Earlier text: The SermonI WAS traveling over Anti-Lebanon. It was a bright summer day and near noon. Weary and way-worn, I rode down from a bare mountain side into the wild and beautiful valley of Hebron, and dismounted beside a little fountain, under the "shadow of a great rock." A group of some fifteen or twenty shepherds was there, too, resting during the heat of the day, and their flocks, amounting to several thousand sheep and goats, filled nearly the whole bottom of the valley. At first I was greatly annoyed by the too near approach of both men and animals; but when the time came to lead their flocks away to their pasture again, I watched their motions with intense interest. The shepherds rose, went to the middle of the dense mass of animals, and then separating, walked away slowly in different directions. As they went each kept uttering a peculiar cry or call. The sheep heard, and too began to separate one from the other. I observed the whole mass was agitated, as if the sheep and goats had been driven hither and thither by some unseen power. Gradually they form a series of dense moving columns, following closely in the footsteps of the shepherds, and drawn after them by their voices. I also observed that while each shepherd wound his way through the united flocks, some of the animals fled at his approach, frightened by his voice, others hastened toward him, "for they knew his voice." In a short time they were led off, and the fountain was completely deserted, not a sheep or goat ventured to lag behind. Then the calls of the shepherds were heard from rock and cliff, now loud and clear, now dying away in the distance; while the flocks were seen obedient to the calls, following in long, distinct streams the guides whom alone they knew and trusted. As I sat there gazing with wonder and pleasure on that strange and instructive scene, another beautiful Scripture illustration was realized before my eyes. One shepherd led his flock, by a zig-zag path, up the almost perpendicular banks of the glen. Behind it two young lambs trotted along at the feet of their mother. At first they frisked about, and jumped lightly from stone to stone; but soon they began to fall behind. The poor little things cried piteously when the path became steeper, and the rocks higher, and the flocks more and more distant. The mother cried, too, running back and forth—now lingering behind, now hastening on before, as if to while them upwards. It was in vain. The ascent was too much for their feeble limbs. They stopped, trembling on the shelving cliff, and cried; the mother stopped and cried by their side. I thought they would certainly be lost; and I saw the great eagles that soared in circles round the cliffs far overhead, sweeping lower and lower as if about to pounce upon their prey. But no! The plaintive cries of distress had already reached the ear of the good shepherd. Mounting a rock, he looked down and saw the helpless little ones. A minute and he was standing by them, then taking them up in his arms, he put them one on each side, in his bosom, in the ample folds of his coat, which was bound round the waist with a girdle. The lambs made no attempt to run away from him. They seemed to know what he was going to do when he lifted them in his arms; and the little creatures lay there with their heads out, contentedly as an infant in its mother's bosom, while the shepherd scaled the dizzy heights again, and took his place at the head of the flock. It may be easily imagined with what deep interest I have ever since read the beautiful words of Isaiah: "He shall feed his flock like a shepherd, he shall gather the lambs with his arms and carry them in his bosom." The Time That Tries a Man’s Soul
A DEAD man can drift down stream, but it takes a live man to pull up against it. That is the time that tries a man’s soul—when the tide is against him. ONE of the most pleasant and noblest duties of the head of the family is to furnish its members with good reading. Let good reading go into a home, and the very atmosphere of that home gradually but surely changes. The boys begin to grow ambitious, to talk about men, places, books, the past, and the future. The girls begin to feel a new life opening before them in knowledge, duty, and love. They see new fields of usefulness and pleasure; and so the family changes, and out from its number will grow intelligent men and women to fill honorable places, and be useful members of society. “Use Us.”
By Rev. James H. Taylor
“Use us to Thy glory,” is familiar language in prayer. We hear it; we so express ourselves. So, too, we close our prayers, saying very devoutly, “When Thou art done serving Thyself with us here below.” We, who so pray, are, most likely, sincere, or certainly not to be accused of insincerity. We think we mean what we say. But do we? If sincere, are we also in earnest? Do we comprehend the scope of our words? “Use us,” “serving Thyself with us,” is the language of the very highest heroism. It implies the completest self-giving to being made of “no reputation” and used all up, according to worldly standards, if God shall so choose to take us at our word and answer prayer. Do we mean that? We should all be willing to be used as the Heaven of prayer is using Mr. Moody in Great Britain. Or if any object to such methods of Christian work, they would be glad to have God serve himself with them as he served himself with John Calvin or Martin Luther. Many would gladly be used as God used Whitfield and Wesley. Possibly they might be willing to endure St. Paul’s strife and Martyrdom if they might also share his honor on earth and in Heaven. Some would welcome an answer to that prayer in which they should appear in the service of God as a Harlan Page or Henry Martyn, or as some faithful, patient, Christian mother, unknown beyond her own door-yard, save by the godly children that go forth from her nursery with the power of her graceful life upon them, or even as that seamstress of England; leading many to Christ. But suppose God choose to answer the prayer “Use us,” “Serve Thyself with us,” by using us as he used Job—making an example of him—not punishing him for badness, but giving an example of a “perfect and upright man.” Oh, when will the Christian world have done with the pagan way of accepting every hard experience as a judgment from God! Job so suffered because he was so much better than other men, not worse. So did Jesus. But suppose that God, for any reason, choose to answer your prayer, “Use us to Thy glory,” by allowing you to fall into extreme distress—estate swept away, health undermined, even powers of speech paralyzed, or possibly your good name stained by some malignant tongue, though you may know your private life to be as pure as the streaming sunlight, yet your reputation hopelessly blasted before the world by the mere insinuation of some careless or devilish person—are you ready to be used in that way? So Job was used, and so Jesus himself was used, even dying on the shameful cross with the imputation of blasphemy and lewdness still upon him. Did you think of such an answer as possible when you prayed, “Serve Thyself with me”? Jesus did when he said, “Lo, I come to do Thy will,” and he met it without a murmur. So when we pray, “Use us,” we must be ready to receive the answer that God’s wisdom may dictate. And when the answer comes in vanishing wealth, our hearts must have, or find, the grace to say, “If I can serve Thee better in poverty, than with my wealth, here I am.” “If better with a reputation blasted by some malignant tongue, though I maintain a pure character, here I am. I make no reservation; use me all up in the world’s estimation, if I so can serve Thee best.” So the Saviour left Heaven, lived and died, making “himself of no reputation,” but maintaining a pure character all the while, with no guile in his mouth. Reputation is not character, sometimes.—Rev. James H. Taylor. A GENTLEMAN of New York, who personally knew Thomas Paine, and was repeatedly in his company during the last years of his life, gave the following account of a conversation with him respecting the Bible :— "One evening I found Paine haranguing a company of his disciples, on the great mischief done to mankind by the introduction of the Bible and Christianity. When he paused, I said : ‘Mr. Paine, you have been in Scotland; you know there is not a more rigid set of people in the world than they are in their attachment to the Bible; it is their school-book; their churches are full of Bibles. When a young man leaves his father’s house, his mother always, in packing his chest, puts a Bible on the top of his clothes.’ "I continued : ‘You have been in Spain, where the people are destitute of the Bible, and there you can hire a man for a dollar to murder his neighbor, who never gave him any offense.’" "‘You have seen the manufacturing districts of England, where not one man in fifty can read, and you have been in Ireland, where the majority never saw the Bible. Now you know it is an historical fact that in one county in England or Ireland there are many more capital convictions in six months than there are in the whole population of Scotland in twelve. Besides, this day there is not one Scotchman in the almshouse, State prison, bridewell or penitentiary of New York.’" "Now, then, if the Bible were so bad a book as you represent it to be, those who use it would be the worst members of society; but the contrary is the fact; for our prisons, almshouses and penitentiaries are filled with men and women whose ignorance and unbelief prevent them from reading the Bible." "It was now near ten o’clock at night. Paine answered not a word, but, taking a candle from the table, walked up stairs, leaving his friends and myself staring at one another." This was the best he could do with that argument.—Sel. Bookless Houses.
By Episcopalian
WE form judgments of men from little things about their houses, of which the owners perhaps never think. Flowers about a rich man's house may signify only that he has a good gardner, or that he has refined neighbors, and does what he sees them do. But men are not accustomed to buy books unless they want them. If, on visiting the dwelling of a man of slender means, we find that he contents himself with cheap carpets and very plain furniture, in order that he may purchase books, he rises at once in our esteem. Books are not made for furniture, but there is nothing else that so beautifully furnishes a house. The plainest row of books is more significant of refinement than the most elaborately carved sideboard. Give us a house furnished with books rather than furniture. Both if you can; but books at any rate. To spend several days in a friend's house, and hunger for something to read, while you are treading on costly carpets, and sitting on luxurious chairs, and sleeping upon down, is as if one were bribing your body for the sake of cheating your mind. Books are the windows through which the soul looks out. A house without them is like a room without windows. No man has a right to bring up his children without surrounding them with books, if he has the means to buy them. It is a wrong to his family. Children learn to read by being in the presence of books. The love of knowledge comes with reading, and grows upon it. And the love of knowledge in a young mind is almost a warrant against the inferior excitement of passion and vice. Let us pity those poor rich men who live barrenly in great bookless houses. Let us congratulate the poor that, in our day, books are so cheap that a man may every year add a hundred volumes to his library, for the price of what his tobacco and his beer would cost him. Among the earliest ambitions to be excited in clerks, workmen, journeymen—and, indeed, among all who are struggling in the race of life—is that of owning, and constantly adding to, a library of good books. A little library, growing larger every year, is an honorable part of a young man's history. It is a man's duty to have books. A library is not a luxury, but one of the necessities of life.—Episcopalian. The heart of man is like a garden—capable of producing, under good culture, everything beautiful in humanity, while if neglected, it is choked up with every kind of rank and poisonous weeds. Questions on the Sanctuary.
By Uriah Smith
OUR remarks on this subject last week closed with the argument that the throne of God itself is a living, moving throne, and its glory by the express testimony of the prophet, is manifested in different apartments of his holy temple. When, therefore, Christ ascended to a position on the throne of his Father, on the right hand of God, he did not necessarily go into the most holy place of the sanctuary on high. To this we now add that in John's first view of the heavenly sanctuary, he saw the throne of God in the holy place. Rev. 4 : 1-6. Here John beheld, not Heaven opened, but a door opened in Heaven. And within the apartment opened before him, he saw a throne circled with the rainbow, and glowing like an emerald. The one seated upon the throne was the Father; for Christ is subsequently introduced as the one who took from his right hand the book sealed with seven seals. And before the throne there were seven lamps of fire, the antitype of the candlestick of the earthly sanctuary, which was placed in the first apartment. John's field of vision therefore, in this instance, lies in the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary, and he there beholds the throne of God; and he sees the Father, the Son, the four and twenty elders, the four living creatures, and the innumerable company of angels acting together in reference to the salvation of man. Here, then, is positive proof that the first part of Christ's ministry before his Father was performed in the holy place. We find equal evidence that when the time comes for a change in the ministration from the holy to the most holy place there is a change in the position of the Father. The opening of the work in the most holy place is undoubtedly described in Dan. 7 : 9, 10; and there we find this significant language: "I beheld till the thrones were cast down [placed], and the Ancient of Days did sit." The Ancient of Days can be none other than God the Father. The expression that "did sit," shows that he here took a position which, in this work, he had not before occupied. In other words, he changed his position from the holy to the most holy place. He thus having changed his position, there is room for the fulfillment of verses 13 and 14, which represent Christ with his holy retinue as being brought into his presence to receive his kingdom, glory and dominion. This certainly did not take place at the time of Christ's ascension; and there is no place to locate it, without supposing some such movement, as is here suggested on the part of God. These conclusions are necessary; and as they are the only ones which will harmonize all the Scriptures on the point, we may rest with all confidence on their correctness. Our correspondent further inquires :—
"Has the temple described in Ezekiel ever been built, or is it yet future? Have you Thoughts on Ezekiel and Isaiah?" Reference we suppose is made to Eze. chapters 40-46. And we answer unhesitatingly that that sanctuary never has been built, and never will be built; for the promise of it was a conditional promise, and the children of Israel never having complied with the conditions, God could not stultify himself by fulfilling the promise over those violated conditions. It was offered to them on condition that they should be "ashamed" of their iniquities and put them away. Eze. 43 : 8-11. But Jeremiah in his prophetic history of their future perversity, captivity, and final overthrow, speaking with sad certainty of what would be, as though it had already been, says: "Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? Nay; they were not at all ashamed." Jer. 6 : 15; 8 : 12. And this is shown in the fact that when the decree for Israel's restoration from captivity went forth, all would not go up to the land where God's abundant blessing was promised. Ezra 1 : 5; 7 : 7; 8 : 15; &c. But this prophecy does not belong to the future age: for Christ is to be the Prince and Shepherd over Israel in the glorified state. But in the prophecy it is a poor, frail mortal, even offering a sin offering for himself. Eze. 45 : 22. Marriage and death are to be unknown in the age to come; but here are marriages, divorces, widows and death. Eze. 44 : 22. The prophet does not therefore refer to the age to come. This prophecy would have been fulfilled, had the conditions been complied with, in the Mosaic dispensation; for it was to be when circumcision, divorce, distinction in meats, offerings of beasts, the Jubilee and the Levitical priesthood were in force, as the chapters referred to testify. See this subject fully canvassed in "The Sanctuary," by J. N. Andrews, second edition, pp. 62-66. We have no works on Ezekiel and Isaiah. The last question proposed is the following:—
"What text implies that Christ will put off his priestly robes? Please answer in the paper, as I am not the only one interested. These doubts are suggested to all who hear the doctrines of the 'Age to Come,' and future probation, which we think are wrong." To justify the expression that Christ will put off his priestly robes and array himself in kingly apparel when he comes, we refer to Rev. 1 : 13, and 19 : 13 and 16. The first text represents him during this dispensation, in the midst of his churches, and holding their ministers in his right hand. Here he has on garments suitable to a priestly work, the priest's girdle being especially mentioned. See Ex. 29 : 9, &c. The second text unquestionably applies at the time of his second coming; and then he has on apparel not at all suited to the position of priest, but that of a king, as he is expressly called, "King of kings and Lord of lords." Other scriptures referring to the same time represent him in a similar manner. Isa. 59 : 17; 63 : 1-4, &c. And these texts have a bearing upon that antiscriptural, soul-destroying delusion referred to by our correspondent, namely, the idea of probation after the coming of Christ. For when Christ's priesthood ends, and he no longer acts as mediator between God and the children of men, there can of course be no more offers of mercy and salvation to the unreclaimed. Then he that is filthy will be filthy still; Rev. 22 : 11; then there remaineth no more offering for sin; Heb. 10 : 14, 18; then it is forever decided who are blessed and holy and have part in the first resurrection; Rev. 20 : 6; and all the rest are consigned to the second death, which is the lake of fire and perdition of ungodly men. Rev. 20 : 5, 6, 15; 2 Pet. 3 : 7. He who can see probation for the ungodly in these declarations and events, must be as blind as the imagination can conceive, or Satan could desire. We would say to our correspondent that he does well to reject such a doctrine. And we would adjure those who are troubling the minds of investigators with these things to desist from their unholy work. Away with such vagaries from the system of present truth. In the name of reason and revelation we protest against them. They have no more business to be associated with the truths of the Sabbath and the third angel's message than a minister of sin would have to be stationed in the courts of glory. It is truly surprising that any who have investigated the system of present truth, should not be able to see that it is a system of divine harmony and unchangeable relation of parts. Each part is supported by, and each in its turn supports, the rest. It is strange they should imagine that any point can be treated and adjusted without reference to the others. As is perhaps natural, the enemy of truth seems most persistent in trying to trouble and unsettle minds in reference to the sanctuary; and for that is the citadel of our strength; and the special point of attack is the idea that the cleansing of the sanctuary began, by the entrance of Christ into the most holy place, at the end of the 2300 days in 1844. Hence his scheme to make men believe that Christ entered the most holy place when he ascended. Now it is easy to show that this position would utterly overthrow all the great lines of prophecy in the Bible. Let us try it on a few of them : If Christ entered the most holy place when he ascended, then the cleansing of the sanctuary then commenced. Then the 2300 days at the end of which the sanctuary should be cleansed, terminated at the ascension of Christ. This would destroy at once the grand argument on the seventy weeks of Dan. 9, by which the first advent of the Messiah is demonstrated, and it destroys all the arguments by which it is shown that the decree to restore and build Jerusalem went forth 457 B. C. And inasmuch as the prophecies of Dan. chaps. 2, 7 and 8, are in their main features evidently parallel, and the 2300 days span very nearly the entire field of vision, if they terminated at the ascension of Christ, these lines of prophecy are crowded almost wholly back into the former dispensation, instead of reaching through this one to the end as they certainly do. So much for the prophecies of Daniel. By this view the four lines of the 2d, 7th, 8th and 9th chapters are utterly destroyed. Again, the message of the angel of Rev. 10, is based upon the prophetic periods of Daniel, and goes forth in connection with the close of the longest of them. If that ended at Christ's ascension, this message was given then. But this is the same as the message of Rev. 14 : 6, 7; which consequently locates that message at the same time. The 2300 days bring us to the sounding of the seventh trumpet. On the supposition that they ended at Christ's ascension, six of the seven trumpets are thrown back into the former dispensation. The finishing of the mystery of God, which then takes place, Rev. 10 : 7; 11 : 19, is the basis of the proclamation of the third angel, of Rev. 14 : 9-12, which is likewise thrown back to the opening of this dispensation. But this message warns against the mark of the beast enforced by the two-horned beast of the previous chapter, which is thus carried back over 1800 years from our time. This beast does his miracles in sight of the leopard beast mentioned before him, so back goes that beast to the Mosaic dispensation. As this beast continued 1260 years, and first received its seat from the dragon, away goes the dragon for at least 1260 years into the past dispensation, almost to the time of Moses. Who knows but Moses himself was the dragon after all! And further, the seven last plagues, Rev. 16, are poured out upon those who received the mark of the beast against which the third angel warns them. They must have been poured out therefore away back somewhere near the opening of this dispensation, and must all be past; for they all fall upon the same generation. Compare verses 2 and 11. Then the battle of the great day has been fought, the great earthquake has transpired, the cities of the nations have fallen, every island has fled away, and the mountains have disappeared, and the voice from the temple has announced that it is finished; and for the past 15 to 18 centuries more or less, all has been over, the world drifting away beyond all the lines of God's prophecies, and his providence. To such stupid driveling absurdities are we driven the moment we take the position that Christ entered the most holy place of the heavenly sanctuary when he ascended. We might speak of the converse of all these propositions and show that every argument by which our views on any of the lines of prophecy mentioned are sustained, are direct evidences to show that the cleansing of the sanctuary did not commence till the end of the 2300 days in 1844; and whoever gives up this point, must be prepared to meet the arguments on all the other. So we might take up any other point with a like result. But this is sufficient. All that is needed is a broad and comprehensive view of the temple of truth, to see the stability of every pillar by which it is upheld. Constantine.
By J. H. Waggoner
AFTER Constantine professed to embrace Christianity he enforced the day of his tutelar god, the sun, with additional honors as an ordinance to be observed by the church. From a carefully compiled work we quote the following :— 'A recent English writer says of Constantine's Sunday law that it 'would seem to have been rather to promote heathen than Christian worship.' And he shows how this heathen emperor became a Christian, and how this heathen statute became a Christian law. Thus he says : 'At a later period, carried away by the current of opinion, he declared himself a convert to the church. Christianity, then, or what he was pleased to call by that name, became the law of the land, and the edict of A. D. 321, being unrevoked, was enforced as a Christian ordinance.' Thus it is seen that a law, enacted in support of a heathen institution, after a few years came to be considered a Christian ordinance ; and Constantine himself, four years after his Sunday edict, was able to control the church, as represented by the council of Nice, so as to cause the members of the church to establish their annual festival of the passover upon Sunday." Andrews' Hist. Sab.,p. 349. All history attests the truthfulness of this statement, that his first Sunday law was given out of regard for the sun, or, as Dr. Schaff says, “in conformity to his worship of Apollo,”the sun-god. His obsequious bishops were but too ready to please the humor of the emperor by constituting “the venerable day of the sun,” the chief festival of the church. Eusebius,—who has so often been quoted, and even with an ill-timed air of triumph by the devotees of this relic of sun worship—acknowledges its paternity in his celebrated endorsement, as follows :— “And all things whatsoever that it was the duty to do on the Sabbath, these we have transferred to the Lord’s day, as more appropriately belonging to it, because it has a precedence and is first in rank, and more honorable than the Jewish Sabbath.” Those who have noted the temper of the dignitaries of that day, their servility to the emperor, and their bitter prejudice against the Jews, will not be astonished that they attached more honor to the day of the sun, backed as it was by the imperial decree, than to the day which was observed by the Jews, though it had been honored as Jehovah’s rest from the work of creation ; it had received the divine blessing; it was hallowed or set apart for religious observance by the Lord himself ; its observance had been expressly commanded by the Lord with his own voice ; it was written with his own finger in the enduring tables of stone ; it was declared to be honorable, and a sign or memorial of the Creator’s power ; blessings had been promised to all who keep it ; and curses been pronounced against all who profane it ; each and all of which were lacking for the first day. Said Eusebius, “we have transferred.” We shall not here give the evidence, of which abundance exists, that this transfer of Sabbath duty from the seventh to the first day was, as Eusebius affirms, made by the dignitaries of the church in the fourth century. It was, on their part, only an endorsement of Constantine’s decree of 321, and the adoption of his favorite day which was devoted to the worship of his favorite god ! The complete evidence that the Sunday was never observed as a Sabbath, or a rest-day of any kind, until after Constantine’s law, that it was adopted as a church festival out of complaisance to the emperor, and as a means of more readily leading the Roman people to profess Christianity by conforming to their customs in regard to “the venerable day of the sun,” of the regard for the Sabbath of the fourth commandment, which was, up to that time, observed by Christians, and the steps taken by bishops and councils to cause a discontinuance of the observance of the seventh day; these do not properly belong to the life of Constantine, though the complete erection of the Sunday festival is traceable to his influence. But, influential as he was, it was not without a long struggle that Christians were brought to observe the first day to the exclusion of the original and divinely instituted Sabbath. The bishop of Rome put forth every effort to suppress the observance of the seventh day. And because many churches utterly refused to conform to the rules sent to them from Rome, the aid and authority of councils was invoked, and those who refused to join in this “new solar paganism” were anathematized, and straitly threatened by the dominant party, which threatens the Romanists were not slow to fulfill. But there is another legacy left to the world by Constantine which is well worthy of notice. It is the pontificate or primacy of Rome. As the union of church and State was introduced and carried into effect by Constantine so was the primacy of Rome or the supremacy of the Roman bishop established by him. The papacy owes its origin and power to Constantine. In conformity to his polytheistic religion, and his policy of favoring all whose influence could strengthen his authority, “he exempted the Christian clergy from municipal duty” as early as 313. Schaff, vol. 2, p. 3. An early historian has left us a very important testimony on this subject :— “Constantine likewise enacted a law in favor of the clergy, permitting judgment to be passed by the bishops when litigants preferred appealing to them rather than to the secular court ; he enacted that their decree should be valid, and as far superior to that of other judges as if pronounced by the emperor himself ; that the governor and subordinate military officers should see to the execution of these decrees ; and that sentence, when passed by them, should be irrevercible.”—Sozomon, Eccl. Hist., p. 11. Thus the clergy were not only permitted to exercise the functions of a civil magistrate, but they were given authority above that of the civil magistrates. From their decisions there was no appeal. It takes but little knowledge of the laws of courts to perceive how readily corruption would be introduced and fostered by such an arrangement. In fact, every step tended toward binding the church and the State together as really as if that had been the only object in view. The tendency to worldliness as the result of such action is thus set forth by Hallam :— “It was among the first effects of the conversion of Constantine, to give not only a security but a legal sanction to the territorial acquisitions of the church.317 The edict of Milan, in 313, recognizes the actual estates of ecclesiastical corporations. Another, published in 321, grants to all the subjects of the empire the power of bequeathing their property to the church. His own liberality and that of his successors, set an example which did not want imitators. Passing rapidly from a state of distress and persecution to the summit of prosperity, the church degenerated as rapidly from her ancient purity, and forfeited the respect of future ages in the same proportion as she received the blind veneration of her own. Covetousness, especially, became almost a characteristic vice.”—Hallam, Middle Ages, p. 261. It is a mistake, however, to place these actions as the “effects of the conversion of Constantine,” As there is no proof that he considered the Christian religion better than other religions at the time of these decrees. He was aware of the firmness and constancy of the Christians under persecution, and as a politic statesman he thought best to attach the bishops and the churches to himself, to draw their influence toward the empire rather than to increase divisions among his subjects. By uniting the Christian and pagan systems he hoped to strengthen the empire ; and to this end he used every means to give influence to the ambitious prelates, especially to the bishop of Rome. His removal to Byzantium was doubtless to glorify himself by building up a strong city to the honor of his own name, calling it Constantinople. Yet the result was so clearly favorable to the interests of the Roman bishop that some have thought the movement had this object in view. Thus Stanley speaks of it :— “According to the fable of Sylvester, Constantine retired to Greece in order to leave Italy for the Pope “Per cedere al Pastor si fece Greco.” So said the legend, and it was undoubtedly the case, that by retiring to the East he left the field clear for the bishops of Rome. In the absence of the emperors from Rome, the chief Christian magistrate rose to new importance. When the barbarians broke upon Italy the pope thus became the representative of the ancient Republic. It is one of the many senses in which the saying of Hobbs is true, that the papacy is but the ghost of the deceased Roman empire, sitting crowned upon the grave thereof.”—Stanley, p. 305. Stanley calls the bishop of Rome “the chief Christian magistrate.” This truthful expression is worthy of careful consideration. He was not only a “magistrate” in the civil acceptation of that term, but “chief” among the highest magistrates in the empire. He was not content, however to be above all ; he was too arrogant and ambitious to long permit even an approach to his dignity. In 451 the council of Chalcedon elevated the bishop of Constantinople to be next in rank to the bishop of Rome, against which the Roman delegates protested, and appealed to the decision of the council of Nice, 325 in favor of the Roman primacy. The imperial commissioners who heard the plea thus decided :— “From the whole discussion, and from what has been brought forward on either side, we acknowledge that the primacy over all and the most eminent rank are to continue with the archbishop of old Rome.”—Schaff, Ch. Hist., vol. 2, p. 281. This shows that the question of the primacy was settled, not by the judgment of the imperial commissioners, but by an appeal to the decision of the council of Nice. All after action upon that subject was but a confirmation of the decision of that council. But the prophecy of Daniel had spoken of three horns or kingdoms which were to be plucked up before the Roman pontiff to prepare the way for his supremacy. The third kingdom was plucked up when the Ostrogoths were subdued by Justinian. In his letter to the Roman bishop, Justinian recognized and confirmed his primacy. It is true that Justinian did not particularly speak of the civil power, or make a grant in that behalf. Nor was it needed. The bishop was a high civil magistrate under the empire by the authority of Constantine ; and it was only needed of Justinian to put down the opposers in Rome, and to continue to hold the imperial court in Constantinople, to open the way for the exercise of independent magistracy by the Roman pontiff. And he was not slow to improve every opportunity in that direction. He soon claimed a divine warrant to govern, not only his own territory, but all the kingdoms of the world. And such was the power of popular superstition that kings imagined that they could add to the glory of their kingdoms by receiving the blessing of the “universal bishop.” Accustomed to the idea of a union of civil and ecclesiastical power, they thought to strengthen themselves by receiving the benediction of the highest ecclesiastical officer ; and that which they accorded to him as a privilege he soon demanded as a right. Mighty rulers, by their complaisance to Rome, exalted the power of the bishop over themselves ; and what they intended as an act of reverence to his spiritual authority, he used as a precedent to prove his right to reign over all civil governments ; and he soon demanded homage of kings and emperors as the condition of their reigning unmolested in their own territories ! Truly, “his look was more stout than his fellows.” The foundation was laid, and strongly laid, by Constantine. Justinian, by plucking up the third horn gave efficiency to the decision of the Nicene council, and opened the way before “that wicked,” whereby he was enabled to “exalt himself,” even “above all that is called God, or that is worshipped.” We have here given what we believe to be the truth in regard to the union of church and State, and the part which Justinian took in fulfilling the prophecy of Daniel ; and we think this view is abundantly sustained by history. And here we close our brief examination of the life and acts of Constantine. We have aimed in every case to give, not only the exact words, but the actual idea of the historian. Yet it often happens that he who quotes history is accused of misrepresentation by those who do not find the quotations on the designated pages in the work in their possession. The difficulty lies in the fact that there may be different editions of the same work. To prevent such misunderstanding we append a list of the principal histories quoted, stating in all cases where it is considered necessary, when, where, and by whom issued :— Dowling, History of Romanism, Edw. Walker, New York, 1853, enlarged edition.
Evagrius, Bagster, London, 1846.
Foxe, Acts and Monuments of the Church, Fullerton & Co., London and Edinburg.
Gibbon, Phillips, Sampson & Co., Boston, 1854.
Guericke, Ancient Church, Shedd’s trans., Draper, Andover 1869.
Hallam, Middle Ages, Derby & Jackson, New York, 1859.
Dr. Hase, Appleton & Co., New York, 1860, from 7th German edition.
Keightley’s Rome, Hilliard, Gray & Co., Boston, 1841.
Mosheim, Church History Maclaine’s, Applegate & Co., Cincinnati, 1855.
Mosheim, Historical Commentaries, Murdock’s Converse, New York, 1852.
Milman, Murdock’s Harpers, New York, 1844.
Milner, Church History, Thos. Nelson, Edinburgh, 1837.
McClintock & Strong’s Cyclopedia.
Neander, Torrey’s trans., Crocker & Brewster, Boston. 1852.
Dr. Schaff, Church History.
Sozomon, Bagster, London, 1846.
Socrates’ Eccl. History of the fourth century, Bohn, London, 1853.
Stanley, of Oxford, Scribner & Co., New York, from 2d London edition.
Theodoret, Bagster, London, 1844.
Whelpley’s Compend, Richardson & Lord, Boston, 1828.
Willard’s Universal History, Barne’s & Co., New York, 1851.
Waddington, Harper’s New York, 1855. J. H. WAGGONER.
(Concluded.)