HAVING defined and briefly sketched the country that is to be divided, it will now be necessary to describe ancient Germany, the country whence are to come the nations that shall make the division. Having found that ten kingdoms are to be established here, it will be proper to study for a little while the primitive condition of the people that is to form these kingdoms. Here, again, we shall need to simply transcribe portions of Gibbon's history:—
“We shall occasionally mention the Scythian, or Sarmatian tribes, which, with their arms and horses, their flocks and herds, their wives and families, wandered over the immense plains which spread themselves from the Caspian Sea to the Vistula, from the confines of Persia to those of Germany. But the warlike Germans, who first resisted, then invaded, and at length overturned, the western monarchy of Rome, will occupy a much more important place in this history, and possess a stronger, and, if we may use the expression, a more domestic claim to our attention and regard. The most civilized nations of modern Europe issued from the woods of Germany, and in the rude institutions of those barbarians we may still distinguish the original principles of our present laws and manners.”
“Ancient Germany, excluding from its independent limits the province westward of the Rhine, which had submitted to the Roman yoke, extended itself over a third part of Europe. Almost the whole of modern Germany, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Livonia, Prussia, and the greater part of Poland, were peopled by the various tribes of one great nation, whose complexion, manners, and language denoted a common origin, and preserved a striking resemblance. On the west, ancient Germany was divided by the Rhine from the Gallic, and on the south by the Danube from the Illyrian, provinces of the empire. A ridge of hills, rising from the Danube, and called the Carpathian Mountains, covered Germany on the side of Dacia, or Hungary. The eastern frontier was faintly marked by the mutual fears of the Germans and the Sarmatians, and was often confounded by the mixture of warring and confederating tribes of the two nations. In the remote darkness of the North, the ancients imperfectly descried a frozen ocean that lay beyond the Baltic Sea, and beyond the peninsula, or islands, of Scandinavia.
“Some ingenious writers have suspected that Europe was much colder formerly than it is at present; and the most ancient descriptions of the climate of Germany tend exceedingly to confirm their theory. The general complaints of intense frost and eternal winter are perhaps little to be regarded, since we have no method of reducing to the accurate standard of the thermometer, the feelings or the expressions of an orator born in the happier regions of Greece or Asia. But I shall select two remarkable circumstances of a less equivocal nature.
“1. The great rivers which covered the Roman provinces—the Rhine and the Danube—were frequently frozen over, and capable of supporting the most enormous weights. The barbarians, who often chose that severe season for their inroads, transported, without apprehension or danger, their numerous armies, their cavalry, and their heavy wagons, over a vast and solid bridge of ice. Modern ages have not presented an instance of a like phenomenon.
“2. The reindeer, that useful animal, from which the savage of the North derives the best comforts of his dreary life, is of a constitution that supports, and even requires, the most intense cold. He is found on the rock of Spitzbergen, within ten degrees of the Pole; he seems to delight in the snows of Lapland and Siberia; but at present he cannot subsist, much less multiply, in any country to the south of the Baltic. In the time of Caesar, the reindeer, as well as the elk and the wild bull, was a native of the Hercynian forest, which then overshadowed a great part of Germany and Poland.
“The modern improvements sufficiently explain the causes of the diminution of the cold. These immense woods have been gradually cleared, which intercepted from the earth the rays of the sun. The morasses have been drained, and, in proportion as the soil has been cultivated, the air has become more temperate. Canada, at this day [1775 A. D.], is an exact picture of ancient Germany. Although situated in the same parallel with the finest provinces of France and England, that country experiences the most rigorous cold. The reindeer are very numerous, the ground is covered with deep and lasting snow, and the great river St. Lawrence is regularly frozen, in a season when the waters of the Seine and the Thames are usually free from ice.”
“When Tacitus considered the purity of the German blood and the forbidding aspect of the country, he was disposed to pronounce those barbarians Indigenæ, or natives of the soil. We may allow with safety, and perhaps with truth, that ancient Germany was not originally peopled by any foreign colonies already formed into a political society; but that the name and nation received their existence from the gradual union of some wandering savages of the Hercynian woods. To assert those savages to have been the spontaneous production of the earth which they inhabited, would be a rash inference, condemned by religion and unwarranted by reason.”
“Modern Germany is said to contain about two thousand three hundred walled towns. In a much wider extent of country, the geographer Ptolemy could discover no more than ninety places which he decorates with the name of cities, though, according to our ideas, they would but ill deserve that splendid title. We can only suppose them to have been rude fortifications, constructed in the center of the woods, and designed to secure the women, children, and cattle whilst the warriors of the tribe marched out to repel a sudden invasion. But Tacitus asserts, as a well-known fact, that the Germans, in his time [A. D. 56–135], had no cities; and that they affected to despise the works of Roman industry as places of confinement rather than of security. Their edifices were not even contiguous, or formed into regular villas; each barbarian fixed his independent dwelling on the spot to which a plain, a wood, or a stream of fresh water, had induced him to give the preference. Neither stone, nor brick, nor tiles, were employed in these slight habitations. They were indeed no more than low huts of a circular figure, built of rough timber, thatched with straw, and pierced at the top to leave a free passage for the smoke.
“In the most inclement winter, the hardy German was satisfied with a scanty garment made of the skin of some animal. The nations who dwelt towards the north clothed themselves in furs; and the women manufactured for their own use a coarse kind of linen. The game of various sorts, with which the forests of Germany were plentifully stocked, supplied its inhabitants with food and exercise. Their monstrous herds of cattle, less remarkable indeed for their beauty than for their utility, formed the principal object of their wealth. A small quantity of corn was the only produce exacted from the earth; the use of orchards or artificial meadows was unknown to the Germans; nor can we expect any improvements in agriculture from a people whose property every year experienced a general change by a new division of the arable lands, and who, in that strange operation, avoided disputes by suffering a great part of their territory to lie waste and without tillage.”
“The sound that summoned the German to arms was grateful to his ear. It roused him from his uncomfortable lethargy, gave him an active pursuit, and, by strong exercise of the body and violent emotions of the mind, restored him to a more lively sense of his existence. In the dull intervals of peace, these barbarians were immoderately addicted to deep gaming and excessive drinking; both of which, by different means, the one by inflaming the passions, the other by extinguishing their reason, alike relieved them from the pain of thinking. They gloried in passing whole days and nights at table; and the blood of friends and relations often stained their numerous and drunken assemblies. Their debts of honor (for in that light they have transmitted to us those of play) they discharged with the most romantic fidelity. The desperate gamester, who had staked his person and liberty on a last throw of the dice, patiently submitted to the decision of fortune, and suffered himself to be bound, chastised, and sold into remote slavery, by his weaker but more lucky antagonist.
“Strong beer, a liquor extracted with very little art from wheat or barley, and corrupted (as it is strongly expressed by Tacitus) into a certain semblance of wine, was sufficient for the gross purposes of German debauchery. But those who had tasted the rich wines of Italy and afterwards of Gaul, sighed for that more delicious species of intoxication. They attempted not, however (as has since been executed with so much success), to naturalize the vine on the banks of the Rhine and Danube; nor did they endeavor to procure by industry the materials of an advantageous commerce. To solicit by labor what might be ravished by arms, was esteemed unworthy of the German spirit. The intemperate thirst of strong liquors often urged the barbarians to invade the provinces on which art or nature had bestowed those much-envied presents.”
“A general of the tribe was elected on occasions of danger; and, if the danger was pressing and extensive, several tribes concurred in the choice of the same general. The bravest warrior was named to lead his countrymen into the field, by his example rather than by his commands. But this power, however limited, was still invidious. It expired with the war, and in time of peace the German tribes acknowledged not any supreme chief. Princes were, however, appointed in the general assembly, to administer justice, or rather to compose differences, in their respective districts.”
“In the hour of danger it was shameful for the chief to be surpassed in valor by his companions; shameful for the companions not to equal the valor of their chief. To survive his fall in battle was indelible infamy. To protect his person, and to adorn his glory with the trophies of their own exploits, were the most sacred of their duties. The chiefs combated for victory, the companions for the chief.”
“The Germans treated their women with esteem and confidence, consulted them on every occasion of importance, and fondly believed that in their breasts resided a sanctity and wisdom more than human. Some of these interpreters of fate, such as Velleda, in the Batavian war, governed, in the name of the Deity, the fiercest nations of Germany. The rest of the sex, without being adored as goddesses, were respected as the free and equal companions of soldiers; associated even by the marriage ceremony to a life of toil, of danger, and of glory. In their great invasions, the camps of the barbarians were filled with a multitude of women, who remained firm and undaunted amidst the sound of arms, the various forms of destruction, and the honorable wounds of their sons and husbands.
“Fainting armies of Germans have, more than once, been driven back upon the enemy by the generous despair of the women, who dreaded death much less than servitude. If the day was irrecoverably lost, they well knew how to deliver themselves and their children, with their own hands, from an insulting victor.709Heroines of such a cast may claim our admiration; but they were most assuredly neither lovely nor very susceptible of love. Whilst they affected to emulate the stern virtues of man, they must have resigned that attractive softness in which principally consist the charm and the weakness of woman. Conscious pride taught the German females to suppress every tender emotion that stood in competition with honor, and the first honor of the sex has ever been that of chastity. The sentiments and conduct of these high-spirited matrons may at once be considered as a cause, as an effect, and as a proof, of the general character of the nation.”
“The religious system of the Germans (if the wild opinions of savages can deserve that name) was dictated by their wants, their fears, and their ignorance. They adored the great visible objects and agents of nature—the sun and the moon, the fire and the earth—together with those imaginary deities who were supposed to preside over the most important occupations of human life. They were persuaded that by some ridiculous arts of divination they could discover the will of the superior beings, and that human sacrifices were the most precious and acceptable offering to their altars.”
“Germany was divided into more than forty independent States; and, even in each State, the union of the several tribes was extremely loose and precarious. The barbarians were easily provoked; they knew not how to forgive an injury, much less an insult; their resentments were bloody and implacable. The casual disputes that so frequently happened in their tumultuous parties of hunting or drinking were sufficient to inflame the minds of whole nations; the private feud of any considerable chieftains diffused itself among their followers and allies. To chastise the insolent, or to plunder the defenseless, were alike causes of war. The most formidable States of Germany affected to encompass their territories with a wide frontier of solitude and devastation. The awful distance preserved by their neighbors attested the terror of their arms, and in some measure defended them from the danger of unexpected incursions.”
“Such was the situation, and such were the manners, of the ancient Germans. Their climate, their want of learning, of arts, and of laws, their notions of honor, of gallantry, and of religion; their sense of freedom, impatience of peace, and thirst of enterprise,—all contributed to form a people of military heroes. And yet we find, that, during more than two hundred and fifty years that elapsed from the defeat of Varus [September, A. D. 9] to the reign of Decius [249 A. D.], these formidable barbarians made few considerable attempts, and not any material impression, on the luxurious and enslaved provinces of the empire. Their progress was checked by their want of arms and discipline, and their fury was diverted by the intestine divisions of ancient Germany.”—Dec. and Fall, chap. 9, par. 1-3, 5, 8, 10, 11, 15, 17, 19, 20, 26, 24.
But when we reach the time of the reign of Decius, it seems almost as though the very elements were employed in hurling the barbarous nations in multitudes upon the already rapidly failing empire.
Divine Inspiration.
THE same blood circulates from Genesis to Revelation. It is the one book. He who makes Moses a myth makes Christ an impostor. He who denies the Mosaic authorship and the inspiration of the Pentateuch denies the authenticity of the gospels and the divinity of our Lord. But we are told that the Bible must be tested as to its authenticity as other books are. Granted. But when Sir Walter Scott avowed himself the author of the Waverly novels, there was an end of guesses and speculations. Plausible arguments might have been suggested for attributing the authorship of some of them to others; but the world had confidence in Sir Walter Scott's veracity. His word settled the matter. And should not the word of Christ settle the question as to who wrote the Pentateuch? What are all our petty canons of criticism when weighed against his word? Not one scholar in a hundred can test for himself the grounds on which Wellhausen bases his conclusions. But all of us can read in our New Testaments what Christ said about the Jewish Scriptures; about David in the Psalms; about Moses and the prophets; and that is enough for us.—Sel.
Presumptuous Prayer.
By W. N. Glenn
It is hardly necessary to say that prayer is commendable. There is no human being that does not need to pray. The inspired word teaches that "men ought always to pray;" to "pray everywhere;" to "pray without ceasing;" to "be instant in prayer;" to "come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need." Even the Son of God, by whom the worlds were made (Col. 1:16), when sojourning upon earth, though only "in the likeness of sinful flesh," found it necessary to pray frequently and earnestly.
But there is no exercise in which men are more likely to err than in prayer. Without the leading of the Holy Spirit, "we know not what to pray for as we ought." There is such a thing as "asking amiss," though ever so fervently, and failing to receive. Jas. 4:3. The "double-minded" or "wavering" man will not receive anything of the Lord in answer to prayer. Chap. 1:6-8. There is such a thing as praying "to be seen of men," and that being the only reward. Matt. 6:5. And there is such a thing as prayer being an abomination. Prov. 28:9. But there is a species of presumptuous prayer, quite common in these days, to which a moment's attention is here called.
We are warranted in asking wisdom of God (Jas. 1:5); but to ask special light upon duty or doctrine while refusing that already given in the Scriptures, is simply tempting the Author of wisdom, who has chosen this method of giving "instruction in righteousness." 2 Tim. 3:16. Those who are engaged in disseminating the truths of the Third Angel's Message often meet opponents who claim that they have had important questions settled in their minds through prayer, though the Scriptures may indisputably teach a directly opposite doctrine. And even some who have professedly accepted the "present truth" will find a plea for evading the plain word in the fact that protracted prayer confirms them in the way they desire to go.
That God will suffer delusion to blind those who presumptuously appeal to him for light while disregarding that already given upon the same point, and will even permit them to follow their own inclinations, is evidenced by the case of Balaam the prophet. While the Israelites were journeying toward Canaan, they pitched their tents in the plains of Moab. The Moabites were much afraid of the great multitude, especially as they had heard how the Amorites had been defeated. So they joined with the Midianites in sending messengers to Balaam, and asked him to come and curse Israel. Balaam inquired of the Lord, and received explicit directions not to go with the messengers.
But when Balak "sent yet again princes, more, and more honorable," together with the promise to Balaam of "very great honor," the prophet was anxious to go, and presumed to again inquire of the Lord. The first inquiry was all right; but after the word of the Lord had plainly made known his will, further inquiry became offensive, and the Lord gave him permission to go. Here he had express leave given him in answer to prayer to go where he had previously been forbidden to go; but his designed mission was fruitless, for "God's anger was kindled because he went."
Nothing could better illustrate or more plainly indicate the displeasure of the Lord with those who seek by prayer or otherwise for authority or light upon any subject, contrary to his emphatic word. This instance was "written for our learning," and shows beyond question that a disposition to squarely ignore that which the Spirit has expressly spoken cannot be excused or palliated by any degree of fancied consecration or humility, or any intensity or fervency of petition. Although such prayer may secure a delusive permit to disobey the word, it will just as surely secure the accompanying anger of the Lord. "Be not deceived; God is not mocked." It is the prayer "according to his will" that receives answer accompanied by his blessing (1 John 5:4), not that which asks for something contrary to his word.
W. N. GLENN.
Force and Fuss.
THERE is more resemblance in the sound of these two words than in their sense; yet thoughtless people often mistake the latter for the former. Force is power, fuss is noise; the one is work, the other is talk; the one is the moving of the engine, the other is the escape of steam. There may be sound in force; there is nothing but sound in fuss. The one may be quiet and gentle, and yet retain its essential character; the other loses its identity when quietness comes. Force moves steadily onward to the production of the result in view; fuss raves and roars and agitates, yet accomplishes nothing. Force is radical; fuss is superficial.
Force is the concentration of energy on the work in hand; fuss is the scattering of energy in every direction, without touching any special point. Some of the most quiet men have an immense amount of force which they know how to use when the time comes, and which they do use with wonderful results; while others, far more demonstrative and self-asserting, have but little to show as the result of their labor. The duty of every Christian worker is to have a thorough consecration of all his powers to God's service; and thus to seek not to draw attention to himself by an unseemly show of misplaced energy, but rather by the attractive power of a loving heart to draw all to Christ.—Sunday School Journal.
Faith in the Drift of Things
TRUST is not always a Christian virtue. To trust one's self to a rotten plank, when a safe footing can properly be obtained elsewhere, may be a folly or a crime, according to the motive which directed the action. This thought is suggested by the recent words of a would-be theological prophet, who, forecasting the creed of the future, announces, as one of the elements of its fourfold belief, faith in the "drift of things." Faith in the drift of things! Alack! that is like enough to be the too common faith of the future; for it has been the commoner faith of the past. No transgressor of God's commandments, no drunkard, no impure person, no deceiver of other men, but has unlimited faith in the drift of things. Every day sees him sink deeper into the mire, every day, perhaps, making his desire for deliverance more feeble; yet every day sees him cherishing the same old faith that sometime things will take a turn, and he will come out all right. One might more safely trust one's self to the drift above Niagara than to this treacherous "drift of things." This faith in the drift of things is not the faith of the Christian. His is a personal trust in a personal Saviour,—through whose good providence he has faith, not in the drift of things, but in their settled march, according to God's ordering, from evil to good, and from corruption to incorruption.
The Sabbath-School.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
LESSON FOR THE PACIFIC COAST—DEC. 19.
Pagan and Papal Rome.
THE vision of the eighth chapter of Daniel begins with the supremacy of the Medo-Persian dominion, B. C. 538, and covers the remaining portion of the world's history till the close of time. The 25th verse says that the power represented by the little horn, Rome, "shall be broken without hand." This evidently refers to the same thing that is mentioned in Dan. 2: 34, 44, 45, where the stone cut out without hands is represented as smiting the image on the feet and breaking the entire image—all the kingdoms of earth—in pieces.
PAGANISM was the prevailing religion during the Medo-Persian and Grecian rule, and during the first portion of the Roman Empire. In the vision of the second chapter of Daniel there is no distinction made between Rome pagan and Rome papal, but in every other prophecy the distinction is clearly marked. In the seventh chapter, pagan Rome is represented by the "dreadful and terrible" beast with teeth of iron and nails of brass. Papal Rome is represented by the "little horn" which came out from this beast. In reality, the beast, after the rise of the little horn, is papal Rome, i. e., Rome under the popes.
IN the 12th and 13th of Revelation the Roman power is brought to view. It is not difficult to identify the red dragon with seven heads and ten horns. It is represented as standing ready to devour a certain child as soon as it was born. This child we know is Jesus, from the fact that he is to "rule all nations with a rod of iron" (verse 5, compare Ps. 2: 7-9), and he was "caught up unto God, and to his throne." These particulars will apply to no one but Jesus. And Rome, through Herod as its representative, stood ready to slay Jesus when he was born. See Matt. 2. The dragon, then, represents Rome. The question is, Does it represent the whole of Rome, or only a part? This can be answered when we have identified the next beast.
"AND I stood by the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy. And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion; and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority. . . . And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months. And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in Heaven. And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them; and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations." Rev. 13: 1-7.
COMPARE this description with what we are already familiar in Dan. 7, and there will be no difficulty in deciding that it also represents Rome. What! two symbols in succession representing the same thing? The answer must be that they represent two phases of Rome. Now we know that Rome in the time of Christ was pagan; therefore this second phase, represented by the leopard beast, must be papal Rome. Notice its blasphemous words, and its work of persecuting the saints, and compare with the description of the little horn of Daniel 7. Notice also the time during which it was to have power to continue—"forty and two months." This, at thirty days to the month, is just 1260 days (as prophetic symbols, years), which we have already learned was the period of papal supremacy. Here, then, as in the 7th of Daniel, the prophecy marks the change from pagan to papal Rome.
ONCE more we turn to the Roman power as brought to view in the 8th of Daniel. The little horn that waxed "exceeding great," we have already seen to be Rome. There is no possibility of its representing any other power. But it is to be "broken without hand," which shows that the little-horn power covers the whole of Roman history, reaching even to the coming of the Lord. This being the case, it is evident that here also we must have the two phases of Rome,—pagan and papal. How are these two phases indicated? First, we repeat that the word "sacrifice," which occurs in verses 11, 12, and 13, is not found in the original, and there is nothing in the text that gives any idea of sacrifice. In the face of this, the Revision Committee, as if to get as far as possible from the true meaning of the passage, have placed "burnt-offering" in the Revised Version, in the place of "sacrifice." This is simply making a bad matter worse. They could have used the word "persecution," or "prophesying," or "dreaming," with just as much reason. Some one will ask, If there is no word in the original where the translators have placed "sacrifice," why did they place any word there at all? It would have been better if they had not, for then no one would have been misled. Let us try it in verse 13: "Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint that spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?" A very slight examination will convince any one that the only word that can be properly supplied after "daily," is "desolation;" thus, "How long shall be the vision concerning the daily desolation and the transgression of desolation?" By supplying a word that is already in the text (and we have no right to go outside of the text for a word), we make harmony, and get the real sense of the passage.
ROME, then, is here termed a desolating power. Examine Matt. 24: 15, 16, and Luke 20: 21, 22, and you will find the Roman armies spoken of as the "abomination of desolation." And this term, "desolation," is a very fit one to apply to a power that shall "break in pieces and bruise," and "shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces." Then we have two forms of desolation, the "daily" and the "transgression." Rome in its pagan form was well indicated by the term "daily," or "continual," because paganism had been the main religion of the world from almost the beginning. A few people worshiped the true God; but these were so very few that it might well be said that paganism had always been the religion of the world. But under the Roman dominion a change was to take place. Paganism in the civilized world was to receive its death blow, and a form of worship professedly Christian was to take its place; yet this new form of religion was to be of such a character, as compared with paganism, that it was called the "transgression." It is doubtful if the abominations of paganism for four thousand years equaled the crimes perpetrated by papal Rome in its twelve centuries of supreme power.
THIS same change is set forth by Paul in the second chapter of 2 Thessalonians. He told the Thessalonian brethren that the day of the Lord could not come until there had come an apostasy, and the "man of sin" had been revealed, and had accomplished his work of blasphemy and opposition to God and his truth. Said he, "Remember ye not that when I was yet with you, I told you these things?" That is, when he was in Thessalonica he preached to them from the book of Daniel concerning the rise of the papacy. "And now ye know what withholdeth that he [the man of sin] might be revealed in his time." That is, you know what now hinders the setting up of the papacy; it is paganism, which still has a controlling influence in the government. "For the mystery of iniquity doth already work; only he who now letteth [hindereth] will be [hinder], until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed." Verses 7, 8. The apostasy had begun in Paul's day. "Grievous wolves" had already begun to devour the flock, and men speaking perverse things had drawn many away. The spirit of the papacy—"the mystery of iniquity"—was already existing; but it could not fully develop itself until paganism—the hindering power—should be "taken out of the way," and then "that Wicked" should stand forth undisguised.
NOTE the similarity in the terms used by Paul and the angel in describing the papacy. The angel calls it "the transgression of desolation;" Paul calls it "that Wicked," just as though the papacy embraced all the wickedness in the world, and so it did. The papacy was to be so pre-eminently wicked that it could be sufficiently designated by the expression "that Wicked."
IN Rev. 13: 2, the change from paganism to papacy is noted in these words: "And the dragon [pagan Rome] give him [that is the beast, papal Rome] his power, and his seat, and great authority." If any one, however, supposes that this change was an instantaneous one, accomplished by a sudden revolution, he is greatly mistaken. For several hundred years the papal power was growing almost unnoticed, before it succeeded in exalting itself above the ruins of paganism. Paul, in 2 Thess. 2: 6-8, brings this state of things to view, when he represents the "mystery of iniquity" as working, but obliged to wait for its full development until paganism should be removed. We propose to give a few quotations that will indicate, as fully as is possible in our brief space, the rise of the papacy and the overthrow of paganism.
"IN the last great persecution under Diocletian [A. D. 284-305], the bishops of Rome probably fled once more to the Catacombs. Their churches were torn down, their property confiscated, their sacred writings destroyed, and a vigorous effort was made to extirpate the powerful sect. But the effort was vain. Constantine soon afterward became emperor, and the Bishop of Rome emerged from the Catacombs to become one of the ruling powers of the world. This sudden change was followed by an almost total loss of the simplicity and purity of the days of persecution. Magnificent churches were erected by the emperor in Rome, adorned with images and pictures, where the bishop sat on a lofty throne, encircled by inferior priests, and performing rites borrowed from the splendid ceremonial of the pagan temple. The Bishop of Rome became a prince of the empire, and lived in a style of luxury and pomp that awakened the envy or the just indignation of the heathen writer, Marcellinus. The church was now enriched by the gifts and bequests of the pious and the timid; the bishop drew great revenues from his farms in the Campagna and his rich plantations in Sicily; he rode through the streets of Rome in a stately chariot and clothed in gorgeous attire; his table was supplied with a profusion more than imperial; the proudest women of Rome loaded him with lavish donations, and followed him with their flatteries and attentions; and his haughty bearing and profuse luxury were remarked upon by both pagans and Christians as strangely inconsistent with the humility and simplicity enjoined by the faith which he professed. The bishopric711of Rome now became a splendid prize, for which the ambitious and unprincipled contended by force or fraud."—Historical Studies, pp. 17, 18.
CONSTANTINE became sole emperor of Western Rome in 312 A. D. Shortly after (March, 313), he issued the famous Edict of Milan, which restored all forfeited civil and religious rights to the Christians, and secured to them equal toleration with the pagans throughout the empire. This was an important step in advance. Gibbon, speaking of Constantine's relation to Christianity, says: "By the edicts of toleration, he removed the temporal disadvantages which had hitherto retarded the progress of Christianity. . . . The exact balance of the two religions continued but a moment; and the piercing eye of ambition and avarice soon discovered that the profession of Christianity might contribute to the interest of the present as well as of a future life. The hopes of wealth and honors, the example of an emperor, his exhortations, his irresistible smiles, diffused conviction among the venal and obsequious crowds which usually fill the apartments of a palace. . . . As the lower ranks of society are governed by imitation, the conversion of those who possessed any eminence of birth, of power, or of riches, was soon followed by [the conversion of] dependent multitudes."—Decline and Fall, chap. 20, par. 18.
IN his "History of Latin Christianity," book 1, chapter 2, Milman quotes a single paragraph from an ancient historian, which shows the advancement made by the bishop of Rome by the close of the fourth century: "No wonder that for so magnificent a prize as the bishopric of Rome, men should contest with the utmost eagerness and obstinacy. To be enriched by the lavish donations of the principal females of the city; to ride, splendidly attired, in a stately chariot; to sit at a profuse, luxuriant, more than imperial, table,—these are the rewards of successful ambition."
IN the same chapter, Milman again says:—"The Pontificates of Damasus and Siricius [A. D. 367-398] beheld almost the last open struggles of expiring Roman paganism, the dispute concerning the Statue of Victory in the Senate, the secession of a large number of the more distinguished senators, the pleadings of the eloquent Symmachus for the toleration of the religion of ancient Rome. To such humiliation were reduced the deities of the Capitol, the gods, who, as was supposed, had achieved the conquest of the world, and laid it at the feet of Rome. But in this great contest the bishop of Rome filled only an inferior part; it was Ambrose, the bishop of Milan, who enforced the final sentence of condemnation against paganism, asserted the sin, in a Christian emperor, of assuming any Imperial title connected with pagan worship, and of permitting any portion of the public revenue to be expended on the rites of idolatry. It was Ambrose who forbade the last marks of respect to the tutelar divinities of Rome in the public ceremonies."
THE final triumph of the pseudo-christian religion was gained in the early part of the 6th century, when Pope Symmachus anathematized the Emperor Anastasius. See Cyclopedias, art. "Anastasius," and "Decline and Fall," chap. 47, par. 22. At the same time, paganism in the West was overthrown by Clovis, king of the Franks, a cruel and bloodthirsty tyrant, who had been converted to the Christianity that was then popular, by his wife, Clotilde, who was a Catholic. Clovis had promised her that if he were victorious in a battle which he was about to fight near Cologne, A. D. 496, he would turn Christian. After a severe struggle, he gained the victory, and soon after he and several thousand of his followers were baptized. He afterward, A. D. 507-8, by virtue of his superior skill and strength in battle, succeeded in "converting" the entire nation of the Visigoths, so that Christianity became the nominal religion of the entire Roman world. (See "Decline and Fall," chap. 38, par. 1-30; Guizot's "History of France," vol. 1, chap. 7.) Because of these Christian acts, he received from the pope the title of "Most Christian King."
THUS was the "continual desolation" taken away that the "transgression of desolation" might run its course. In A. D. 538, as previously shown, the papacy became supreme by the conquest of its rivals, and it pursued its career unchecked until 1798. Since then its temporal power has gradually become extinct, but its spiritual power, though seemingly limited, is greater than ever. Its opposition to "all that is called God, or that is worshiped," has not diminished, nor will it cease until the Lord shall consume that Wicked with the spirit of his mouth, and destroy it with the brightness of his coming. 2 Thess. 2: 8. E. J. W.