Earlier text: General ArticlesTHOUGHTS ON DANIEL.
By Uriah Smith
CHAPTER II.—THE GREAT IMAGE.
As already explained, we are brought down by verses 41-43 this side of the division of the Roman Empire into ten kingdoms; which division was accomplished, according to Bishop Lloyd, in A. D. 483. The kings, or kingdoms, in the days of which the God of Heaven is to set up his kingdom, are evidently these kingdoms which arose out of the Roman Empire. Then the kingdom of God here brought to view could not have been set up, as is popularly claimed, in connection with the first advent of Christ, four hundred and fifty years before. But whether we apply this division to the ten kingdoms or not, it is certain that some kind of a division was to take place in that kingdom before the kingdom of God should be set up; for the prophecy expressly declares, "The kingdom shall be divided." And this is equally fatal to the popular view; for after the unification of the first elements of the Roman power down to the days of Christ, there was no division of the kingdom; nor during his days, nor for many years after did any such thing take place. The civil wars were not divisions of the empire; they were only the efforts of individuals worshiping at the shrine of ambition, to obtain supreme control of the empire. The occasional petty revolts of distant provinces, suppressed with almost the speed and power of a thunder-bolt, did not constitute a division of the kingdom. And these are all that can be pointed to as interfering with the unity of the kingdom, for more than three hundred years this side the days of Christ. This one consideration is sufficient to forever disprove the view that the kingdom of God, which constitutes the fifth kingdom of this series, as brought to view in Dan. 2, was set up at the commencement of the Christian era. But a thought more may be in place. 1. This fifth kingdom, then, could not have been set up at Christ's first advent, because it is not to exist contemporaneously with earthly governments, but to succeed them. As the second kingdom succeeded the first, the third the second, and the fourth the third, by violence and overthrow, so the fifth succeeds the fourth. It does not exist at the same time with it. The fourth kingdom is first destroyed, the fragments are removed, the territory is cleared, and then the fifth is established as a succeeding kingdom in the order of time. But the church has existed contemporaneously with earthly governments ever since earthly governments were formed. There was a church in Abel's day, in Enoch's, in Noah's, in Abraham's, and so on to the present. No, the church is not the stone that smote the image upon the feet. It existed too early in point of time, and the work in which it is engaged is not that of smiting and overthrowing earthly governments. 2. The fifth kingdom is introduced by the stone smiting the image. What part of the image does the stone smite? Ans. The feet and toes. But these were not developed until four centuries and a half after the crucifixion of Christ. The image was at the time of the crucifixion, only developed to the thighs, so to speak, and if the kingdom of God was there set up, if there the stone smote the image, it smote it upon the thighs, not upon the feet, where the prophecy places it. 3. The stone that smites the image is cut out of the mountain without hands. The margin reads, "Which was not in hand." This shows that the smiting is not done by an agent acting for another, not by the church, for instance, in the hands of Christ; but it is a work which the Lord does by his own divine power without any human agency. 4. Again, the kingdom of God is placed before the church as a matter of hope. The Lord did not teach his disciples a prayer which in two or three years was to become obsolete. The petition may as appropriately ascend from the lips of the patient waiting flock in these last days, as from the lips of his first disciples, "Thy kingdom come." 5. We have plain Scripture declarations to establish the following propositions; (1) That the kingdom was still future at the time of our Lord's last passover. Matt. 26:26. (2) That Christ did not set it up before his ascension. Acts 1:6. (3) That flesh and blood cannot inherit it. 1 Cor. 15:50. (4) That it is a matter of promise to the apostles, and to all those that love God. Jas. 2:5. (5) That it is promised in the future to the little flock. Luke 12:32. (6) That through much tribulation the saints are to enter therein. Acts 14:22. (7) That it is to be set up when Christ shall judge the living and the dead. 2 Tim. 4:1; and (8) That this is to be when he shall come in his glory with all his holy angels. Matt. 25:31-34. But it may be asked, Is not the expression, "kingdom of Heaven," used in the New Testament in reference to the church? It may be. It does not come within the province of a brief comment on Daniel 2:44, to explain the meaning of the expression "kingdom of Heaven" in the New Testament. Provided it could be shown that it there refers every time to the church, it would by no means prove the church to be the kingdom spoken of here in Daniel. Our object is to ascertain what constitutes the kingdom here brought to view; and we have seen that the prophecy utterly forbids our applying it to the church, inasmuch as by the terms of the prophecy we are prohibited from looking for it till four hundred and eighty-three years this side the first advent of Christ, and there are indubitable proofs that it is still future. We will therefore only say, in regard to the expression in the New Testament, that sometimes it refers to the future literal kingdom, sometimes to the work of grace upon the hearts of believers and the spread of the gospel. But these latter are only elementary principles of the kingdom, and operate in view of, and in reference to, that which is to be established in the future. It may be objected again that when the stone smites the image, the iron, the brass, silver, and gold, are broken in pieces together; hence the stone must have smitten the image when all these parts were in existence. In reply to which, we ask, What is meant by their being broken to pieces together? Does it mean that the same persons who constituted the kingdom of gold would be alive when the image was dashed to pieces? No; else the image covers but the duration of a single generation. Does it mean that that would be a ruling kingdom? No; for there is a succession of kingdoms down to the fourth. Supposing, then, that the fifth kingdom was set up at the first advent, how were the brass, silver, and gold, in existence then any more than at the present day? Does it refer to the time of the second resurrection, when all those wicked nations will be raised to life? No; for the destruction of earthly governments in this present state, which is symbolized by the smiting of the image, certainly takes place at the end of this dispensation; and in the second resurrection people are not distinguished by nationalities. No objection really exists in the point under consideration; for all the kingdoms symbolized by the image are, in a certain sense, still in existence. Chaldea and Assyria are still the first division of the image, Media and Persia, the second, Macedonia, Greece, Thrace, Asia Minor, and Egypt, the third. Political life and dominion, it is true, have passed from one to another, till it is all, so far as the image is concerned, now concentrated in the divisions of the fourth kingdom; but the others, in location and substance, though without dominion, are still there; and together all will be dashed to pieces when the fifth kingdom is introduced. It may still further be asked, by way of objection, Have not the ten kingdoms, in the days of which the kingdom of God was to be set up, all passed away; and as the kingdom of God is not yet set up, has not the prophecy, according to the view here advocated, proved a failure? We answer, Those kingdoms have not yet passed away. We are yet in the days of those kings. The following illustration from Dr. Nelson's "Cause and Cure of Infidelity," pp. 374, 375, will set this point in a clear light:— "Suppose some feeble people should be suffering from the almost constant invasions of numerous and ferocious enemies. Suppose some powerful and benevolent prince sends them word that he will, for a number of years, say thirty, maintain, for their safety along the frontier, ten garrisons, each to contain one hundred well-armed men. Suppose the forts are built and remain a few years, when two of them are burned to the ground and rebuilt without delay; has there been any violation of the sovereign's word? No, there was no material interruption in the continuance of the walls of strength; and furthermore, the most important part of the safeguard was still there. Again, suppose the monarch sends two posts of strength demolished, but, adjoining the spot where these stood, and immediately, he has other two buildings erected, more capacious, and more desirable; does the promise still stand good? We answer in the affirmative, and we believe no one would differ with us. Finally, suppose, in addition to the ten garrisons, it could be shown that for several months during the thirty years, one more had been maintained there; that for one or two years out of the thirty, there had been eleven instead of ten fortifications; shall we call it a defeat or a failure in the original undertaking? Or stated, destroy the propriety of our calling these the ten garrisons of the frontier? The answer is, No, without dispute. "So it is, and has been, respecting the ten kingdoms of Europe, once under the Roman scepter. They have been there for twelve hundred and sixty years. If several have had their names changed, according to the caprice of him who conquered, this change of name did not destroy existence. If others have had their territorial limits changed, the nation was still there. If others have fallen while successors were forming in their room, the ten horns were still there. If, during a few years out of a thousand, there were more than ten, if some temporary power reared its head, seeming to claim a place with the rest, and soon disappeared, it has not caused the beast to have less than ten horns." Scott remarks:—
"It is certain that the Roman empire was divided into ten kingdoms; and though they might be sometimes more, and sometimes fewer, yet they were still known by the name of the ten kingdoms of the western empire." Thus the subject is cleared of all difficulty. Time has fully developed this great image in all its parts. Most strictly does it represent the events it was designed to symbolize. It stands complete upon its feet. Thus it has stood for nearly fourteen hundred years. It waits to be smitten upon the feet by the stone cut out of the mountain without hand, that is, the Lord Jesus Christ. This to be accomplished when the Lord shall be revealed in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. In the days of these kings, the God of Heaven is to set up a kingdom. We are in the days of these kings. We have been here nearly fourteen centuries. So far as this prophecy is concerned, the very next event is the setting up of God's everlasting kingdom. Other prophecies and innumerable signs show unmistakably its immediate proximity.401 The coming kingdom! This ought to be the all-absorbing topic of the present generation. Reader, are you ready for the issue? He who enters this kingdom enters it not for a life-time merely, such as men live in this present state, not to see it degenerate, not to see it overthrown by a succeeding and more powerful kingdom; but he enters it to participate in all its privileges and blessings, and to share its glories forever; for this kingdom is not to be left to other people. Again we ask you, Are you ready? The terms of heirship are most liberal: "If ye are Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to promise." Are you on terms of friendship with Christ, the coming King? Do you love his character? Are you trying to walk humbly in his footsteps and obey his teachings? If not, read your fate in the cases of those in the parable, of whom it was said, Those mine enemies that would not have me to reign over them, bring hither and slay them before me. There is to be no rival kingdom where you can find an asylum, if you remain an enemy to this; for this is to occupy all the territory ever possessed by earthly kingdoms. It is to fill the whole earth. Happy they to whom the rightful Sovereign, the all-conquering King, at last can say, "Come ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world." Verse 46. Then the king Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his face and worshiped Daniel, and commanded that they should offer an oblation and sweet odors unto him. 47. The king answered unto Daniel, and said, Of a truth it is, that your God is a God of gods, and a Lord of kings, a revealer of secrets, seeing thou couldest reveal this secret. 48. Then the king made Daniel a great man, and gave him many great gifts, and made him ruler over the whole province of Babylon, and chief of the governors over all the wise men of Babylon. 49. Then Daniel requested of the king, and he set Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, over the affairs of the province of Babylon; but Daniel sat in the gate of the king. We have dwelt quite at length on the interpretation of the dream, which Daniel made known to the Chaldean monarch. From this, we must now return to the palace of Nebuchadnezzar, and to Daniel as he stands in the presence of the king, having made known to him the dream and the interpretation thereof, while the courtiers, and the baffled soothsayers, and astrologers, wait around in silent awe and wonder. It might be expected that a youthful monarch, raised to the highest earthly throne, and in the full flush of uninterrupted success, would scarcely brook to be told that his kingdom, which he designed to last forever, and doubtless fondly hoped would so last, was to be overthrown by another people. Yet Daniel plainly and boldly made known this fact to the king; and the king, so far from being offended, fell upon his face before the prophet of God, and offered him worship. Daniel doubtless immediately countermanded the orders which the king issued to pay him divine honors. That Daniel had some communication with the king which is not here recorded is evident from verse 47: "The king answered unto Daniel," etc. And it may be still further inferred that Daniel labored to turn the king's feelings of reverence from himself to the God of Heaven, inasmuch as the king replies, "Of a truth it is that your God is a God of gods, and a Lord of kings." Then the king made Daniel a great man. There are two things which in this life are specially considered to make a man great, and both these Daniel received from the king. 1. Riches. A man is considered great if he is a man of wealth; and we read that the king gave him many and great gifts. 2. Power. If in conjunction with riches, a man has power, certainly in popular estimation he is considered a great man; and this was bestowed upon Daniel in abundant measure. He was made ruler over the whole province of Babylon, and chief of the governors over all the wise men of Babylon. Thus speedily and abundantly did Daniel begin to be rewarded for his fidelity to his own conscience, and the requirements of God. So great was Balaam's desire for the presents of a certain heathen king, that he endeavored to obtain them in spite of the Lord's expressed will to the contrary, and thus signally failed. Daniel did not act with a view to obtaining these presents; yet by maintaining his integrity with the Lord, they were given abundantly into his hands. His advancement, both with respect to wealth and power, was a matter of no small moment with him, as it enabled him to be of benefit to his fellow-countrymen less favored than himself in their long captivity. Daniel did not become bewildered nor intoxicated by his signal victory and his wonderful advancement. He first remembers the three who were companions with him in anxiety respecting the king's matter; and as they had helped him with their prayers, he determines that they shall share with him in his honors. At his request they were placed over the affairs of Babylon; while Daniel himself sat in the gate of the king. The gate was the place where councils were held, and matters of chief moment were deliberated upon. The record is a simple declaration that Daniel became chief counselor to the king. LESSON FOR PACIFIC COAST—SEPT. 10.
Rebuking the Pharisees for their Hypocrisy.—Matt. 15:1-29; Mark 7:1-31.
LESSON COMMENTS. "REPORTS of the popular readiness to accept Jesus as king, and of his resolute refusal to head such a political movement, which alone could meet their own wishes, had doubtless reached Jerusalem, and this, coupled with rumors of his innovations and independence as a religious reformer, had thoroughly alarmed the authorities at Jerusalem. Discarding invective, craft, or indirect approach, their deputies now came no longer to the disciples, but to himself, with specific complaints, which the freedom of eastern manners, permitting free access to private life, had enabled them to establish. The disciples had already given offence by plucking and rubbing ears of barley on the Sabbath, and thus, as it was held, reaping and threshing on the sacred day; but a still graver scandal in Pharisaic eyes had been detected in their sitting down to eat without ceremonially washing their hands. The law of Moses required purifications in such cases, but the Rabbis had perverted the spirit of Leviticus in this, as in other things, for they taught that food and drink could not be taken with a good conscience when there was the possibility of ceremonial defilement. If every conceivable precaution had not been taken, the person or the vessel used might have contracted impurity, which would thus be conveyed to the food, and through the food to the body, and by it to the soul. Hence it had long been a custom, and latterly a strict law, that before every meal not only the hands but even the dishes, couches, and tables should be scrupulously washed. "The legal washing of the hands before eating was especially sacred to the Rabbinist; not to do so was a crime as great as to eat the flesh of swine. 'He who neglects hand-washing,' says the book of Sohar, 'deserves to be punished here and hereafter.' 'He is to be destroyed out of the world, for in hand-washing is contained the secret of the ten commandments.' 'He is guilty of death.' . . . It was a special mark of the Pharisees that 'they ate their daily bread with due purification,' and to neglect doing so was to be despised as unclean. "It was laid down that the hands were first to be washed clean. The tips of the ten fingers were then joined and lifted up so that the water ran down to the elbows, then turned down so that it might run off to the ground. Fresh water was poured on them as they were lifted up, and twice again as they hung down. The washing itself was to be done by rubbing the fist of one hand in the hollow of the other. When the hands were washed before eating they must be held upwards; when after it, downwards, so that the water should not run beyond the knuckles. The vessel used must be held first in the right, then in the left hand; the water was to be poured first on the right, then on the left hand, and at every third time the words repeated 'Blessed art thou who hast given us the command to wash the hands.' It was keenly disputed whether the cup of blessing or the hand-washing should come first; whether the towel used should be laid on the table or on the couch; whether the table was to be cleared before the final washing or after it. "This anxious trifling over the infinitely little was, however, only part of a system. If a Pharisee proposed to eat common food, it was enough that the hands were washed by water poured on them. Before eating Terumah—the holy tithes and the show-bread—they must be dipped completely in the water, and before the portions of the holy offering could be tasted, a bath must be taken. Hand-washing before prayer, or touching anything in the morning, was as rigidly observed, for evil spirits might have defied the hands in the night. To touch the mouth, nose, ear, eyes, or the one hand with the other, before the rite, was to incur the risk of disease in the part touched. The occasions that demanded the observance were countless: it must be done even after cutting the nails, or killing a flea. The more water used, the more piety. 'He who uses abundant water for hand-washing,' says Rabbi Chasda, 'will have abundant riches.' If one had not been out it was enough to pour water on the hands; but one coming in from without needed to plunge his hands into the water, for he knew not what uncleanness might have been near him while in the streets, and this plunging could not be done except in a spot where there were not less than sixty gallons of water. "The same scrupulous, superstitious minuteness extended to possible defilements of all the household details of daily life. Dishes, hollow or flat, of whatever material, knives, tables, and couches, were constantly subjected to purifications, lest they should have contracted any Levitical defilement by being used by some one unclean. "This ritual exaggeration was, apparently, a result of the jealousy between the democratic Pharisees and the lordly Sadducees. The latter attached supreme importance to the ceremonial sanctity of the officiating priests, to exalt themselves as the clerical aristocracy. The Pharisees, to humble them, laid the stress, as far as possible, on the vessels used, and the exactness of the act. In keeping with their endless washings in private, they demanded that all the vessels of the temple itself should be purified after each feast, lest some unclean person might have defiled them—a refinement which drew down on a Pharisee who was carying out even the golden candlestick itself to wash it, after a feast, the mocking gibe from a Sadducee, that he expected before long the Pharisees would give the sun a washing. "To honor one's parents was one of the 'Ten Words' of Sinai, and no duty was held more sacred by a Jew unperverted by Rabbinical sophistry. It was not forgotten that it was the one commandment to which a promise of reward was attached. 'A child is bound to maintain his parents when old and helpless,' says one passage in the Talmud, 'even if he have to beg to do so.' But this, unfortunately, was not the uniform teaching of Christ's day. If one Rabbi had put filial duty before the right to vow for one's own advantage, others had taught that it was a duty to honor God before honoring human relationships—a smooth phrase for legalizing gifts to the church at the expense even of father and mother. The hierarchical party ignored all interests but their own, and subordinated natural duty to their own enrichment. Pharisaism, in its moral decay, had come to be a spiritual death, corrupting the springs of national life. A few years later, in the time of the great famine, in the year A. D. 45, under Claudius, the theocratic party so heartlessly cared for themselves, that while the people were perishing of hunger by hundreds, no remission of temple dues was permitted, and the passover alone saw forty-one attic bushels of wheat presented at the altar, to be presently removed for the use of the priests, though the issarion—a measure of three and a half pints—sold for four drachmas, a sum equal to about twenty-six shillings at the present value of money. "Representatives of this smooth hypocrisy had now gathered round Jesus, and proceeded to inquire into his alleged unlawful acts. 'How comes it,' asked they, 'that a teacher who claims a higher sanctity than others can quietly permit his disciples to neglect a custom imposed by our wise forefathers, and so carefully observed by every pious Israelite? How is it that they do not wash their hands before eating?' "'They neglect only a ceremony introduced by men,' retorted Jesus; 'but how comes it that you, who know the law, transgress commands which are not of man, but from God himself? How comes it that, for the sake of traditions invented by the Rabbis, you set aside the most explicit commands of God? He has, for example, said that we must honor our father and mother, and support and care for them in old age. He has declared it worthy of death for any one to deny his parents due reverence, or to treat them harshly or with neglect. But you have invented a doctrine which absolves children, in many cases, from this commandment. If any one, says your "tradition," is asked by his parents for a gift, or help, for their benefit, he has only to say that he has vowed that very part of his means to the temple, and they cannot press him further to contribute to their support. How cunningly have you thus circumvented God's law! How easy is it for any one to break it, and effect a zeal for religion in doing so!'"-Geike. And so death passed upon all men, for all have sinned. (Rom. 5 : 12.) Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. (Matt. 11 : 28.) The righteousness of God, which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe. (Rom. 3 : 22.) All that believe are justified from all things. (Acts 13 : 39.)—Sel. The Religious Herald quotes a lady as saying that when she was a school-girl she heard an old minister, who was fond of making homely, practical illustrations, say that reading the Bible was like eating fish. When he came to a hard place he left it and called it a bone. When he read the Bible in that way, he found plenty of good, nourishing meat, and never had occasion to choke over the bones; that the older he grew, the fewer bones he found, until, when he came to be an old man with silvery hair, the book that he used to find as full of bones as a Connecticut River shad was like a halibut with only the one big bone in it of God’s incomprehensibility, and that was in such plain sight that no one could stumble over it, and grandly served its purpose as strong frame-work to keep the sweet, white, nutritious meat in its place. A WEAK mind is like a microscope, which magnifies trifling things, but cannot receive great ones.—Chesterfield. Reading and Teaching
By Steel
"Reading maketh a full man," said Lord Bacon; and, "Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh," said a greater than he. Well furnished in mind by reading and thought, the teacher is enabled to communicate solid instruction to his youthful charge. All who have been successful in imparting knowledge, have been assiduous in acquiring it for themselves.—Steel. CHRIST said to his disciples, "Ye are the light of the world." It should be the object, as it is the duty, of the church to go forward in every good work, and set an example to the world in respect of every Christian and moral duty. But we do not see it so in the present day. Does the church lead the world? or does the world lead the church? Let us notice a few prominent points. Albert Barnes said the American churches were responsible for American slavery; that there was no power outside the churches that could have sustained that institution an hour, if it had not been sustained by them. Some of them ignored the question entirely; others connived at it, while others upheld it as a Bible institution, and a blessing to society! But slavery pushed them to the wall, and made most desperate efforts to destroy the government, which had so long been perverted to sustain the abomination. Then as a matter of necessity, as a war policy, the government put forth its strength and crushed out the viper, when, lo! the churches set up a jubilee shout over the downfall of slavery. Even the American Tract Society, which had utterly refused to speak a word on the subject, mutilating valuable works of foreign authors, as was repeatedly charged against it, to get out all allusions to the sin of slaveholding, then issued books against slavery—when slavery was dead and gone! Why did not the churches put forth their moral power, and influence, to put down the evil? Simply because the evil was popular. Now they admit that slavery was wrong, and that its abolition was a great benefit to the world; but, instead of their being the light of the world, and moving out in advance against the evil, they wait till the world moves out, and they follow in the light the world offers to them. But the abolition of slavery did not bring the millennium. Evil does not seem to be greatly on the decrease, according to their showing. And now what do they propose to do? Is it to renew their consecration to God, to humble themselves before him, to send forth men full of the Spirit of God, to reach the hearts of the people, and revive true religion and morality in the body of the nation? Nothing of the kind. Indeed, they have greatly lost their faith in these old-fashioned gospel means. Now they are calling for constitutional amendments and legal enactments to put "all Christian laws, institutions, and usages, on an undeniable legal basis in the fundamental law of the nation." The object of the Association which is laboring to have the Constitution of the United States amended has been avowed in the following words:— "The restoration of society from its demoralized condition, and its demoralizing tendencies, by the enactment of such a legal principle as shall give the State higher powers in the peculiar province of legislation, and so enable it to solve the difficult problems in the civil organization." The churches present two sides to this "difficult problem:" when speaking of their own work, and what they are accomplishing, they tell us the world is fast growing better; progressing toward its complete conversion; that there are now some "Christian nations," and others are making their way up to the same high standard. But when they are advocating the amendment to the constitution, they inform us that, even in this nation, where the gospel is preached with unbounded freedom, untrammeled by legal restraints or personal oppositions, and the preaching is guarded by efficient legal protection; where, if in any part of the world, the influence of Christianity ought to mold and fashion society;—even here, society is demoralized and its tendencies are demoralizing; the influence of the churches is so weak that Christianity is in great danger of being displaced by paganism and all ungodliness; that the only way to rescue "Christian laws, institutions, and usages," from an ignominious defeat is to place them "on an undeniable legal basis in the fundamental law of the nation." In this crisis, can the churches consistently claim to be the light of the world? If so, why do they have to confess that their influence is so powerless for good? and why do legal enactments become their only hope in these days of peril? It is said of Nero that he amused himself with fiddling while Rome was burning. Notoriously wicked as he was, many have doubted the correctness of such a statement of history, not believing it possible that any one could be so hardened as to look with indifference on such a calamity, especially as he bore a great responsibility in regard to the welfare of the nation. That a conflict is pending—a crisis is near, all admit. That the very existence of the nation is in peril, the Association believes; and the representative men of almost every denomination are pleading for the Religious Amendment as the only hope. What are the churches doing to check the downward tendency, and save the moral world from utter demoralization? They are "eating and drinking with the drunken;" inventing new methods of frolic and fun to call in the rabble and get money! Neck-tie socials, sheet-and-pillow-case socials, oyster suppers, and all manner of silly and wicked amusements find patronage in these institutions of popular folly, while the prayer-meeting is neglected, and devotion becomes a thing almost unknown. When we consider the great increase of crime, the danger impending, and the awful responsibility of these churches as professed servants of the Most High, and then behold their suppers and amusements, their church parties and socials, their flaunting advertisements of "fun for everybody," we no longer look upon Nero as a sinner above all others! The Saviour said of the last days, "Because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold." Read 2 Tim. 3:1–5, and see its fulfillment in our own times. That the American churches have utterly failed to fulfill their mission cannot be denied. The reasons set forth to prove the necessity of the Religious Amendment are an acknowledgment of this fact. They well know that the people have not confidence in their preaching and their moral standing so as to be influenced by them. "A great revival" is no longer an index of a great reform. Hundreds are often reported as converted under some great evangelist, but we see no marked difference in society. Their outer lives are so nearly the same, the influence of church association is so weak, that the world may still claim them as its followers. They are slaves to fashion and fashionable folly, just as before. And often the churches set the example in frolic and folly. Their moral influence is not sufficient to check the "demoralizing tendencies" of society, and they call for laws to stay its downward progress! It is time they learned that human laws cannot make people religious. They may make bigots. They may make hypocrites, and gather into their folds dishonest politicians, and thus add to the worldliness and corruption of their own bodies. "God is a Spirit, and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." But this end can never be brought about by legal enactments. However specious the pretense for this amendment may be, all history attests this truth, that the nearer the church is allied to the State the more corrupt the church becomes. And were not the churches already blinded in regard to their duty, as well as to their condition, they would regard the success of this movement as the greatest calamity that could befall the cause of true godliness and vital piety. The church of Rome tried the experiment of extending the influence of religion without the slow process of increasing religious sentiment, and Protestants are following in its footsteps. The result, if successful, will be "an image" to that which so long wore "out the saints of the Most High." See Rev. 13:11–17; 14:9–12.