I READ more than usual in our late papers about "sectarianism," "sectarian parties," "sectarian names," etc., with occasional allusions to "union in Christ," union of the various churches, etc., as a prospective relief from sectarianism. I should not think the matter worthy of notice, if some of the allusions to "sectarianism," etc., did not seem directed against our zeal for the truth. It has ever been Satan's policy to brand the truth with the name of "heresy," and the love of it with the charge of "sectarianism." It is bad enough to see opposition to the truth from those who never knew its worth; but when brethren take up Satan's weapons and use them in his service against the truth, it is time that the lovers of the truth speak out in its defence against such ungenerous thrusts.
There is probably nothing connected with our duty as Christians more generally and plausibly counterfeited than Christian union. Many are the devices of Satan on this point; and I wish that some of our brethren, who seem to be ensnared, were able to say with Paul, "We are not ignorant of his devices." 2 Cor. 2:11. The arch deceiver would fain have us believe that a union of all professed Christians would be Christian union, and a great blessing to the cause of God; and that we had better compromise every principle and doctrine endeared to us as "present truth" for the sake of such a union, than to sacrifice their good will and have division perpetuated for the truth's sake.
We have had one such amalgamation in the rise of the Catholic church, and Heaven knows that one such monster is enough. I have no fears that the short time intervening before the end of all things will admit of such a development by a union of the various Protestant churches; but there is a principle at work in the interest of this project which deserves attention, as it has been an influence against the truth more or less active at all times. I refer to a disposition to compromise our zeal for the truth of God for the sake of fellowship with those who have no relish for the truth.
There is a wide difference between Christian union and a union of professors of religion under the name of Christian union. In the former, the Christian sacrifices no principle for union's sake, for the principles of all true Christians are essentially the same; but in the latter he compromises everything that is sacred by amalgamating it with error and worldliness, as though all the elements were common stock and of a common value. He cannot make prominent what is offensive to the majority, and must therefore become a party to smothering the truth, if he does not actually join with them in denouncing it as "heresy." If a man can be found among the lovers of the truth base enough to barter away his honest convictions for the sake of union with worldly, backslidden professors, he is just the man who can be spared without loss to the body of true believers. It is not a wonder nor a misfortune to the cause of God that those in her service who can put their principles and honest convictions into the market to be sold to the highest bidder, should feel ill at ease with the lovers of the truth, and should seek their level somewhere else.
But no true Christian will violate his conscience, nor ask such a base thing of another as the price of fellowship. True Christian union cannot exist without full confidence in each other's integrity and sincerity, as its foundation. So if one is willing to barter his principles and honest convictions for the sake of fellowship, he is virtually trampling upon Christian principle to obtain Christian union. But a fellowship obtained at such a fearful price is not Christian union, but a counterfeit. Any union or temporary association that requires a man to sacrifice his love of truth as a price of association is not Christian union, however cordial it may be.
Christian union is a union of Christians—true, real Christians, and none but Christians. Others may be associated with them, but they do not enjoy the union. They do not drink into the one spirit, nor are they baptized by one spirit into one body, though their cooperation may be cordial and well meant. The union of true Christians is not deliberate, mutual compact, either verbal or written; but a spontaneous flowing together of hearts, like two drops of water. It finds its cause and commencement in the individual union of each member with Christ. Christians do not seek to be united with each other, nor feel that they ought to be united with each other; but they are united in heart and spirit with all who are united to Christ. Nothing is more spontaneous and free. It commences with their union with Christ, extends to all in fellowship with him, exists as long as this fellowship continues, and ends when they backslide from him.
Since, then, Christian union spontaneously flows from our union with Christ, it cannot be found with those who were never united with him. Since, also, it depends upon our union with him, and ceases when we backslide from him, no backslider is in possession of it, and no company of backsliders, however mutual or cordial their union, can be said to live in Christian union.
It cannot exist with the love of the world. John says, "If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him." 1 John 2:15. James says: "Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? Whosoever therefore is a friend of the world is the enemy of God." James 4:4. Both of these passages agree in sentiment, and they are too explicit to leave room for a doubt as to their import. But as truly as "by their fruits ye shall know them," we may settle it that seven-eighths of the professors of religion are without the God of God, and are "adulterers" in his sight.
It cannot be found with covetousness. There is no question but seven-eighths of the professed Christians are covetous, both preachers and people. It has ceased to be a sin in their eyes, and especially if they do a fair thing in the way of supporting the church. But Paul has repeatedly declared that covetousness is idolatry. We must therefore come to the conclusion, that either Paul is mistaken, or that the mass of the professors of religion are idolaters in God's sight. Another proof of idolatry in them is found in the remark of Paul: "Neither be idolaters as some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play." 1 Cor. 10:7. If it was idolatry for the Israelites to eat and drink, and rise up to play, what shall we think of the proceedings of the churches all over the land in their oyster suppers, festivals, and other sprees, so frequent in these days? Is it any less idolatry when done under the light of the gospel, than it was in the wilderness? Paul says "these things . . . are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come."
It cannot be found with those who scoff at the Lord's coming, or treat it with indifference. Christ says, "Let your loins be girded about, and your lights burning; and ye yourselves like unto men that wait for their Lord, when he will return from the wedding; that, when he cometh and knocketh, they may open unto him immediately. Blessed are those servants whom the Lord, when he cometh, shall find watching." Luke 12:35-37. Paul says, "Unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time, without sin, unto salvation." Heb. 9:28. In another place, Paul tells us the crown is to be given "unto all them also that love his appearing." 2 Tim. 4:8. Here we have looking for him, waiting, watching, and loving his appearing, as the proper attitude of the church in relation to the coming of Christ. But any one who has preached the coming of the Lord in these days has learned that professors of religion are more prejudiced against it than those who make no pretensions to religion. The mass of professors of religion have departed as fearfully on this point as on the others considered.
Another feature which bears prominently on Christian character in our day is a discernment of the signs of the times. Christ says of our day, that it shall be as it was in the days of Noah. Matt. 24:37-39. We read of Noah's day, "the wickedness of man was great in the earth." Gen. 6:5. Daniel says of our days, "The wicked shall do wickedly." Dan. 12:10. The prophet Joel says of the same time, "Their wickedness is great." Joel 3:13. Paul says that "evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse." 2 Tim. 3:12. These are a sample of the Scripture testimonies concerning the last days; and if we read the records of our day, in all parts of the world, we find these predictions verified fully. Men of the world see these things, and are wondering with alarm as to what is coming. But professors of religion blindly pretend that the world is growing better all the time. Those who are taught of God ought to view the increase of crime with more abhorrence than the world. But in our day the world view these things with serious alarm, while the popular professors blindly pass on with indifference, without eyes to see, ears to hear, or hearts to confess these things so plainly pointed out in the word of God.
With the popular professors, an interest in the signs of Christ's coming is heresy; and a claim that we can tell something by the signs which Christ has given of his coming is insanity, if not blasphemy. Though signs be hung out in the heavens above, in the earth beneath, in the state of the nations, in the state of society and of religion, still they have no eyes to see, no ears to hear, no heart to receive these things. Well, as Paul said of them, "They will not endure sound doctrine, but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." 2 Tim. 4:3, 4. They would spurn with contempt a proposal to have the Lord's coming and the signs of the times preached in their houses of worship; but are constantly using them by their own appointment for oyster suppers, festivals levees, sociables, and other church sprees; where all sorts of worldly pleasure, and even gambling, is carried on by their arrangements and for their benefit.
Such is the religious character and usual course of the mass of professors of religion in our day; and these things are well known to those brethren whose sympathies incline toward them. Do they expect Christian union with such people? Do they love those who despise the truths especially designed in Divine wisdom for this judgment-bound generation, more than those who carry them to their unwelcome ears? Will they smother these truths, and discourage their prominence, that they may win the smiles of those who despise these solemn warnings? Did God ever call such to warn the world of approaching judgment? If so, who has countermanded the order? Under whose authority do they now act in smothering and trifling with these things? May the Lord pity those who are sighing for the leeks and the onions of Egypt; whose hearts incline to the broad way as more inviting than the narrow way that leads to life. Oh! that such might be terribly shaken, if need be, before they take the fatal leap.
Where are the faithful Jeremiahs to warn the world of her approaching doom? Men that can neither be bought nor sold; whose consciences cannot be swerved like India rubber to suit their situation? Where are the men of backbone, of moral courage, who dare believe the truth, and the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; and are willing to share the reproaches which are cast upon the truth and count it all joy? Oh! for more men in God's cause, who cannot be bribed by smiles, wheedled by flatteries, nor intimidated by frowns to put God's truth into the background. Where are those who dare cry aloud, and spare not, but will show the people their sins and their dangers—men who will sound the alarm to this judgment-bound generation, and will lift up their voice like a trumpet, whether men will hear or forbear? It is time that we all awake to our dangers and harness ourselves for the fierce struggle with error which is just upon us. I pray God that we may all see our duty, and do it bravely, like men of God.—I. K. LOMBARD, in Crisis.
Walk with God.
We are often puzzled and startled by the conduct of those in whose piety we thought we might place undoubting confidence, and whom we should have pointed out as Christian examples to others. Upon some occasions they exhibit such appearance of conformity to the world as would lead us to suppose they belonged to it.
How desirable, therefore, that we should deal faithfully with ourselves, and see that Christian principles pervade our hearts, and form and fashion our whole lives! Let us cherish a tender conscience. Let us remember whatever unfits us for religious duties; whatever cools the fervor of our devotions; whatever indisposes us to read our Bible, or to engage in prayer; whatever we could not engage in with perfectly clear conscience; wherever the thought of a suffering Saviour, or holy God—of the hour of death, or of the day of Judgment, falls like a cold shadow on our enjoyment: the pleasures which we cannot thank God for, and on which we cannot ask his blessings, these are not for us.
Let us never go where we cannot ask God to go with us. Let us never be found where we cannot act as Christ would have us. Let us pass each day as pilgrims consciously on the way to their heavenly inheritance. Let us press after closer communion with Jesus. Let the love of God reign in our hearts, and thus shall we be kept from a thousand snares, and become possessed of a peace and joy to which the worldling is a stranger.—The Witness.
The Seed and the Tree.
By Rev. Howard Crosby, D. D.
It is a favorite theory with many that the egg was before the animal, and the seed before the plant; but this is not a truly scientific view of the matter. We plant an acorn, and it is true there grows up from this seed the branching oak with its mighty limbs and rich foliage. But whence came those limbs and that foliage? From the seed? Certainly not. The oak was never in the acorn. There was a vital principle in the acorn, by whose action under certain requisite conditions the materials from surrounding nature were drawn to it, united and assimilated so as to make the oak. The oak, we know, was never in the acorn. Could that great bulk have been in the little seed? When that acorn was planted, the future oak was lying all around in the other vegetable matter of the earth. Now then, if the analogy of growth, as we see it, requires not only the seed, but a surrounding field of material for that seed to use, how could an original seed have effected anything when there was no surrounding vegetation? The oak must have been before the seed, the animal before the egg. If we are going back to originals, it is in this way we must solve the problem. And now what does the first chapter of Genesis say? “And the earth brought forth the herb yielding seed [not the seed yielding herb], and the tree whose seed is in itself [not the seed whose tree is in itself].” What mere human mind would ever have thought of putting it in this way? And yet this is the only way in which a true science can settle the question between the seed and the tree.—Rev. Howard Crosby, D. D.
The Burden of Tomorrow
Some people pluck a section of God's eternity out of his hands, and then groan with the burden. If they pray at all, they practically pray for this: "Give us this day our daily bread, and to-morrow, and next day, and day after, and next year, and fifty years to come; and, lest thou shouldst forget it, or neglect to answer us, we have undertaken to look after the matter ourselves."
Life Beyond Self
THE true life begins only when self is lost sight of—when we devote ourselves to others. This is the most difficult of reforms; yet is it also the greatest, as it removes the most formidable obstacles to the spread of Christianity.
Charity Toward Enemies
GREAT minds are charitable to their bitterest enemies, and can sympathize with the feelings of their fellow-creatures. It is only the narrow-minded who make no allowance for the faults of others.
The Sparta, Wis., Camp-Meeting.
By U. S.
THIS was the second Wisconsin Camp-meeting of this season, yet it was decided by those who have labored in the State to be the largest camp-meeting ever held in Wisconsin. Twenty-one tents were up, and four hundred or more different Sabbath-keepers were present during the course of the meeting. These were largely new converts from the churches in the northern part of the State, recently raised up by a few men, mostly young in both years and experience, who have gone forth with our publications and found many noble hearts who have cordially received, and fervently love the glorious present truth. Probably not more than half a dozen who attended the southern Wisconsin meeting at Monroe were present at this meeting. By means of the two meetings, therefore, between seven and eight hundred Sabbath-keepers in this State have had the privilege of enjoying the blessings to be derived from a camp-meeting.
We have never seen together a company of the friends of the cause who seemed to prize the truth more highly, or who were more joyful in the light they had received. Their testimonies were fervent, intelligent, free from discouragement, and cheerful in the Lord. Some of the best social meetings were enjoyed on this occasion that we have attended at any of the camp-meetings.
Fifty-two came forward for prayers. After the service Sunday afternoon, thirty-one were baptized in the pleasant stream that skirted the camp-ground. This was a scene long to be remembered by those who witnessed it. The river here forms a half circle, and from the edge of the camp-ground down to the water, the bank was twenty or twenty-five feet in hight. Probably not less than twenty-five hundred persons were present, lining the circular bank and having a fine view of the baptismal ceremony. They maintained the best of order and decorum, while Bro. Sanborn administered the ordinance to the happy candidates. Considering the occasion it was a scene most pleasant to behold. The blessing of the Lord rested upon the place.
At this meeting was seen the advantage of being able to devote all the time to religious exercises, no business sessions coming in to occupy the time or divert the attention. And we heard from many what we too seldom hear, the announcement made with joy and gladness that the Lord had blessed them, that they had exchanged darkness for light, and bondage for victory and freedom. They rejoiced in the privilege of attending so good a meeting.
At the parting meeting Monday morning, Bro. John Atkinson was set apart to the work of the ministry, the occasion being, like others of this kind, very precious on account of the blessing of the Lord.
Thus closed the last of this series of camp-meetings, being in all respects as good as any, and in some the best of them all. As we look back over the series of the five meetings just closed, at which some fifteen hundred or more Sabbath-keepers in all have been present, we feel especially grateful to God for his blessing that he has bestowed on each occasion. Those who have spoken the word have enjoyed great freedom in speaking; and while they have endeavored to help and encourage others, they have themselves been greatly encouraged by what they have seen on the part of the people. In some cases we have been led to marvel at what the truth has wrought, and to feel that scarcely any limit could be placed to the possibilities of the work in the future. God's providence is opening ways, and his Spirit is preparing minds and hearts for a rapid spread of the truth at a point not far distant.
And now we shall be pardoned for adding to these lines a note of a personal nature. It has been a pleasure as well as a privilege to us to attend these meetings in company with Bro. and sister White. In all our long association with them, it has never chanced to be our lot to thus be with them in such a series of consecutive meetings from State to State. Hence, well as we have heretofore been acquainted with their labors, in a general way, we have never been in a position to realize so fully as now, nor so fully prepared as now to testify to, the value of their labors, and the benefit of their counsel to the different Conferences and the cause at large.
God has given them a testimony for the people, both without and within the church; and his providence has so ordered that they have had an experience in this work from the very beginning, nearly the whole of their public labors being identified with it, and all their interest now centering in it. Hence they are prepared, as from the nature of the case no others can be, to give counsel in regard to the different enterprises, and to at least assist in devising ways and means for the further advancement of this cause. We have been happy to see their testimony received and prized as it was entitled to be. In this the brethren have done well. They have thereby, in many instances, been relieved from embarrassing perplexities and discouragements. And so long as the evidence presents the same showing that it presents to-day, we can but believe that he is recreant to the best interests of this cause who refuses to co-operate with them, and stay up their hands in a work to which their whole life has been and is so unselfishly devoted, and to which their whole past record, and their present labors, show them both to have been, and to be, so undeviatingly true.
U. S.
Constantine.
By J. H. Waggoner
THE story of the vision of the cross not only rests on the authority of Constantine alone, and was varied to suit different parties, but he said the vision was seen by his army, which is beyond all question a fabrication. No writer ever mentions such a thing; it was not a matter of current report, as says Mosheim :—
"For though Constantine says that his soldiers saw what he saw, yet Eusebius derived his information solely from the emperor, and he names no other witness. In his Ecclesiastical History which afforded the fairest opportunity for introducing so important a matter, there is no mention of it whatever. This shows that when he wrote his history, that is, prior to the year 324, he was ignorant on the subject; and that it was not then generally a subject of conversation. Again, in his Life of Constantine, he frankly acknowledges that this prodigy seems almost incredible; but that it would be wrong to question the emperor's veracity; which is as much as saying, 'I believe the facts were as I have stated, because my most gracious lord bids me believe them; but if another person had told them to me, I would not believe them.'"—Hist. Com.*, p. 475.
Eusebius professed to receive it from the emperor accompanied by an oath which Stanley does not consider of sufficient weight to prove it true :—
"That the emperor attested it on oath, as the historian tells us, is indeed no additional guarantee for the emperor's veracity; because, like princes professing piety in modern times, he appears to have been in the constant habit of adding an oath to almost every asseveration."
And Mosheim further informs us that the artifice of inspiring the soldiers with confidence by means of pretended prodigies, was not peculiar to Constantine. Thus he says :—
"At the time the cross is said to have appeared to him, Constantine's great solicitude most certainly was not to establish and extend the Christian religion, but to vanquish Maxentius. Besides, Constantine was not then himself a Christian; and he used this vision, not to aid the Christians, but to animate the soldiers."
That it was "a military wile or stratagem" he says, "Receives some countenance from the example of a similar artifice employed by Lucinius for soon afterwards, when Lucinius was about to engage in battle with Maximin, he pretended that an angel appeared to him by night and taught him a form of prayer, which, if his soldiers would repeat it, they would certainly gain the victory."—His. Com., p. 473.
There is great question among authors whether there was any foundation at all for the story; some, willing to spare the reputation of Constantine and Eusebius, think that a dream or freak of a disordered imagination might have given rise to the report of the vision. Thus Mosheim :—
"Constantine was a vain man, and greedy of praise and glory, as his conduct shows; nor do his friends wholly deny it. I therefore think it will not be temerity to suppose he added somewhat to the truth; and perhaps he changed a mental and nocturnal vision into a day vision with the bodily eyes, for the sake of appearing great and favored of God in the estimation of the citizens, and particularly the bishops."—His. Com., p. 476.
Socrates, who gives some credit to Eusebius, for it was easy to palm off such things in that age of "pious frauds," states that Constantine was in great perplexity of mind when the vision was received :—
"While his mind was occupied on this subject, and he was hesitating what divinity's aid he would invoke for the successful conduct of the war, it occurred to him that Diocletian had profited but little by the pagan deities, whom he had so sedulously sought to propitiate; but that his own father, Constantius, who had renounced the idolatrous worship of the Greeks, had passed through life far more prosperously. In this state of uncertainty, a preternatural vision, which transcends all description appeared to him."—Socrates' Eccl. His., p. 3.
This statement of Socrates certainly gives an air of probability to the suggestion of Mosheim, in which others have concurred, that in his trouble and uncertainty the emperor had a dream, or that he was so highly wrought upon that the cross which the Christians so highly regarded was presented to his imagination as the means of triumph. And we can only reconcile the statements of historians with the supposition that a dream, which was supposed to be supernaturally given, was afterward converted into a miraculous vision. Thus Sozomon speaks as follows :—
"He regarded the cross with peculiar reverence, on account both of the power which it conveyed to him in war, and also of the divine manner in which the symbol had appeared to him."—Sozomon History, p. 16.
These words are quite consistent with the idea that the cross was presented in a dream which was supposed to be specially given of the Lord to lead him to reverence that cross. And on no other supposition can we understand the following testimonies :—
"Eusebius gives the narration on the sole authority of Constantine, who imagined that he had seen this cross; it was natural that in the troubled sleep of the emperor, on the eve of so eventful a battle, his dreams should be vivid, and their impression strong; but it is remarkable that Eusebius gives no evidence from the thousands of persons in the army, who must have seen it, if it were really a miraculous display of divine power, neither Sozomon, nor Ruffin who wrote so soon after, make any mention of it. And it has been thought that Eusebius, hearing the emperor narrating his dream, mistook him as narrating a fact, for Constantine always stated that he was influenced by a dream, in making use of the sign of the cross in his army."—Foxe's Acts and Movement of the Church, Note, p. 59.
Mosheim also concedes a dream as the origin of the story thus :—
"Nor do we think it sufficiently proved, that the divine power interposed here to confirm the wavering faith of Constantine by a stupendous miracle. The only hypothesis, then, which remains is that we consider this famous cross as a vision, represented to the emperor in a dream, with the remarkable inscription, Hac vince, i. e., In this conquer; and this opinion is maintained by authors of considerable weight."—Eccl. His., pp. 79, 80.
But the editor of Mosheim thinks that in the above, he has conceded more than the facts will warrant, and considers it quite incredible. There has evidently been made an effort to make the supposition of the dream conform as nearly as possible to the story of the vision. It is indeed hardly supposable that, if he had a dream, he saw the inscription given. That was doubtless an after thought. Maclaine's note to the above contains the following :—
"This whole story is attended with difficulties which render it both as a miracle and as a fact extremely dubious, to say no more. It will necessarily be asked, whence it comes to pass, that the relation of a fact, which is said to have been seen by the whole army, is delivered by Eusebius, upon the sole credit of Constantine? This is the more unaccountable as Eusebius lived and conversed with many who must have been spectators of this event, had it really happened. The sole relation of one man concerning a public appearance, is not sufficient to give complete conviction; nor does it appear that this story was generally believed by the Christians, or by others, since several Ecclesiastical historians, who wrote after Eusebius, particularly Ruffin and Sozomon make no mention of this appearance of a cross in the heavens.—Mosheim, Eccl. His.*, pp. 79, 80.
And so also Keightley admits the dream only :—
"This legion is related by Eusebius, on the authority of Constantine himself; but his narrative did not appear till after the death of the emperor; and in his earlier work, the Ecclesiastical History, he is silent respecting it. Another contemporary mentions only a dream, in which Constantine was directed, on the night before the battle with Maxentius, to inscribe the sacred monogram on the shields of his soldiers; and adds that his obedience was rewarded with victory. We take not on us to decide how much of fiction or of error there may be in the legend; but that no actual miracle was wrought we venture to affirm without hesitation, in accordance with our fixed opinions on the subject."—History of Rome, p. 315.
No doubt Sozomon believed there was a dream as above stated, but no more. And Mosheim, Historical Commentaries, page 476, says, "Neither had Rufinus heard anything of it, for he likewise speaks only of a dream." This renders it still more probable that a dream, by a fraud which was not considered sinful in those days and under those circumstances, was turned into a miraculous vision, to suit the purpose of the narrator.
Milman regards it in the same light in which it is presented by Socrates :—
"And so for the first time the meek and peaceful Jesus became a god of battle; and the cross,293the holy sign of Christian redemption, a banner of bloody strife. This irreconcilable incongruity between the symbol of universal peace and the horrors of war, in my judgment, is conclusive against the miraculous or supernatural character of the transaction.
"If at this time Christianity had obtained any hold upon his mind, it was now the Christianity of the warrior, as subsequently it was that of the statesman. It was the military commander who availed himself of the assistance of any tutelary deity who might insure success to his daring enterprise. Christianity, in its higher sense, appeared neither in the acts nor in the decrees of the victorious Constantine after the defeat of Maxentius."—Page 288.
This idea of adopting a "tutelary deity" who should be propitious in battle, was purely pagan. And there is sufficient evidence that Constantine did not renounce this pagan view while fighting under the labarum, or sign of the cross. It was not to him an emblem of peace, but a pledge of conquest, a token of victory.
We have said that such a dream was only probable, as furnishing an explanation of the origin of the story. But there is no certainty that even that was a fact of occurrence. Waddington thinks the emperor himself was deceived by some appearance which his enthusiasm, perhaps by the weakness of sickness or passion, or the excitement of events, converted into a miracle. Of this idea he says :—
"It is the only supposition which can save both the intention of the emperor, and the veracity of the historian."—Eccl. His., p. 83.
But this will be hard to accomplish, put whatever construction upon the story we will. For if Constantine and his army did not actually see this day vision, how was it possible for him to be deceived so as to believe that they did? It would hardly be possible to save the emperor's reputation, even allowing the fact of the dream. On the other hand if the vision was seen by Constantine and his whole army, how could it be that Eusebius should be ignorant of it for about twenty-five years from its occurrence, and then learn it only from Constantine? And how, then, should all his contemporaries be dependent on him for a knowledge of it? Look at it in any light we please it bears on its face the evidence of fraud on the part of Constantine, and great credulity if not duplicity on the part of Eusebius.
The reader may have noticed, in a quotation given from Waddington, that that historian says Eusebius "does not even profess those rigid rules of veracity which command universal credit." This is an impeachment of Eusebius which may surprise many who have been accustomed to regard the testimony of Eusebius as reliable beyond all question. But before blaming Waddington for this statement it would be well for the defender of Eusebius to consider well whether it is possible to extricate the eminent bishop from the dilemma in which he has placed himself by his version of the story of the vision of the cross. We do not ask merely what may be probable, but what view of it is possible by which he may be rescued from the reproach of having sacrificed the truth upon the shrine of his hero? And from this we turn to find other historians taking as strong ground against the reliability of Eusebius as does Waddington. Thus Gibbon, in a quotation already given, says :—
"And the courtly bishop who has celebrated in an elaborate work the virtues and piety of his hero, observes a prudent silence on the subject of these tragic events."
Certainly it is not the part of a faithful and candid chronicler of events to pass over such actions, and those so well known, as Constantine's unnatural slaughter of the members of his own family. Neander ascribes the course of Eusebius to the fact that he was so blinded by the favor of Constantine, and the splendor of his court, that he really believed the emperor was specially inspired! But he who is so blinded by pomps or favors that he cannot discern the criminality of such acts as Constantine was guilty of as late as 326, can scarcely be relied upon to guide in a just view of interesting and important events. Or, if he was not blind to the criminality of those things, he is still more worthy of blame in passing over the crimes in silence and lauding the perpetrator as a pure Christian and inspired warrior and statesman.
J. H. WAGGONER.
(To be Continued.)
How We Shall Be with Christ.
By John Nevins Andrews
"And so shall we ever be with the Lord." 1 Thess. 4:17. The manner is indicated with most vivid distinctness. The Lord comes after his saints himself. He takes them to be with him with such a display of his divine majesty as no heart can conceive. This is the revealed method of taking the saints to the Father's house. See John 14:1-3.
But there is another and much more popular manner of going to Heaven now taught almost everywhere. The religious world now virtually say to the Saviour that he need not trouble himself ever to come back to this earth with his triumphal chariot. The typhoid fever, the smallpox, or the consumption will answer equally well as the means of their entrance to the city of God.
But what a contrast between that method of entering Heaven which God has revealed, and that one which men have devised to take its place! Sickness, death, the burial train, the grave, are these the agents of our salvation? How unlike is the funeral procession to that descent of Jesus in his Father's infinite glory, with the sound of the last trumpet, and with the presence of all the heavenly host! Who knows of the dead whether they are accepted of God or not? They are sown in dishonor, in weakness, and in corruption. This is not the way that the saints shall leave the earth. When they go, it shall be with exceeding glory; our Lord himself shall come after them.
When Paul and Silas had been imprisoned at Philippi, the magistrates in the morning sent the sergeants to release them. But Paul said, "Let them come themselves and fetch us out." Acts 16:37. Paul wanted no deliverance of a doubtful character. The coming of the magistrate, and their public deliverance would attest their innocence. The sergeants were fit to conduct them to prison, but quite incompetent to give them the proper deliverance therefrom.
Others may accept of death as their deliverer. He is only a sergeant to shut men up in prison. We look for Him to come who has the keys of death and hades. His coming shall attest our innocency. His mighty power shall bring us deliverance. His own hand shall unlock our prison. His own voice shall address us in words of heavenly tenderness. His own body-guard shall bear us in their arms to his presence. He shall bid us sit in the chariots which he has taken for the purpose of conveying us to the holy city. We shall go up with a shout and with the sound of a trumpet. At length the city of God shall heave in view. Its gates shall be open to this vast company, the whole family of Heaven and earth. Heaven that had been emptied of all its angels, now receive again the angelic host, and with them the entire company of the redeemed. They behold the face of the Father. They enter his presence where there are pleasures forevermore. Every one finds a mansion prepared expressly for himself by the dear Saviour, before he set out on his descent to earth to gather his people to himself.
Death can only consign us to hades. Our Lord has been in hades, indeed, but he is not there now. It is the land of the enemy. Our Lord has most precious jewels there. He is coming after them. He shall awaken them with his own voice. They shall be satisfied when they fully awake in his likeness. They shall be caught up to meet him in the air, and so shall they ever be with the Lord.