made such an impression as to call for a reply by Archbishop Whitgift. These controversialists were agreed on two principles: 1. That the church should be a national church, and not a mere congregation of believers. 2. That a divine obligation lay upon the magistrate to maintain vi et armis, that is by force and arms, the true religion, that is Christianity. Their points of difference in brief were these: The church- ATLANTA, GA., THURSDAY. JULY 30, 18SMI. men maintained, “That it was from the nocessiths of the time alone that the Apotloliechurches received their I'Hculiar form, which therefore was temporary and not to be nccepied as the permanent model, and that it be longs to the goveinnient of each country to set tle th lorgunizati in, rites and observan es of that di vision of the < hurvli lying I within its territory , and enforce them on all its subjects." The Puritan maintained that the New Testament model was designed to be perinauen*. and that the Genevan Pretbyterial Government was according to that model. Had he stopjied berv the differ ence between Puritan and Ana baptist would not have been so great, but as he did not, that dis ference is wide, radical and irre concilable. To give stability to his system the Puritan enunci ated the following important sen timent: “The civil magistrate, the nurse and foster father of the church, shall do well to pro vide some sharp punishment for those who continue this censure and discipline of the church.” That is, that which is drawn from the holy Scriptures. Nor did the Puritan think his ground sufficiently secure with out an appeal to patristical au thority, but in doing this ht gave the Churchman decidedly the ad vantage, which he was not slow to perceive and to make the most of. While the Churchman appealed to the force of the Slate to exe cute the laws of the church of his own making, tne Puritan ap pealed to the State to enforce the laws of tbe church that he conceived the Lord and his Spirit-guided apostles to have made. The Churchman taught that the church has power to in stitute laws, rites and cere monies; and that it is the duty as well as the prerogative of the State to enforce obedience to them. The Puritan taught that all rites, laws and ceremonies should be drawn from the book of God; and that it was the pre rogative of the State to see that these were obeyed. The Church man charged upon this system that it was a return to the papal doctrine of the church’s inde pendence of the rftate ; while at the same time it Made the civil power to it. Nor could tht Puritan successfully meet his antagonist here. While the Puritans stoutly pro tested against many measures of Elizabeth as unscriptural and oppressive,and pleaded for more freedom in their church relations, they never took the higher ground held by the Brownists, to say nothing of the still higher ground which characterized the Anabaptists. The Puritans were the avowed enemies of religious toleration; the Anabaptists were the outspoken friends and advo cates of religious liberty. According to the testimony of Richard Hooker, the Anabaptists held that “a Christian man’s liberty is lost and the soul which Christ hath redeemed unto him self injuriously drawn into ser vitude under the yoke of human power, if any law besides the gos pel of Christ in obedience whereunto the spirit of God, and not the constraint of men, is to lead us. According to that say ing of the blessed Apostle, ‘Such as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God, ’ and not such as live in thraldom to men. Their judgment is, therefore, that the church of Christ should admit of no lawmakers but the evangel ists, no courts but presbyteries, no punishment but ecclesiastical censure.” Be it remembered that this is the testimony of an eminent di vine of the church of England, whom Dr. Schaff pronounces “its most distinguished writer on ec clesiastical polity.” Nor was he the friend or advocate of Ana baptists, but rather their enemy and persecutor. I call attention to this fact especially that no one may think that the Anabap tists said we have “no courts but Presbyteries.” The testimony is abundant that they had “no courts” but the churches. Passing by the Independents who were in advance of the Puri tans in the correctness of their views on Christian doctrine and church polity, I come to notice briefly those who came nearest to the Anabaptists in both these respects. These people were designated by the name BROWNISTS. They take their name from Robert Brown, a nonconformist preacher of England in the six teenth century. So obnoxious did he become to the dignitaries of the church that he was cited to appear before Archbishop Whitgift in 1571. The leading Brownists were Henry Barrow, John Greenwood, John Perry, Francis Johnson and Henry Ainsworth. From the writings of these men, we learn the religious sentiments of the Brownists. As to the nature of the church they taught that “the truly planted and rightly established church of-Christ is a company of faithful people, separated from I the unbelievers and heathens of the land, gathered in the n’aine | of Christ, whom they truly wor I ship, and readily obey—joined together as members of one body ordered and governed by such officers and laws as Christ in his last will and testament hath thereunto ordained." Again, “Tocompel religion, to plant churches by power and to force a submission to ecclesiasti cal government by laws and pen allies, belongeth not to them," that is to magistrates, “neither yet to the church." These principles are sound, far in advance of those held by the Puritans; and what a pity that they should be vitiated by others completely subversive of them. With a strange inconsistency the Brownists held that the civil magistrate had a right to inter fere in behalf of a Scriptural re ligion: that it is not the preroga tive of the prince to compel any “to receive the church govern ment; but after they have re ceived it, if they then fall away and seek not the Lord, they might be put to death.” Francis Johnson in “An answer to Master Jacob,” declared: “That it is not in the power of princes, or any man whatsoever, to pei suade the conscience and makemembers of the church, but this must be left to God alone, who only can do it. Princes may and ought, within their do minions, to abolish all false wor ship, and all false ministers whatsoever; and to establish the true worship and ministry ap pointed by God in his word; com manding and compelling his sub jects to come unto and practice no other but this.” Cited by J. Chaplin in Baptist Quarterly He view April, 1873. Thus it is seen that more cor rect views of the nature of the church of Christ were slowly winning their way through the contentions of religious teachers who were struggling for the as cendency. The Churchman made his own church and rites and ceremonies, and called to his aid.in maintain lug thhm,the strong arm of secu lar power. The Puritan found his church in the New Testament with its rites, laws and ceremonies, and invoked the power of the State to compel men to accept them. The Brownists likewise found his church, with its laws, rites, and ceremonies, in the book of God, but denied to the State the right or power to compel men to receive them. “God only cando this. But the State ought to prohibit the existence of that church, and the observance of those rites and ceremonies which are manifestly false.” “Do not c ompel men to profess the true religion, but forbid their adopt ing the false. But when they have once professed the true, they must be kept from apostasy, if by the power of the prince.” Growth this is, but oh! how slow. While these sects were busy promulgating their distinc tive doctrines, tbe light of a purer doctrine shone in England, albeit not in stately edifices, but in the gloom of the forest glade. For in their faith and practice, then as now, they stood alone, and nearest to the Sacred Oracles. We thank God for them, and to then - faith and practice the next article will be devoted. A. B. Vaughan, Jr. Family Spirit.—At a tim e when every true American la ments the decadence of parental authority and the growth of that false idea of equality which con sists only of a refusal of all signs of reverence to others, Balzac’s note of warning to France may be of use and inter est. He says: “Accoiding to the new order of affairs, the parent is no longer responsible for the deeds of the son, and the crimes of the father leave no stain on his family. In harmony with tbe various emancipatiois which have so thoroughly en feebled parental authority, this system has led to the triumph of that individualism which is de vouring modern society. He who looks thoughtfully into the future foresees the destruction of the family spirit, caused by the substitution of free-will and equality for parental authority.” The family must always be the basis of all society, in losing the solidarity of the family, so ciety has lost that fundamental force discovered by Montaigne and by him named “honor,” it has isolated all so as to be better able to dominate; it has enfeebled all by means of separation. It remains to be seen whether gen eral interests can replace those of the family.— The Interior. Release. “Go honiH content, the evening fid Is, Diiy’n tired sinews ure unbent; Xu more I hu thrush or linnet t ails. *riif twilight fades,go home content.” *-Hit her. the Held is lint hiilf-turned, Ami yet the spring is well-nigh spent.” • My son the hour of rest is earned. The day’* work done, go home content.’* • Knther. the tleid is rough and bare, its sullen surface scarcely rent; I’ll plough but one more furrow here.” ‘•Not now. my son. go home content.” “Father the wheat will never root, The huh Ihd sunk t he hills anent: M\ weary labor will not boot; With work half-done, how be content?” "My < hlld the sun h . «oen thee toil With sturdy b( kanti nrown arms bent: Tho’other han« s should t 111 this soil, Thy work well done, go home content.” “Lord I have worked my little day <lnthe long task that Thou hast sent; The < veiling falls; my homeward way I g»> t<> Thee; I am content ’” —selected. The Significance of the Man Jesus Christ. I. in him there came, as lie himself said, new life into the world to abide in it and trans form it. His influence did not die with his departure. It be gan. As Rousseau says: “After the death of Jesus Christ twelve poor fishermen and artisans un dertake to instruct and convert the world. The success was prod igious; all the Christians ran to inartyrdorti. all the people ran to baptism.' The history of these first times was a continual pro digy.” Those who had been with him or who believed they had seen him in heaven went every where proclaiming him (Acts viii. 4; Rom. x. 16-18; Col. i. 23). The most powerful man among them declared that it was his great ambition to tell of Christ to whatever nations there might still ♦e which had not heard of him (Rom. xv. 20,21). And the inlluenceot Jesus did not cease with these early years when the first outburst of enthusiasm had lost its impulse. The attempts of men to account for this influ ence and locate it in careful sys tems of doctrine, changed from generation to generation. The forms in which it manifested it self from age to age differed, but the liying Christ has changed only in the enlarging human con ception of his meaning. He him self is the same yesterday, to day, and forever. Njthing has conquered him. “The gospel possesses,” said Napoleon, “a secret virtue, a mysterious effica cy, & warmth which penetrates and soothes the heart. . . . The gospel i ■ not a hook: ft is a living being with a vigor, with a power, which conquers every thing that opposes.” Almost all that is great and good Jesus introduced into our life, or it gained such impulse from him that he is practically its creator for us. “The im mense fund of altruistic feeling” which he introduced, Mr Kidd ! believes to be the sole secret and sanction of our civilization and progress (Social Evolution, chap, viii ). In any event, it is he who is teaching men humility. In the words of the church of England collect for the Sunday before Easter, “he took upon him our flesh, and suffered death upon the cross, that all mankind might follow - the example of his great humility.” He has taught men love. Love brought him and was revealed in him (John iii. 16). “The brief record of those three short years,” says Lecky, “has done more to soften and regenerate mankind than all the disquisitions of philosophers, and than all the exhortations of moralists.” His last command was a command to love with such love as he had himself shown for men (John xiii. 34, 35). He who stooped from heaven, to the hu miliations of the cross opened in the heart of redeemed man a fountain of love and compassion. ” He has taught men purity and philanthropy as fruits of love. In the Roman empire his influence checked licentiousness and cruel sports. Telemachus in his name brought the gladiatorial butch eries to an end. So high was the standard of life taught by his disciples that the very mention of moral lapse was discouraged (Eph. v. 3). His influence brought in a new legislation in favor of the prisoner, the outcast woman, the mutilated, and the poor (Brace, Gesta Christi, p 107). “For the first time the stern and noble features of Ro man law took on an unwonted expression of gentle humanity and sweet compassion, under the power of him who was the brother of the unfortunate and the sinful.” He began the eman cipation of the slave. His fol lowers became known as “the brothers of the slave.” He had said nothing about the wrong of human slavery, but from every word and act of his sprang the influences which for centuries battled with the supposed rights of man to property in man. “Through the vista qf history,” said Chrysostom, “we see slav ery and its pagan theory of two races fall before the holy word of Jesus, ‘All men are the chil dren of God.’” “We owe the VOL,. 76--NO. 31 church,” declared Mazzini, “the idea of the unity of the human family, and of the equality and emancipation of souls.” “My historical studies,” said Mr. E. A. Freeman, “have made me more and more sure that this thing which we call Christianity cannot be human.” And what is Christianity but the influence of Jesus? 2. The life which Jesus brought he himself was. His influence in the world has been only his self realization. All that he has wrought was in him self. He was all that he has done. In him all holy ideals meet; from him all holy activi ties flow. All that we have dis covered Jesus to be in these or other studies it is God’s purpose to do in the world, to make that humanity whose Son and goal Jesus was. “The end to which all things are working is the pro duction of the spiritual man. Who and what the spiritual man is we may not all agree; but I be lieve him to be the man in whom God has personally reproduced himself, and who is therefore God’s Son; and I believe Jesus Christ to be the revelation of the true meaning and the realization of the true destination of every man; and that in him, as the per sonal incarnation and reproduc tion of the personal God in our personal selves, we and the whole creation shall come into our divine inheritance” (Du Bose, The Soteriology of the New Testa ment, p. 471). The most diverse types of mind have recognized in Jesus this perfect ideal. Niebuhr says, “The feeblest intellect must see the strange ness of supposing that the holiest of men was a deceiver, his disci ples either deluded or liars, and that deceivers should have preached a holy religion of which self-denial is the chief duty.” Strauss calls him the highest object we can possibly imagine with respect to religion, the be ing without whose presence in the mind perfect piety is impos sible. Never at any time will it be possible to rise above him, or to imagine any one who should ever be equal with him.” De Wette says, “The man who comes without preconceived opinions to the life of Jesus, and who yields himself up to the im pression which it awakes, will feel no manner of doubt that he is the most exalted character and the purest soul that history pre sents to us. He walked over the earth like some nobler being who scarce touched it with his feet.” Renan cried, “Between thee and God there is no longer any distinction. The most beautiful incarnation of God —God in man!” And in his last book this was his final word about-Jesus: “One fundamental thesis to which I cling more firmly than ever is that not only did Jesus exist, but that he was great and beautiful, a thousandfold more real than insipid earthly great ness, than insipid earthly beau ty-” John Stuart Mill said, “There is no better rule than so to live that Christ would approve your life.” Johann von Muller, a skepti cal historian, accidentally taking up the New Testament, and find ing Christ the explanation of history, wrote, “In all my study of ancient times I have always felt the want of something, and it was not until I knew our Lord that all was clear to me; with him there is nothing that I am not able to solve.” As Browning says: “I say the acknowledgment of God in Christ,' Accepted by the reason, solves for thee All questions in the earth and out of it.” Congreve, “the high priest of the English Comtists,” said, “The more truly you serve Christ, the more thoroughly you mould yourselves into his image, the more keen will be your sym pathy and admiration.” Goethe called him “the divine man, the saint, the type and model of all men.” Shelling admits, “None before him after such a manner has re vealed to man the infinite.” Richter exclaims, “Being the holiest among the mighty, and the mightiest among the holy, he has lifted with his pierced hands empires off their hinges, has turned the stream of centu ries out of its channel, and still governs the ages.” Hennel says, “While no human character in the history of the world can be brought to mind which, in proportion as it could be closely examined, did not present some defects disqualifying it for being the emblem of moral per fection, we can rest with least check or sense of moral incon gruity on the imperfectly known character of Jesus of Nazareth.’’ —The Man Christ Jesus.—Speer.