------------------------Alonzo T. Jones Writings
AMS3	2	1	The American Sentinel 3
CHPA	3	1	Christian Patriotism
CWCP	3	1	The Consecrated Way to Christian Perfection
ECE	1	1	Ecclesiastical Empire
EB	iv	1	The Empires of the Bible from the Confusion of Tongues to the Babylonian Captivity
EMTF	iii	1	An Exposition of Matthew Twenty-Four on the Second Coming of Christ
GEP	1	1	The Great Empires of Prophecy, from Babylon to the Fall of Rome
GNT	7	1	The Great Nations of To-day
ICM	1	1	The Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary
IOS	2	1	The Immortality of the Soul, Is it a Scriptural Doctrine?
KCMS	1	1	Kansas Campmeeting Sermons
LOF	1	1	Lessons on Faith
NSLRLL	iii	1	The National Sunday Law

------------------------The American Sentinel 3
AMS3	2	1	A Godless School
AMS3	4	1	A Sunday-Law Convention
AMS3	6	1	A Pen-Picture
AMS3	9	1	A Reply to An Open Letter
AMS3	12	1	Misdirected Enthusiasm
AMS3	14	1	Is It Infidelity?
AMS3	17	1	The Elgin Sunday-Law Convention
AMS3	20	1	A Dangerous Parallel
AMS3	25	1	Morality and Civil Government
AMS3	27	1	Connecting Links Between Church and State
AMS3	33	1	Doctor Schaff and the Public School
AMS3	38	1	Not an Enduring Morality
AMS3	41	1	The Plea for National Sunday Legislation
AMS3	46	1	An Open Letter
AMS3	52	1	The Presbyterian Cardinal
AMS3	58	1	Rome's Influence
AMS3	59	1	The National Reform Vice-Presidency
AMS3	60	1	Russia and Religion
AMS3	62	1	That Sunday Commandment
AMS3	65	1	The American Sentinel and the Woman's Christian Temperance Union
AMS3	67	1	The Savor of Tyranny
AMS3	69	1	The National Establishment of the Christian Religion
AMS3	70	1	Rome and the Public Schools
AMS3	75	1	The Savor of Tyranny
AMS3	80	1	Joseph Cook and Roman Catholicism
AMS3	82	1	The Banished Book
AMS3	86	1	The Woman's Christian Temperance Union Defended
AMS3	89	1	The American Sentinel and the Churches

			January 1888
------------------------A Godless School
AMS3	2	1	THE following ringing sentences are from the New York Observer, and although Father McTighe is said to have abandoned his attempt, at least for the present, this is a sound opinion upon the merits of the case:--
AMS3	2	2	"Pittsburg presents the climax of Roman Catholic arrogance in destroying or capturing our public schools. Father McTighe, of St. Michael's Church, has actually succeeded in having himself appointed principal of the Thirty-third Ward public school in that city. This is the very consummation of unprincipled audacity. Having denounced the schools officially everywhere as 'immoral and godless,' a priest, sanctioned by his superiors, takes possession and pretends to administer an 'immoral, godless' school. Either he intends secretly to make it Romanist, or else he attempts to do precisely what Protestants wish, and therefore stultifies himself and his church as haters of our public schools. It is believed that he intends to keep what he and his church call a 'godless' school during the regular school hours, and then retain all those who will stay, for the purpose of giving them religious teaching in other hours. It is said that the nuns are to be employed as teachers. Such an illustration as this of the purpose and spirit of Romanists ought to rouse the nation. They ought to be taught a lesson now which will need no repetition. Our people will not tolerate this trifling with the very first principles of our polity, namely, that the State shall not in any way whatever engage in sectarian education, sectarian benevolence, or sectarian enterprises of any kind whatever. It is a disgrace to the civilization of any neighborhood, when it permits, for the sake of conciliating the enemies of the public schools, these gross violations of both the letter and spirit of our laws."
AMS3	2	3	But if this "be the very consummation of unprincipled audacity," what shall be thought and said of the National Reform Association, which proposes to give the Catholic Church authority by law to do this same thing, or worse, in all places in the United States where the Catholics are in the majority? If this action of a single priest in Pittsburg ought to rouse the Nation, what ought the action of Herrick Johnson, Joseph Cook, and nearly a hundred other Protestant (?) preachers, under the lead of Secretary T. P. Stevenson, of the National Reform Association, in Saratoga last August, to do? That action was to adopt a motion requesting the National Reform Association to bring to the attention of "Roman Catholic authorities" a scheme of religious exercises, worship, and instruction, in the public schools throughout the Nation, "with a view of securing, if possible, a basis of agreement" between Catholics and Protestants, whereby the Catholic Bible, Catholic worship, and Catholic instruction, shall be established in the public schools, wherever the Catholics may be in the majority, provided the Catholics will help these Protestants to secure a like power for themselves wherever the Protestants may be in the majority.
AMS3	2	4	In the Thirty-third Ward in Pittsburg the Catholics are in the majority; Father McTighe became principal, and his nuns teachers in the public school of that ward; had they remained they would have used the Catholic Bible, would have conducted Catholic worship, and would have given Catholic instruction in that school; that is precisely what the Saratoga National Reform meeting decided by vote to secure if possible throughout the Nation; this action of the Saratoga meeting was taken expressly to "satisfy the Roman Catholics" and to "conciliate them to our school system." By the action of the Pittsburg School Board Father McTighe, a "Roman Catholic authority," is satisfied and conciliated with the school system in that city; Father McTighe was doing in Pittsburg exactly what the Saratoga meeting decided to get, if possible, the Roman Catholic authorities to agree to do throughout the Nation; therefore, as this case "is a disgrace to the civilization" of the neighborhood of Pittsburg, the action of the National Reform Association is a disgrace to the civilization of the Nation and of the age.
AMS3	3	1	The National Reform Association "ought to be taught a lesson now which will need no repetition." But, alas! "our people" do "tolerate," and without a word or murmur of protest, "this trifling with the very first principles of our polity," and" these gross violations of both the letter and spirit" of our American institutions. "How long, O Lord, how long?"
------------------------A Sunday-Law Convention
AMS3	4	1	IN the Union Signal of October 20, 1887, Mrs. Lydia B. Clark gives an article on the "Hopeful Outlook for Sabbath Observance," and says that in its Sunday-law work the W. C. T. U. has found "most cordial helpers" in the World's Prayer Union, the International Sabbath Association, and the National Reform Association. She reports certain legislative action that was taken last year in several States. Of the matter in California she says:--
AMS3	4	2	"Two years ago in California the Sunday law was repealed, but the people last winter plied the Legislature with petitions to replace the repealed law with an improved statute, and in San Francisco a convention of ministers was called, a bill prepared and introduced in the Legislature demanding protection of the Sabbath."
AMS3	4	3	Yes, that is so. And as such things are now quite widely prevalent, we propose to show to the people the way in which a typical Sunday-law convention works to secure the "demanded" legislation. This excellent lady has given us the text, and we shall supply the sermon. The Sentinel was at the Convention named, and took copious notes of the proceedings, and has preserved the report for just such a time as this. This work has now become so general that it is highly important that the public in general and legislators in particular should know the methods employed to secure the enactment of "civil" and "protective" Sunday laws.
AMS3	4	4	This San Francisco Convention, like most of such conventions, was composed almost wholly of preachers. The thing originated in the "Pastors' Union" of Sacramento, it being "the sense of the Pastors' Union of Sacramento that a meeting of the pastors and members of the churches of the State, and of all other friends of Sun-day legislation in the State, should be called... to secure the passage of a Sunday law," etc. This "sense" was approved by "the preachers of the Methodist Church" and the Convention was called, and met accordingly in the Young Men's Christian Association building, November 29, 1886.
AMS3	4	5	The first and perhaps the most notable thing about the Convention that would be noticed by a looker-on was the perfect confusion of ideas as to what was really wanted. It is true that there was perfect unanimity on the point that there should be a law demanded of the Legislature, but that was the only single thing upon which there was any real agreement.
AMS3	4	6	With some, nothing but a Sunday law would do; with others, nothing but a Sabbath law would answer. With some, it must be a civil Sabbath law; with others, a religious Sabbath law. With some, it must be a civil Sunday law; with others, a religious Sunday law. With some, it was a Christian Sunday that was wanted; with others, a Christian Sabbath. With some it was a religious Sabbath law that was wanted, and a religious Sabbath law that must be had, and they were ready to go to the Legislature upon that basis; but these were very few. While with others, and these the great majority, it was a religious Sunday law or a religious Sabbath law that was wanted, but at the same time it was naively argued that to go to the Legislature with such a request would be all in vain, for the Legislature would not act upon any question of a religious nature; therefore, to get what they wanted, they must ask only for a civil Sunday law.
AMS3	4	7	It was upon this last point that the discussion and the action of the Convention culminated. And by this action there was irresistibly forced upon the mind of an observer a strong impression of the insincerity of the great majority of the members of this Sunday-law Convention. The course of the discussion and this culminating action show that the majority of the members of that convention were willing to cover up the real purpose which they had in view, and deliberately to go to the Legislature of California under a false pretense. They show that while a religious law, and nothing else, is what they wanted, yet, as to openly ask the Legislature for that would be fruitless, they proposed to obtain what they wanted--a religious Sunday law--by getting the Legislature to pass a civil Sunday law. That is, they would have the Legislature to pass a civil Sunday law, and then they would enforce it as a religious Sunday law. In other words, they proposed to hoodwink the Legislature of California. They didn't succeed.
AMS3	4	8	Another evidence of this insincerity was the ringing of the now familiar changes upon the "workingman." One had very great sympathy for the "toiling multitudes." Another was the "friend of the workingman," and "if any people are the friends of the workingman, they are the ministers." And yet not one of them was there as the representative of the workingman, nor was it the needs of the workingman upon which the call of the Convention was based. When that which gave rise to the calling of the Convention was officially stated, it was that "the Christian people of Sacramento had been disturbed in their worship, and their religious feelings had been outraged by the disregard of the Sabbath; the matter had come before the Pastors' Conference; a correspondence opened with divines throughout the State on the subject of a Sunday law; and accordingly the present Convention had been called." And one of the principal speakers in the Convention, in the speech that was the most applauded of any made in the Convention, said plainly that the movement was a religious one and that he was decidedly opposed to divorcing it from a Christian standpoint.
AMS3	5	1	It was that "the Christian people" had been disturbed in their "worship," and not that the workingmen had been deprived of their rest; it was that the "religious feelings" of "the Christian people" had been outraged, and not that the workingman had been oppressed, nor that his feelings had been outraged; it was with the "divines," and not with the workingmen throughout the State that a correspondence had been opened; it was these considerations and not the needs of the workingman that formed the basis of the call for the Convention. And yet in the face of these definite statements, some of these "divines" would get up in the Convention, and fish for the favor and try to catch the ear of the workingman, by trying to make it appear that they came there as "the friends of the workingman."
AMS3	5	2	And, too, just think of a lot of "divines" called in general convention to secure the enactment of a Sunday law to protect the "worship" and the "religious feelings" of "Christian people;" and then to fulfill the purpose, and to attain to the object of that call, they, in convention assembled, unanimously decide to go up to the Legislature and demurely ask for a law entirely civil! And why is this? Why could they not go to the Legislature in the name of that purpose for which they were called? Oh, that would never do! For if the word "civil" be stricken out, "you cannot reach the Legislature." Therefore just put in the word "civil and the purpose of the Convention will be accomplished, for we will get all we want and the Legislature will not know it." But the Legislature of California was not so exceedingly verdant as to be unable to see through that piece of wire-work, so deftly woven by these worthy divines.
AMS3	5	3	The demand of these "Christian people" for a Sunday law, because their worship was disturbed, is just as hollow a pretense as is any other part of their scheme. For if their worship was really disturbed, they have already a sufficient resource. For the protection of religious worship from disturbance, the statutes of California make provision that ought to satisfy any ordinary mortal. Section 302 of the Penal Code of California reads as follows:--
AMS3	5	4	"Every person who willfully disturbs or disquiets any assemblage of people met for religious worship, by noise, profane discourse, rude or indecent behavior, or by any unnecessary noise either within the place where such meeting is held, or so near as to disturb the order and solemnity of the meeting, is guilty of a misdemeanor."
AMS3	5	5	And such misdemeanor is, punishable by "imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding six months, or by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars, or both."--Id., sec. 19.
AMS3	5	6	Are not six months in jail and a fine of five hundred dollars a sufficient punishment for the disturbance of worship? Or is this penalty so insignificant that these "divines" and "Christian people" disdain to inflict so light a punishment and therefore demand a Sunday law to make the punishment heavier?
AMS3	5	7	But if the present penalty is insufficient to properly punish those who disturb their worship, then what will satisfy these "divines"? Where the State chastises with whips, do they want to chastise with scorpions? Do they want to imprison a man for life and mulct him of all his property for disturbing (?) their worship by working on Sunday on his farm, in his shop or garden, far away from any place of worship? We firmly believe that if the truth were told it would appear that it is not their worship at all but their doctrine that has been disturbed.
AMS3	5	8	Just a word more on their pretended friendship for the workingman. We freely hazard the opinion that if they should obtain the "civil" Sunday law which they seek, then the poor workingman, who, to support his needy family, should work on Sunday, will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. We venture this opinion because of facts of which we know. In Tennessee there were at that time lying in prison, honest, hard-working men, whose families were dependent upon their daily labor, and these men were in that prison for working on Sunday to obtain the necessary means to support their families, and while they were in prison their families were in want, and had to be supported by the charity of Christian friends. That is the kind of friendship for the workingman that is shown in the enactment of these "civil" Sunday laws. And if the people of California, or in any other State, want to see the same thing repeated in their State, or in the Nation, then just let them allow these "divines" to secure the enactment of the "civil" Sunday law that they want. Then may be seen exemplified everywhere this solicitous friendship for the workingmen.
AMS3	5	9	One of the leading members of the Convention remarked that he had "been in politics long enough to know that legislators keep their finger on the public pulse, and that they generally give what the people want." From our observations in the Convention, of the speeches, and of its workings, we are prepared to give it as our private opinion, publicly expressed, that the most of the members of the Convention have been in politics enough to know a good deal about the ways and means by which politicians too often compass their ends.
------------------------A Pen-Picture
AMS3	6	1	IN the Interior of October 20 there is a racy report of the State Convention of the Ohio W. C. T. U. It is entitled "A Pen-Picture of the Ohio W. C. T. U. Convention." We have no, doubt that that is what it is, and a well-drawn picture too, for some of the scenes are decidedly realistic--much more so in fact than we should have thought becoming in a woman's temperance convention, to say nothing of a woman's Christian temperance convention. In one of the scenes Miss Willard very properly paid a glowing tribute to the influence of Mrs. Hayes, Miss Rose Elizabeth Cleveland, and the present Mrs. Cleveland, in the White House. She closed with the words, "God bless Frances Folsom Cleveland," to which sentiment the applause was very properly immense. But to this sentiment one of the members of the Convention promptly took decided exception, at which the reporter, herself a member of the Union, expresses herself after this gentle, womanly, Christian style: "Out upon such littleness! Such a spirit shows a venom unworthy a civilized woman. Perhaps she was in the gall of bitterness because her husband had been turned out of office; if so we must try to excuse her."
AMS3	6	2	Another, called in the report a "lively scene," ensued when the Committee on Finance reported in favor of paying salaries to the leading officers, and in favor of the President's visiting all the county and district meetings "at the expense of the Convention." Against this there was strong opposition, and the report says: "Mrs. Foote led the opposition forces, and showed herself a fearless soldier, full of fire and spirit. In fact, she got mad, ... and for a few minutes it seemed quite like a masculine assemblage." Yes, we have no doubt that it did. Women, fearless and soldierly, full of fire and spirit, and mad, at that, are not apt to appear very feminine-like.
AMS3	7	1	But says the excellent reporter: "Now some people might think this little fray not a very proper thing, but I don't see why. It shows they are not afraid to do their own thinking, and although they are excellent women, they are very much like the excellent men--somewhat human." Yes, that is just the trouble. It shows they are rather too much like the not very, excellent men. And the observation which we would here make upon it is this: One of the principal reasons upon which these excellent women base their claim of the franchise and political equality with the men is that politics will be purified and all its methods elevated. But if this is the way in which the Christian women of the country act in a convention exclusively their own, and wholly separated from political strife, what would be the result in mixed assemblages, where not only these, but un-Christian and anti-Christian women as well, should have free scope for their activities equally with the men, and all together stirred with all the elements of political strife?
AMS3	7	2	Hitherto we have been somewhat unsettled in our opinion in regard to woman suffrage, but now--well, we don't know.
AMS3	7	3	This report was written by Virginia Sharpe Patterson.
			February 1888
------------------------A Reply to An Open Letter
AMS3	9	1	IN the Christian Nation of December 14, 1887, there came to us "an open letter" from Mr. W. T. McConnell. Mr. McConnell lives in Youngstown, Ohio. He is a preacher of National Reform politics, and the president of the National Reform Prayer League: Somebody sent him a copy of the Sentinel, and it caused him to have "some reflections," of which he gives us the benefit in his "open letter." He proposes to comfort us by an endeavor to make it appear that the troubles are only "imaginary," which we point out as certain to come upon the Nation in the train of the success of the National Reform movement.
AMS3	9	2	He starts out with the usual National Reform compliment to an opponent--that of naming us along with "Liberal Leagues," "the Freiheits Bund," "and the Liquor Leagues." But this is not enough relief to the pent-up charity of the Rev. W.T. McConnell; he graciously puts us in the fellowship of king Ahab in his murder of Naboth and the confiscation of Naboth's vineyard; taking good care of course to give himself and his associates the companionship of Elijah, in the controversy, and even making Elijah to be "the General Secretary of the National Reform Association of his day." Upon all this we shall offer no comment at all. Such transcendent modesty, and such benignant charity, as is displayed in this, we have not the heart to disturb by offering the slightest criticism.
AMS3	9	3	Then he clothes the National Reformers with this rendition of Elijah's answer to Ahab about who was the troubler of Israel:--
AMS3	9	4	"I have not troubled Israel, said he, but you and the others who run this Government have made the trouble in that 'ye have forsaken the commandments of the Lord.'"
AMS3	9	5	Now as the National Reformers set themselves up as the special champions of the commandments of God, and as the enforced observance of Sunday is the grand aim of the National Reform project, we here ask Mr. McConnell, or any other National Reformer, or all of them put together, to show any commandment of God for keeping Sunday, or the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday. Come now, Mr. McConnell, Elijah could quote a plain commandment of God, in support of his opposition to Baal, and Ahab's worship of him. You take it upon yourself to fill Elijah's place in our day, in rebuking the Nation for desecrating Sunday, so please fill his place also in this, and cite us to a commandment of God for keeping Sunday. You take it upon yourself to rebuke this Nation for its sin against God in not keeping Sunday. Sin against God, is transgression of the law of God. Now please show the law of God that commands the keeping of Sunday. You may show it in the form of "an open letter" or in that of a sealed letter; in a public letter or in a private letter, just as you choose; but we insist that you show it. Come now, don't dodge.
AMS3	9	6	Then to give proof that our fears of trouble, in the event of the success of the National Reform, are wholly imaginary, Mr. McConnell tells us this:--
AMS3	9	7	"You look for trouble in this land in the future, if these principles are applied. I think it will come to you if you maintain your present position. The foolhardy fellow who persists in standing on a railroad track may well anticipate trouble when he hears the rumble of the coming train. If he shall read the signs of the times in the screaming whistle and flaming headlight, he may change his position and avoid the danger, but if he won't be influenced by these, his most gloomy forebodings of trouble will be realized when the express strikes him. So you, neighbors, if, through prejudice or the enmity of unregenerate hearts, you have determined to oppose the progress of this Nation in fulfilling its vocation as an instrument in the divine work of regenerating human society, may rightly expect trouble. It will be sure to come to you."
AMS3	9	8	Of course it will. That is precisely what we are trying to get the people to see. We are doing our very best to have the American people understand that the National Reform movement is nothing but a Satanic car of Juggernaut that proposes to relentlessly crush every person who refuses to submit to the dictum of its managers, every person who chooses to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience;--this we know will be, as surely as these men secure the power to enforce by law what they choose to call the will of God.
AMS3	9	9	See again how sweetly he manifests the grace of Christian charity, in his attributing to us "the enmity of unregenerate hearts." How do you know, Mr. McConnell, that our hearts are unregenerate? By what right do you mount the throne, and arrogate to yourself the prerogative of God, and pass judgment upon men's hearts?
AMS3	9	10	And if this "fool-hardy fellow" "shall read the signs of the times in the screaming whistle and flaming headlight, he may change his position and avoid the danger." Oh yes, that is all that John Huss needed to do. If he had only read the signs in the "screaming whistle" of the Bishop of Lodi, and the "flaming headlight" of the Pope, he might have changed his position and avoided the danger. But "fool-hardy fellow" that he was, he wouldn't be influenced by these, and so his most gloomy forebodings of trouble were realized when the Papal express struck him. His was "the enmity of an unregenerate heart" too. Devils were painted all round about him to prove that it was so, and he demonstrated it himself when he publicly refused to kiss the crucifix, and submit to the Papacy. He too, determined to resist the progress of that Nation in the worship of the Papacy. He too, rightly expected trouble, and it surely came to him, as it likewise came to multitudes beside him. And now these National Reformers are about to set up in this Nation the living image of the Papacy, and to compel all men to worship both it and the Papacy, and whoever lifts up his voice against such iniquitious "progress," thereby shows "the enmity of an unregenerate heart," and all such "may rightly expect trouble" for "it will surely come." All these are their own words, and yet many men think the SENTINEL is performing a useless task in telling the people about it. Well, they may think so if they want to, but they shall not cause us to cease to tell of it; and when they find themselves fallen into the power of these men, they will wish they had believed the warning. We only wish and pray that they may believe it now.
AMS3	10	1	Mr. McConnell closes his letter with an invitation to come over and join with them. He says:--
AMS3	10	2	"We also have an invitation for all men of energy and power. There is room here for you, and a demand for all your talents. You may now be opposing this cause, but we frankly extend to you the invitation, 'Come with us and we will do you good,' for good is written concerning the work of our Reform Associations."
AMS3	10	3	Thank you, for the compliment, Mr. McConnell, but we are not going to "come." There is plenty of room for us where we are, and there is urgent demand for all our talents in the work in which we are now engaged. Can't you come over and join us, Mr. McConnell? There is room here for you. You could not do us good if we should go with you, for good is not written concerning the work of your Reform Associations; at least there is no good written of it by any authority that can do anybody any good. The best that the Scripture has written concerning it is that those who follow its pernicious ways "shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation." Revelation 14:9, 10. Yes, we are now opposing that cause. And we intend by the grace of God, to continue to oppose it, with all our talents, all our energy, and all our power, till the day that Christ gives us the victory over it. Revelation 15:2.
AMS3	10	4	We shall be glad to hear from you again, Mr. McConnell, especially in regard to that commandment about which we have asked. Please write soon.
------------------------Misdirected Enthusiasm
AMS3	12	1	THE annual address of the president of the National Woman's Christian Temperance Union is an important document. Not for any particular views of temperance or temperance methods, but because of its views of religion and politics and of religio-political methods. We shall here note some of them. We could not attempt to notice the address in detail for it occupies more than seven solid pages of the Union Signal. We shall only quote the most striking passages. Addressing her beloved comrades, the president said:--
AMS3	12	2	"The marshaling hosts of which you are the vanguard, represent the downfall of sectarianism in religion, and the death of sectionalism in politics. The bugle of your advance strikes the key-note of the church universal.... The Woman's Christian Temperance Union, local, State, National, and world-wide, has one vital, organic thought, one all-absorbing purpose, one undying enthusiasm, and that is that Christ shall be this world's king. Yea, verily, this world's king in its realm of cause and effect; king of its courts, its camps, its commerce; king of its colleges and cloisters; king of its customs and its constitutions."
AMS3	12	3	The "undying enthusiasm" of these enthusiastic ladies will be dead more than a thousand and one years before ever they see any such thing as that. For it is "THE WORLD," mark it, not the world to come, of which they have so enthusiastically set themselves to make Him the King--king of its courts, camps, cloisters, commerce, etc., etc.--and no such thing as that will ever be. The word of God says that when Christ comes to "THIS WORLD" as King of kings, and Lord of lords, "Out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it be should smite the nations; and he shall rule them with a rod of iron; and he treadeth the winepress of the fieceness and wrath of Almighty God... And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, AND THEIR ARMIES, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army. And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshiped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone. And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth; and all the fowls were filled with their flesh." See Revelation 19:11-21.
AMS3	12	4	Again:--
AMS3	12	5	"The kingdom of Christ 'must enter the realm of law through the gateway of politics.' ... There are enough temperance men in both [the Democratic and Republican parties] to take possession of the Government and give us national prohibition in the party of the near future, which is to be the party of God... We pray Heaven to give them no rest ... until they shall ... swear an oath of allegiance to Christ in politics, and march in one great army 'up to the polls to worship God.' ... I firmly believe that the patient, steadfast work of Christian women will so react upon politics within the next generation that the party of God will be at the front."
AMS3	12	6	And this maps out the result:--
AMS3	12	7	"Concerning the platform of our next National Prohibition Conv"ntion, I am content to leave it substantially where it is, save that it should declare Christ and his law to be the true basis of government, and the supreme authority in national as in individual life. I greatly desire and hope that we may use our influence to secure this end. Such a declaration must be clearly divested of anything that looks toward a union of Church and State, to which all enlightened Christians are thoroughly opposed, but must as explicitly recognize Christ as the great world-force for righteousness and purity, and enthrone him King of nations in faith, as he will one day be in fact, through Christian politics and laws, no less than Christian living."
AMS3	12	8	But how such a declaration as that is to be clearly divested of anything that looks toward a union of Church and State, is what we should like to know. We wish the worthy president of the National W. C. T. U. had given some instruction or at least some hint as to how it is to be done. Notice, "It should declare Christ and his law to be the true basis of government, and the supreme authority in national as in individual life;" it must explicitly recognize Christ, "and enthrone him King of nations in faith." Now Christ is the head of the church, and the church is his body. Galatians 1:18. Therefore if Christ be enthroned in national affairs it is only the enthronement of the church in national affairs; if Christ be enthroned in the State, the church is thereby enthroned in the State, for the church is his body. To declare Christ and his law to be the supreme authority in national life, is inevitably to declare the church and its law to be the supreme authority in national life; and that is the most perfect union of Church and State; because the church is Christ's body, and you can't enthrone him without enthroning his body. This is the Scripture truth of the matter, and when the Woman's Christian Temperance Union proposes to do what they here announce, and then at the same time proposes, to divest it of anything that looks toward a union of Church and State, they are simply proposing to divest Christ's body of its head.
AMS3	13	1	But that they can't do. And in truth they do not intend to try to do it. They fully purpose to enthrone the church with their enthronement of its Head. It is impossible to do otherwise. And the veil, of their being "thoroughly opposed" to a union of Church and State, under which they, and the National Reformers, altogether, endeavor to hide it, is exceedingly thin. It is said of Augustus that he "was sensible that mankind is governed by names; nor was he deceived in his expectation, that the senate and people would submit to slavery, provided they were respectfully assured that they still enjoy their ancient freedom." These workers for political power in religious things, seem not to have forgotten the opinion nor the tactics of Augustus. They too,seem to be fully sensible that mankind is still governed by names; and their expectation seems to be that the people of this Nation will submit to the slavery of a union of Church and State, provided that they are repeatedly told that there is no union of Church and State, and that "all enlightened Christians are thoroughly opposed" to it. The danger is that these aspirants to such illegitimate power will not be deceived in their expectation, any more than was Augustus in his.
AMS3	13	2	Again we read:--
AMS3	13	3	"To meet the new creation, how grandly men themselves are growing; how considerate and brotherly, how pure in word and deed."
AMS3	13	4	Yes indeed! And if you want to see the proof of it, just read the dispatches in any principal daily, any day, in any part of the land.
AMS3	13	5	This also we read in the address:--
AMS3	13	6	"The W. C. T. U. and Prohibition Party must join forces to stand for nationalism as against sectionalism; the future in politics as against the past; ... and the everlasting prohibition of sin as against any alliance between sin and the Government."
AMS3	13	7	Let "the W. C. T. U. and Prohibition Party" be told that no political power nor any civil government, can ever of right have anything whatever to do with the prohibition of sin. For further comment on this read the selection from Professor Harris on "Church and State," page 15, of this paper.
AMS3	13	8	In her suggestions for 1888, under the heading of "Legal" is this:--
AMS3	13	9	"Respectfully to request our brothers of the Prohibition Party when the time shall come to consider names for the greater political movement into which that party is to merge itself, to consider carefully the merits of the name 'Home Protection Party' as embodying its purpose and as educational to the people; also request them to continue to stand firm for the American Christian Sabbath; the Bible in our public schools; the enfranchisement of women as a means to prohibition; and make an open declaration that Christ and his law are the supreme authority in such government as they seek to establish in this Republic.
AMS3	13	10	"Designate a commission representative of the whole country, which shall bear these requests to our friends and allies, the men of the Prohibition Party."
AMS3	13	11	"To stand firm for the American Christian Sabbath," as she says in another place, "as a sacred institution." What is the American Christian Sabbath? and how did it become so? If it is Christian, how can it be American? And if it is American, what made it sacred? The Bible tells about the Sabbath of the Lord, but it nowhere speaks of any such thing as a "Christian" Sabbath, much less does it say anything about an "American Christian" Sabbath. That must be an institution that is found outside of the Bible; and the question again arises how did it become sacred?
AMS3	13	12	"Stand firm for the Bible in our public schools." Which Bible? The Protestant Bible, or the Catholic Bible? which? Your "brothers" of the National Reform Party proposes to put the Catholic Bible into our public schools, even into the hands of the children of Protestants, wherever the Catholics are in the majority--that is in New York, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Minnesota, California, and a number of other States. Ladies, please define your position.
AMS3	13	13	Of all this and a good deal more after the same sort, "the audience manifested its appreciation by universal hand-clapping and waving of hand-kerchiefs." And "upon motion," it was accepted by almost unanimous vote as expressing the principles of the National Woman's Christian Temperance Union." And by the same token it is abundantly shown that the National Woman's Christian Temperance Union is pledged to carry civil government into the realms of conscience in this Nation.
------------------------Is It Infidelity?
AMS3	14	1	LAMST fall one of the editors of the SENTINEL made a speech in Oakland, on the coming union of Church and State in this country. A National Reformer was present and heard it, and he has written in reply and sent to us manuscript copy sufficient to make more than two full pages of the SENTINEL, and asks that it may all be printed. But it is almost wholly made up of arguments for National Reform, which have been quite largely discussed already in the columns of the SENTINEL, from both sides of the question, and we do not deem it just to our subscribers to devote so much space to mere repetitions. There is, however, one point which demands notice in our own defense as well as for the principle involved.
AMS3	14	2	This point our correspondent throws into the form of a question, as follows:--
AMS3	14	3	"Are you aware, or being aware do you not care, that the 'Demands of Liberalism,' and of the 'National Liberal League,' are now clamoring for the abolition of these very things which National Reformers wish continued? And do you not know that these Liberalists oppose the amendment with great vehemence? so that in this controversy you are identifying yourselves with the infidel Liberalists. The third article of the National Liberal League states the specific objects of the association. Among these are the following: 'The total discontinuance of religious instruction and worship in the public schools;' 'the abolition of State-paid chaplaincies;' the abolition of the judicial oath; the non-appointment of religious fasts, and holidays, etc. In like manner the Liberalists demand that all laws looking to the enforcement of 'Christian' morality shall be abrogated. And all these people are furiously opposed to the amendment which we seek. They know that so long as the Constitution remains as it is, so long they and their cause are safe in case an appeal be made to the courts, whose decisions must be in accordance with the Constitution."
AMS3	14	4	We are perfectly aware that the National Reformers are ready on the instant to raise the cry of "infidel" or "atheist" against all who choose to oppose the religious amendment to the Constitution, even though they know that the opponents are avowed Christians. And being aware, we do not care. They may call us infidels, they may call us atheists, or may apply to us any other term of reproach that they please, and that to their hearts' content, but it shall not make a particle of difference with us, in our attitude toward the religious amendment to the Constitution. We know that in His day they called our Master, Beelzebub; and we, doing our utmost to be counted worthy to be of his household, expect that much more they will call us of his household. Besides this we know that "it is only in the absence of argument that recourse is had to ridicule;" and as the worthy National Reformers cannot answer our arguments, we expect them to call us names. We derive our principles from the word of Christ; the principles which we advocate are those established by Christ; and when infidels advocate those principles, then we are perfectly willing to be classed with infidels. We would rather be classed with infidels in opposition to the tyranny of a religious despotism, than to be found on the side of those who call themselves Christians while promoting it. We know exactly where we stand, we know precisely what we are doing, in our opposition to the religious amendment to the United States Constitution, and to any sort of religious legislation under any Constitution. We know whom we believe, and for the National Reformers to call us infidels or atheists or anarchists, or to class us with all these, does not make us so, nor does it frighten us.
AMS3	14	5	As for the "Demands of Liberalism," and of the "National Liberal League," we have never made them a subject of study; we have never seen a copy of them except as given in National Reform literature. But there is one thing which we know to be a fact, and that is, there was never any such thing heard of as the "Demands of Liberalism" until after the National Reformers had set on foot their movement to secure a religious amendment to the Constitution, endangering the civil and natural rights of men. Then it was that the Liberal League was formed, and their "Demands" were framed in direct op-position to the National Reform demands, and in defense of their own rights. We say "in defense of their own rights," because we utterly refuse assent to the National Reform proposition, that if a man be an infidel he has no rights. And that then it was high time for them to do something in defense of their rights is shown by the words of our correspondent above quoted. He says:--
AMS3	14	6	"They know that so long as the Constitution remains as it is, so long they and their cause are safe."
AMS3	14	7	Of course they are, and they ought to be safe. They ought to be just as safe as anybody else in the Nation. But they know, and we know, and the National Reformers know, that just as soon as the religious amendment to the Constitution is adopted, or religious legislation is sanctioned, just so soon they will not be safe. In view of this it is certainly time that somebody was maintaining the principles of the Constitution as it is, under which is their safety. But according to the charitable decision of the National Reformers, for even a Christian to do this it lands him at once into infidelity.
AMS3	14	8	Anybody who will take the time to compare the "Demands of Liberalism," as given by our correspondent, with the National Reform Constitution, will see at once that these "Demands" are aimed at that document, and that they are wholly defensive. And it is perfectly safe to say that if now there was no such thing in existence as the National Reform Association, there would likewise be no such thing as the "Demands of Liberalism."
AMS3	14	9	Taking these "Demands" as given by our correspondent, there are some of them that are perfectly proper in themselves. On the subject of the "discontinuance of religious instruction and worship in the public schools," the position of the SENTINEL is well known to be in favor of it, because it is right. As for the abolition of State-paid chaplaincies, the SENTINEL is heartily in favor of that also; nor are we speaking at random on this subject. The writer of this article spent five full years in the United States army. He has seen State-paid chaplains in the East and in the West. He has attended their services. He has heard them pray, he has heard them preach, and has seen them about the garrisons. And he states it as his honest conviction that unless the State-paid chaplains whom he did not see, far surpass in efficiency those whom he did see, the whole lot of them put together, do not do either the Government or the soldiers as much good as would a bag of white beans.
AMS3	14	10	And as for the abrogation of all laws "looking to the enforcement of 'Christian' morality," we also heartily favor that because it is right. Any law or any proposition that looks to the enforcement of Christian morality, or anything else that is Christian, is contrary to every principle of the doctrine of Christ. And to advocate any such proposition is logically to advocate the Inquisition. The tyranny of the Papacy and the iniquity of the Inquisition, are the logical conclusions from the National Reform propositions throughout. And therefore the SENTINEL now is, and forever more shall be, outspokenly opposed to the whole National Reform scheme. If that be infidelity the National Reformers may make the most of it, while we continue to do our best to form our lives upon the model that God has set before the world in the life of Jesus Christ.
			March 1888
------------------------The Elgin Sunday-Law Convention
AMS3	17	1	THE Elgin Sunday-law Convention was held the eighth day of last November in the Baptist Church, Elgin, Illinois. It was "called by the members of the Elgin Association of Congregational Ministers and Churches, to consider the prevalent desecration of the Sabbath, and its remedy." The leading preachers present were, W.L. Ferris, of Dundee; J.M. Clendening, A.H. Ball, Wm. Craven, H.O. Rowlands, and Geo. A. Milton, of Elgin; John Mitchell, of Sycamore; Henry Wilson, of Carpenterville; W.W. Everts, Dr. Mandeville, S.I. Curtis, and C.K. Colver, of; Chicago; Staunton, of Rock-ford; Harbaugh, of Genoa Junction; Lea, of Woodstock; Stewart, of Savannah; Helms, of Forrest; Chittenden, of Wheaton; Swartz, of Leaf River; and Harris, of Byron. Besides these there were President Blanchard, President Stratton, and Professor Fisher, of Wheaton; Professor Whitney, of Beloit; State's Attorney Cooper, of Du Page County; Hon. T.E. Hill, ex-Mayor of Aurura; and Frank W. Smith, the Evengelist and Andersonville lecturer.
AMS3	17	2	The Convention passed the following resolutions:--
AMS3	17	3	"Resolved, That we recognize the Sabbath as an institution of God, revealed in nature and the Bible, and of perpetual obligation on all men; and also as a civil and American institution, bound up in vital and historical connection with the origin and foundation of our Government, the growth of our polity, and necessary to be maintained in order for the preservation and integrity of our national system, and therefore as having a sacred claim on all patriotic American citizens.
AMS3	17	4	"Resolved, That we look with shame and sorrow on the non-observance of the Sabbath by many Christian people, in that the custom prevails with them of purchasing Sabbath news-papers, engaging in and patronizing Sabbath business and travel, and in many instances giving themselves to pleasure and self-indulgence, setting aside by neglect and indifference the great duties and privileges which God's day brings them.
AMS3	17	5	"2. That we give our votes and support to those candidates or political officers who will pledge themselves to vote for the enactment and enforcing of statutes in favor of the civil Sabbath.
AMS3	17	6	"3. That we give our patronage to such business men, manufacturers, and laborers as observe the Sabbath.
AMS3	17	7	"4. That we favor a permanent Sabbath organization for the State of Illinois; the object of which shall be the creation of public sentiment and to secure the enactment and enforcement of necessary laws for the protection of the Sabbath.
AMS3	17	8	"5. That we favor the organization of auxiliary societies to accomplish the above object.
AMS3	17	9	"6. That four committees be appointed by this convention, consisting of two persons each, a minister and a layman; one committee to carefully and accurately investigate and report to the next convention all the facts obtainable concerning Sunday business; one to investigate and report similarly concerning Sunday newspapers; one concerning Sunday pleasuring; one concerning Sunday transportation and travel.
AMS3	17	10	"Resolved, That this association authorizes the Executive Committee to request railway corporations and newspapers to discontinue the running of Sunday trains and the publication of Sunday editions of their papers."
AMS3	17	11	Notice, the Sabbath is here set forth as an institution of God, and also as a "civil institution." It is for "candidates or political officers who will pledge themselves to vote for the enactment and enforcing of statutes in favor of the civil Sabbath," that they will vote.
AMS3	17	12	Now we shall present some of the arguments upon which they base this demand for laws in favor of the "civil Sabbath;" and also showing what they want these laws enforced for.
AMS3	17	13	Rev. Henry Wilson said:--
AMS3	17	14	"The industries of the world should be silent one city in seven, that the toiler may hear the invitation of the Master, 'Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest,' and that the spiritual temple of God may be built without the noise of the hammer."
AMS3	17	15	Exactly. The State must compel everybody to keep Sunday "that the toiler may hear the invitation of the Master" and "that the spiritual temple of God may be built." And then they will call that a civil statute! If such a statute as that would be a civil one, then what would be required to make a religious statute? But suppose the toiler should then refuse to go to hear that invitation; what then? Will the State compel him to go? If not, why not? The State compels him to keep Sunday that he may hear the invitation; now is the State to allow its good offices to be set at naught, and its purposes frustrated by the toiler's refusing to hear the invitation? And the church having gained the recognition of the State to that extent is she going to stop short of her object? Other quotations will answer these questions.
AMS3	17	16	Dr. W.W. Everts, of Chicago, said:--
AMS3	17	17	"This day is set apart for divine worship and preparation for another life. It is the test of all religion. The people who do not keep the Sabbath have no religion."
AMS3	17	18	Is it then the province of the State to pass and enforce statutes in the interests of divine worship? Is it in the nature of a civil statute to prepare men for another life? "It is the test of all religion," says the Doctor. Then what is the enforcement of the Sabbath but the enforcement of a religious test? And what is the application of it to "candidates and political officers" but the application of a religious test? And what is that but an open violation of the Constitution of the United States, which says, "No religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States"? It is true that, under the decisions of the United States Supreme Court, this provision of the Constitution does not prohibit the application of any religious test as a qualification to any office under any State. And if there be no such provision as this in the State Constitution, these preachers of Illinois, and of all the other States, can go ahead unrestrained in the application of their religious test to all the candidates for State offices. But there is one thing certain, and that is, Sunday being "the test of all religion," no Sunday-law test can ever be applied to any candidate for the House of Representatives, for the Senate, or for any other office or public trust under the United States, without a direct violation of the Constitution of the United States.
AMS3	18	1	Further says the Doctor, "The people who do not keep the Sabbath have no religion." The antithesis of this is likewise true. The people who do keep the Sabbath have religion. Therefore this demand for laws to compel people to keep the Sabbath, is a demand for laws to compel people to be religious. And yet they have the face to call it "the civil Sabbath."
AMS3	18	2	Again Doctor Everts says:--
AMS3	18	3	"He who does not keep the Sabbath does not worship God, and he who does not worship God is lost."
AMS3	18	4	Perfectly true, Doctor. The antithesis of this also is true, He who does keep the Sabbath, does worship God. Therefore your demand for laws to compel men to keep the Sabbath, is a demand for laws to compel them to worship God. And that is only to introduce the system of the Papacy and of the Inquisition. There is no use for you to deny that you want laws to compel the observance of the Sabbath, and that, too, with the idea of worship, because in the very next sentence you say:--
AMS3	18	5	"The laboring class are apt to rise late on Sunday morning, read the Sunday papers, and allow the hour of worship to go by unheeded."
AMS3	18	6	Here are the steps plainly to be taken, as surely as these ambitious clerics ever get the slightest recognition of their Sunday law demands. First, a law compelling all labor to cease on Sunday. Then the laboring class will read the Sunday papers, and so allow the hour of worship to go unheeded, consequently there must be, Secondly, a law abolishing all Sunday papers. But suppose then these people take to reading books, and let the hour of worship go by unheeded, then, logically, there must be, Thirdly, a law abolishing all reading of books on Sunday. But suppose they let the hour of worship go by unheeded, anyhow, then, logically, there must be, Fourthly, a law compelling them not to let the hour of worship go by unheeded. Having secured themselves in the first-two of these steps, what is to hinder these divines from taking the other two, which just as logically follow, as the second follows the first? There is just nothing at all to hinder them. Well, then, having taken the first two, will they not take the other two? Anybody who thinks they will not, has studied human nature, and read history, to very little purpose. And anybody who thinks that they do not intend to take the other steps has read the Sunday-law propositions to very little purpose. Prof. Samuel Ives Curtis said in this convention: "We are not commanded to remember the Sabbath as a day of rest and recreation, but to 'keep it holy.'" And last spring in the Boston Monday Lectureship, Joseph Cook said:--
AMS3	18	7	"The experience of centuries shows, that you will in vain endeavor to preserve Sunday as a day of rest, unless you preserve it as a day of worship."
AMS3	18	8	There, that ought to be plain enough to make anybody understand what is the purpose of the demand for "civil" Sunday-laws. The only safety is in never allowing them to secure themselves in the first step--that is, in never allowing them to secure any sort of a Sunday law. For just as soon as the so-called Protestant churches in this land become possessed of power to wield the civil power in the interests of religion, we shall have the Papacy over again.
AMS3	18	9	But Doctor Everts continues; it is not enough that Sunday papers must be stopped in behalf of the churches, but Sunday trains must also be stopped, and for the same reason. He says:--
AMS3	18	10	"The Sunday train is another great evil. They cannot afford to run a train unless they get a great many passengers, and so break up a great many congregations. The Sunday railroad trains are hurrying their passengers fast on to perdition. What an outrage that the railroad, that great civilizer, should destroy the Christian Sabbath!"
AMS3	18	11	Oh, yes! The church members, and the church-goers, will go on Sunday trains and Sunday excursions, etc. Therefore the trains are responsible and are hurrying their passengers on to perdition. Therefore by all means stop the Sunday trains, so as to keep these excellent church-members out of perdition, for if they have any chance they will go. Shut up the way to perdition, and then they will go to Heaven. They haven't enough religion, nor love of right, to do right, therefore they must have the State to take away all opportunity to do wrong. And these people will boast themselves of their religion, and their being Christians! It is difficult to see how a Sunday train can hurry anybody to perdition who does not ride on it. And if these church-members are hurried to perdition by Sunday trains, who is to blame? Right here lies the secret of the whole evil--they blame everybody and everything else, even to inanimate things, for the irreligion, the infidelity, and the sin that lies in their own hearts.
AMS3	18	12	The following statements made by Dr. Mandeville, in the convention, are literally true, in a good deal deeper sense than he intended:--
AMS3	18	13	1. "There has been an alliance formed between the church and the world."
AMS3	18	14	That is a fact, and it is going to ruin both
AMS3	18	15	"Let us not deny it."
AMS3	18	16	Amen. We earnestly hope you will not. There is no use in trying to deny it. But instead of going about in the right way to remedy the evil, you set on foot a scheme to compel the world to act as though it were religious, and so to bind closer the alliance, and increase the evil.
AMS3	18	17	3. "Influential men fasten themselves upon the church: a sort of political Christians."
AMS3	18	18	Most decidedly true. And the most "influential" of these "political Christians," and the most of them are found in the pulpit; and they organize conventions and pass resolutions to give their "votes and support to those candidates or political officers who will pledge themselves to vote for the enactment and enforcing of statutes in favor of the civil Sabbath," "as a day of worship."
AMS3	18	19	4. "Too many men are in the church for self-profit."
AMS3	18	20	Indeed there are, a vast number too many.
AMS3	18	21	5. "We pastors are to blame for allowing them to rule."
AMS3	18	22	Yes; you are. You are especially to blame for those influential political Christians fastening themselves upon the church and ruling it, and trading off its votes through Sunday-law conventions. The churches themselves, however, are not clear of blame in this. They ought to rise up and turn out the whole company of these political Christians, and fill their pulpits with such Christians as care more for the love of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit than they do for votes and the power of civil government.
AMS3	18	23	But the following statements by the same gentleman, we do not suppose have any deeper meaning than he intends:--
AMS3	18	24	1. "The subject has two sides. We must not look alone at the religious side. The interests of the Church and State are united."
AMS3	18	25	And yet you are all opposed to a union of Church and State, aren't you?
AMS3	18	26	2. "The merchants of Tyre insisted upon selling goods near the temple on the Sabbath, and Nehemiah compelled the officers of the law to do their duty and stop it. So we can compel the officers of the law to do their duty.... When the church of God awakes and does its duty on one side, and the State on the other, we shall have no further trouble in this matter."
AMS3	18	27	Yes, we remember how it was before. The gentle Albigenses in the south of France greatly disturbed the church. They refused to obey its commands. But the church was wide awake, for Innocent III. was Pope; and he awoke the State with the call, "Up, most Christian king, up and aid us in our work of vengeance!" And thus with the church awake to its duty (?) on one side, and the State on the other, the Albigenses were swept from the earth, and there was no further trouble in that matter. Woe, worth the day, and thrice woe to the people, when the religious power can compel the civil. And that is precisely what this Elgin Sunday-law convention proposes to do.
AMS3	19	1	It would seem from Dr. Mandeville's citation of the example of Nehemiah that they intend to set up a theocracy here. If not, there is no force in his argument, from that instance. But from the following it is quite certain that that is what they have in view. Prof. C.A. Blanchard said:--
AMS3	19	2	"In this work we are undertaking for the Sabbath, we are representatives of the Lord God."
AMS3	19	3	Therefore it follows that when they vote to support those candidates and political officers who will pledge themselves, etc., they will vote as the representatives of God. And if any of themselves should secure votes enough to send them to the Legislature or to Congress, they would go there and legislate as representatives of God. And when they get into their hands the power to enforce the law, and to compel the civil power to do their bidding, they will do it all as the representatives of God. And thus again it is demonstrated that if these influential "political Christians" once get the Sunday laws for which they are so diligently working, we shall have in this Nation a living image of the Papacy. And again we say the only safety is in not letting them secure the enactment of any sort of a Sunday law, nor anything else through which they may dominate the civil power.
AMS3	19	4	NOTE.--We have not selected all these quotations about the religious Sabbath, and left out what was said about the civil Sabbath. We have carefully read the whole report, and we state it as the literal truth that outside of the resolutions, there is not in all the report a single sentence about a civil Sabbath. It is all religious and that only. And yet, just like the California Sunday-law Convention, when it came to putting the thing in form to get votes and legislation they deftly insert the word "civil." All this goes to show what we have often stated, that there is no such thing as a civil Sabbath; and it shows that these men do not really intend to secure, nor to enforce, a "civil" Sunday-law, but a religious one wholly.
------------------------A Dangerous Parallel
AMS3	20	1	ALONGSIDE of the statements of the Elgin Sunday-law Convention, given in a foregoing article, we desire to place some facts of history which reveal a threatening danger that the American people do not dream of. By this we intend to show that it was in this same way precisely that the union of Church and State was formed in the fourth century, out of which grew the Papacy in its highest pretensions. There is no need of much argument; all we shall have to do is to quote the history, and the parallel can be so plainly seen that argument is unnecessary.
AMS3	20	2	Neander says of the fourth century:--
AMS3	20	3	"As is evident from the synodal laws of the fourth century, worldly-minded bishops, instead of caring for the salvation of their flocks, were often but too much inclined to travel about, and entangle themselves in worldly concerns."--Church History, Vol. 2, page 16. Torrey's Edition, Boston, 1857.
AMS3	20	4	So it is now with these Sunday-law preachers, in their working up of religio-political conventions, and their lobbying almost every Legislature in the land. But what was the purpose of these worldly-minded bishops in entangling themselves in worldly concerns? Neander tells:--
AMS3	20	5	"This theocratical theory was already the prevailing one in the time of Constantine; and ... the bishops voluntarily made themselves dependent on him by their disputes, and by their determination to make use of the power of the State for the furtherance of their own aims."-- Id., p. 132.
AMS3	20	6	What then were their aims? Their first and greatest aim was the exaltation of themselves; and second only to that was the exaltation of Sunday. These two things had been their principal aims, and especially of the bishops of Rome, for more than a hundred years, when Constantine gave them a chance to make their aims effectual by the power of the State. The first assertion of the arrogant pretensions of the bishop of Rome to power over the whole church, was made in behalf of Sunday by Victor, who was bishop of Rome from A. D. 193 to 202.
AMS3	20	7	"He wrote an imperious letter to the Asiatic prelates, commanding them to imitate the example of the western Christians with respect to the time of celebrating Easter [that is commanding them to celebrate it always on Sunday]. The Asiatics answered this lordly requisition ... with great spirit and resolution, that they would by no means depart, in this manner, from the custom handed down to them by their ancestors. Upon this the thunder of excommunication began to roar. Victor, exasperated by this resolute answer of the Asiatic bishops, broke communion with them, pronounced them unworthy of the name of his brethren, and excluded them from all fellowship with the Church of Rome."--Mosheim, Church History, 2nd. Century, part II, chap. V, par. 11.
AMS3	20	8	One of the earliest things in which these church managers secured from Constantine the use of the power of the State, was the famous edict prohibiting certain kinds of work on "the venerable day of the sun." That edict runs thus:--
AMS3	20	9	"Let all the judges and towns-people and the occupation of all trades rest on the venerable day of the sun; but let those who are situated in the country, freely and at full liberty attend to the business of agriculture; because it often happens that no other day is so fit for sowing corn and planting vines; lest, the critical moment being let slip, men should lose the commodities granted by Heaven."
AMS3	20	10	This edict was issued March 7, A. D. 321. It will be seen by this edict that only judges and towns-people and mechanics were commanded to rest on Sunday. If mechanics were allowed to work, the spiritual temple could not be built "without the noise of the hammer;" don't you see? But this did not satisfy the political managers of the churches for any great length of time.
AMS3	20	11	"By a law of the year 386, those older changes effected by the Emperor Constantine were more rigorously enforced, and, in general, civil transactions of every kind on Sunday were strictly forbidden. Whoever transgressed was to be considered, in fact, as guilty of sacrilege."--Neander, Id., p. 300.
AMS3	20	12	But these laws only prohibited work on Sunday; pleasure-seeking, games, etc., were not even yet prohibited. Consequently a church convention held at Carthage in 401,--
AMS3	20	13	"Resolved to petition the Emperor, that the public shows might be transferred from the Christian Sunday and from feast days to some other days of the week."--Ib.
AMS3	20	14	But what was the purpose of all these Sunday laws, and petitions for Sunday laws? From the first Sunday law enacted by Constantine, to the last one enacted by any other emperor; from the first petition presented by the political bishops of the fourth century to this last one circulated by the political preachers of Illinois; the sole reason and purpose has always been,--
AMS3	20	15	"So that the day might be devoted with less interruption to the purposes of devotion;" and "in order that the devotion of the faithful might be free from all disturbance." Id., pp. 297, 301.
AMS3	20	16	But what was it that disturbed the devotion of the faithful on Sundays in the fourth century?
AMS3	20	17	"Owing to the prevailing passion at that time, especially in the large cities, to run after the various public shows, it so happened that when these spectacles fell on the same days which had been consecrated by the church to some religious festival, they proved a great hindrance to the devotion of Christians, though chiefly, it must be allowed, to those whose Christianity was the least an affair of the life and of the heart."--Id., p. 300.
AMS3	20	18	But, again, how could a theater or a circus in one part of the city hinder the devotion of the faithful in another, and perhaps distant, part of the city, or even in the country? Thus:--
AMS3	20	19	"Church teachers ... were, in truth, often forced to complain, that in such competitions the theater was vastly more frequented than the church."--lb.
AMS3	20	20	Oh yes! That is the secret of the hindrance to their devotion. If there was a circus or a public show on Sunday, it would get a great many spectators, and "so break up a great many congregations;" the church-members would go to the circus, and "let the hour of worship go by unheeded;" and so their devotion was greatly disturbed and hindered. Don't you see? Just here, please read again the quotations from Dr. Everts's speech in the Elgin Convention, where he complains of the Sunday train and the Sunday newspaper. Is not this thing a perfect repetition of that in the fourth century?
AMS3	21	1	But yet those ambitious prelates of the fourth century were not content with stopping all manner of work, and closing public places, on Sunday. They had secured the power of the State so far, and they determined to carry it yet further, and use the power of the State to compel everybody to worship according to the dictates of the church. And one of the greatest Fathers of the church, was father to this theory. That was the great church Father and Catholic saint, Augustine--and by the way, he is grandfather to National Reform too, as we shall prove one of these days. Augustine taught that,--
AMS3	21	2	"It is indeed better that men should be brought to serve God by instruction than by fear of punishment or by pain. But because the former means are better, the latter must not therefore be neglected ... Many must often be brought back to their Lord, like wicked servants, by the rod of temporal suffering, before they attain to the highest grade of religious development."--Schaff, Church History, Vol. II, section 27.
AMS3	21	3	And says Neander:--
AMS3	21	4	"It was by Augustine, then, that a theory was proposed and founded, which ... contained the germ of that whole system of spiritual despotism, of intolerance and persecution, which ended in the tribunals of the Inquisition."--Neander, Id., p. 217.
AMS3	21	5	Of that whole fourth century Sunday-law movement, from beginning to end, Neander, with direct reference to those Sunday laws, says:--
AMS3	21	6	"In this way, the church received help from the State for the furtherance of her ends."--Id., p. 301.
AMS3	21	7	That is the indisputable truth of the matter. And it is just as indisputably true that this Sunday-law movement in our day in this Nation, is only another attempt of the church to seize upon the power of the State and use it to further her own aims. And just as surely as these political preachers of our day secure the power and the recognition of the State in their first step, they will carry it to the last step, and the logical end to which it was carried in the fourth century, and afterward in the working of the theory of Augustine. The church of our day can no more safely be trusted with political power than could that of the fourth century, or of any other century. The only safety for the people, and the only security for the State, is to make it perfectly certain that the church shall never receive the help of the State for the furtherance of her own ends; and that she shall never obtain any recognition at all by the civil power, beyond that granted to every other person or class in the Nation.
AMS3	21	8	By these evidences from the fourth century, as well as by the evidences from the church conventions of our own day, it is demonstrated again that there is no such thing as a civil Sunday, and that there is no such thing as civil Sunday laws. The first Sunday law that ever was enacted was at the request of the church; it was in behalf of the church; and it was expressly to help the church. The call for Sunday laws now is by the church; and wherever they are enacted or enforced, it is in behalf of the church, and to help the church; and it is so throughout history. The keeping of Sunday is not a civil duty, and cannot of right be made a civil duty. Sunday is wholly an ecclesiastical institution, and the keeping of it can only be enjoined or enforced by ecclesiastical power. And whenever the civil power attempts to enjoin or enforce it, the civil power then in that is made subordinate to the ecclesiastical, and becomes only an instrument of ecclesiastical oppression.
AMS3	21	9	That is the use that was made of Sunday laws in the fourth century; it is the use that has been made of them in the United States within the last three years; and that is the use that will be made of them in days to come as surely as the churches secure this help of the State in the furtherance of their own political and ambitious aims. Through Sunday laws the Papacy was developed in the fourth century; and through Sunday laws there will yet be developed a living image of the Papacy in this country. Therefore we are, and everybody else ought to be, uncompromisingly opposed to the enactment or the enforcement of any manner of Sunday laws.
			April 1888
------------------------Morality and Civil Government
AMS3	25	1	THE Independent, of St. Helena Cal., criticises a statement of the SENTINEL, as follows:--
AMS3	25	2	"Says the AMERICAN SENTINEL: 'Morality is a matter which, from its original nature and object, lies entirely beyond the reach and control of the State proper.' Then we are to understand that all police regulations, looking to the moral welfare of the community are wrong and illegal. Unfortunately for our fair California, that sentiment has prevailed too long."
AMS3	25	3	The statement of the SENTINEL is strictly true. Let us enlighten our critic. Morality, as defined by Webster, is "The relation of conformity or non-conformity to the true moral standard or rule; ... the conformity of an act to the divine law." The true moral standard is the law of God--the ten commandments. The keeping of the ten commandments is morality; the breaking of any one of them is immorality. The keeping of the ten commandments is righteousness; the breaking of any one of them is sin.
AMS3	25	4	This true moral standard takes cognizance of the thoughts and intents of the heart. To hate is murder; to covet is idolatry; to think impurely of a woman is adultery; and these things are immoral. Morality or immorality lies in the heart; it pertains to the thoughts and intents of the heart; and with it the State can have nothing at all to do. The civil government has nothing to do with hatred, nor with covetousness, nor with impure thinking; yet all these things are immoral. A man may hate his neighbor all his life; he may covet everything on earth; he may think impurely of every woman that he sees; he may keep this up all his days, and the State will not touch him, nor has it any right to touch him. It would be difficult to conceive of a more immoral person than such a man would be, yet the State cannot punish him. And this demonstrates our proposition, that "with immorality the State can have nothing at all to do."
AMS3	25	5	But only let that man's hatred lead him to attempt to do an injury to his neighbor, and the State will punish him. Only let his covetousness lead him to lay hands on what is not his, in an attempt to steal, and the State will punish him. Only let his impure mind lead him to attempt violence to any woman, and the State will punish him. Yet bear in mind, the State does not punish him even then for his immorality, but for his incivility. The State punishes no man because he is immoral, but because he is uncivil. It cannot punish immorality; it must punish incivility. This distinction is shown in the very term by which we designate State or national government. It is called civil government; no person ever thinks of calling it moral government. The Government of God is the only moral Government. God is the only moral Governor. The law of God is the only moral law. To God alone pertains the punishment of immorality, which is the transgression of the moral law. Governments of men are civil governments, not moral. Governors of men are civil governors, not moral governors. The laws of States and nations are civil laws, not moral. To the authorities of civil government it pertains to punish incivility, not immorality. Thus again it is demonstrated, that with immorality civil governments can never of right have anything to do.
AMS3	25	6	On the other hand, as God is the only moral Governor; as his is the only moral Government; as his law is the only moral law; and as it pertains to him alone to punish immorality; so likewise the promotion of morality pertains to him alone. Morality is conformity to the law of God; it is obedience to God. But obedience to God, must spring from the heart in sincerity and truth. This it must do, or it is not obedience; for, as we have proved by the word of God, the law of God takes cognizance of the thoughts and intents of the heart. But "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." By transgression all men have made themselves immoral. "Therefore by the deeds of the law [by obedience] shall no flesh be justified [accounted righteous or made moral] in his sight." Romans 3:20. As all men have, by transgression of the law of God, made themselves immoral, therefore no man can, by obedience to the law, become moral; because it is that very law which declares him to be immoral. The demands, therefore, of the moral law, must be satisfied, before he can ever be accepted as moral by either the law or its Author. But the demands of the moral law can never be satisfied by an immoral person, and this is just what every person has made himself by transgression. Therefore it is certain that men can never become moral by the moral law.
AMS3	25	7	From this it is equally certain that if ever men shall be made moral, it must be by the Author and Source of all morality. And this is just the provision which God has made. For, "now the righteousness [the morality] of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; even the righteousness [the morality] of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe; for there is no difference: for all have sinned [made themselves immoral] and come short of the glory of God." Romans 3:21-23. It is by the morality of Christ alone that men can be made moral. And this morality of Christ is the morality of God, which is imputed to us for Christ's sake; and we receive it by faith in him who is both the Author and Finisher of faith. Then by the Spirit of God the moral law is written anew in the heart and in the mind, sanctifying the soul unto obedience--unto morality. Thus, and thus alone, can men ever attain to morality; and that morality is the morality of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ; and there is no other in this world. Therefore, as morality springs from God, and is planted in the heart by the Spirit of God, through faith in the Son of God, it is demonstrated by proofs of Holy Writ itself, that to God alone pertains the promotion of morality.
AMS3	26	1	God, then, being the sole promoter of morality, through what instrumentality does he work to promote morality in the world? What body has he made the conservator of morality in the world? The church or the civil power, which?--The church and the church alone. It is "the church of the Living God." It is "the pillar and ground of the truth." It was to the church that he said, "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature;" "and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." It is by the church, through the preaching of Jesus Christ, that the gospel is "made known to all nations for the obedience of faith." There is no obedience but the obedience of faith; there is no morality but the morality of faith. Therefore it is proved that to the church, and not to the State, is committed the conservation of morality in the world. This at once settles the question as to whether the State shall teach morality. The State can't teach morality. It has not the credentials for it. The Spirit of God and the gospel of Christ are both essential to the teaching of morality, and neither of these is committed to the State, but both to the church.
AMS3	26	2	But, though this work be committed to the church, even then there is not committed to the church the prerogative either to reward morality or to punish immorality. She beseeches, she entreats, she persuades men to be reconciled to God; she trains them in the principles and the practices of morality. It is hers by moral means or spiritual censures to preserve the purity and discipline of her membership. But hers it is not either to reward morality or to punish immorality. This pertains to God alone, because whether it be morality or immorality, it springs from the secret counsels of the heart; and as God alone knows the heart, he alone can measure either the merit or the guilt involved in any question of morals.
AMS3	26	3	By this it is demonstrated that to no man, to no assembly or organization of men, does there belong any right whatever to punish immorality in any way. Whoever attempts it, usurps the prerogative of God. The Inquisition is the inevitable logic of any claim of any assembly of men to punish immorality. Because to punish immorality, it is necessary in some way to get at the thoughts and intents of the heart. The Papacy, asserting the right to compel men to be moral, and to punish them for immorality, had the cruel courage to carry the evil principle to its logical consequence. In carrying out the principle, it was found to be essential to get at the secrets of men's hearts; and it was found that the diligent application of torture would wring from men, in many cases, a full confession of the most secret counsels of their hearts. Hence the Inquisition was established as the means best adapted to secure the desired end. So long as men grant the proposition that it is within the province of civil government to enforce morality, it is to very little purpose that they condemn the Inquisition, for that tribunal is only the logical result of the proposition.
AMS3	26	4	By all these evidences is established the plain, common-sense principle that to civil government pertains only that which the term itself implies--that which is civil. The purpose of civil government is civil and not moral. Its function is to preserve order in society, and to cause all its subjects to rest in assured safety by guarding them against all incivility. Morality belongs to God; civility belongs to the State. Morality must be rendered to God; civility, to the State. "Render therefore unto Cesar the things which are Cesar's; and unto God the things that are God's."
------------------------Connecting Links Between Church and State
AMS3	27	1	IN the Homiletic Review for December, 1887, Philip Schaff, D. D., LL. D., has an article on "The Connecting Links Between Church and State," and says that there are three of these links, namely, Marriage, Sunday, and the Public School. That is, these are the three links which form the union of Church and State in the United States. From the adoption of the Constitution until lately, it has ever been the just pride of this Nation, that in its form of government, Church and State were wholly separate; and that with religion the State had nothing to do, but left that matter just where it rightly belongs, as solely pertaining to the individual's personal relations between himself and God. Within the last few years, however, there has been a notable change of view in regard to this subject, in both its phases, especially on the part of prominent theologians and would-be church-leaders.
AMS3	27	2	One class of these insist that the propagation of religious opinions is an essential prerogative of civil government, and therefore they with "undying enthusiasm" are determined to have the National Constitution and laws so altered as to make their views effective. Of this class the leaders of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union and the National Reform Association are the representatives. The other class insist that in this Government there is already a union of Church and State. Of these Dr. Schaff is the principal one, and this article in the Homiletic Review is his statement of the case. It would be an easy task to show the causes of this change of base on the part of the Church and State religionists, but we shall not enter upon that at this time. We want to notice Dr. Schaff's "Links."
AMS3	27	3	He starts out with this proposition:--
AMS3	27	4	"A total separation of Church and State is an impossibility, unless we cease to be a Christian people."
AMS3	27	5	He offers not a particle of proof in support of this statement, while proof is the very thing that is most needed. He assumes that the people of the United States are Christians, while not one in ten of them are Christians. The Doctor ought to have offered some proof; assumptions are not proof. But granting his assumption that this is a Christian people, and this a Christian Nation, his proposition is yet defective, because he says that, that being so, "A total separation of Church and State is an impossibility." However, to call this defective is not enough--it is totally wrong. For the precept of Christ does make a total separation of Church and State. The word of Christ is, "Render unto Cesar the things which are Cesar's; and unto God the things that are God's." There is no question at all that by the term "Cesar" the Saviour means the State--the civil government. Here duty lies in two directions--to God and to the State. To each is to be rendered that which is his--to God that which is God's, to the State that which is the State's. Now the church of Christ is God's; that which is rendered to the church is rendered to God, because it is "the church of the living God." The church is not Cesar's, it is God's. That which pertains to the church does not and cannot pertain to the State; that which is to be rendered to the church is not to be, and cannot be, rendered to the State; because the church is God's, and that which is God's must be rendered to him and not to the State. Therefore it is demonstrated that in these words the Lord Jesus has totally, and forever, separated the church from the State. And therefore Doctor Schaff's proposition is contrary to the word of Christ.
AMS3	27	6	Doctor Schaff counts marriage as one of the connecting links that unite Church and State. But this is impossible without making marriage a sacrament of the church and confining it to that, as the Papacy has assumed the power to do, and so to count all marriages as only concubinage which are not solemnized by the church. But this it is impossible to do, because marriage belongs to the race. It no more belongs to Christians than to pagans. It is an original institution, and knows no distinctions. It belongs equally to atheists, infidels, Jews, heathen, and Christians--all alike, and to one class no more than to another. And as the institution belongs to all classes that can be found in civil government; and as it relates to man in his relations to his fellow-men; its regulation is properly within the province of civil government. As a matter of fact, marriage is no more a "connecting link" between Church and State, than is life, or property, or character.
AMS3	28	1	But when the Doctor comes to the discussion of his second "connecting link," the Sunday, he makes a good deal worse mixture than he does with his first. We quote the whole paragraph:--
AMS3	28	2	"The Christian Sabbath, or weekly day of rest, is likewise protected by legislation, and justly so, because it has a civil as well as a religious side; it is necessary and profitable for the body as well as for the soul; it is of special benefit to the laboring classes, and guards them against the tyranny of capital. The Sabbath antedates the Mosiac legislation, and is, like the family, founded in the original constitution of man, for whose temporal and spiritual benefit it was instituted by the God of creation."
AMS3	28	3	This paragraph is as full of error as an egg is full of meat. We have not space to fully set forth all the errors that it contains, but we shall call attention to some. The most prominent token of error that it bears is, that it contradicts itself. He first calls it "the Christian Sabbath," and then says that it is "founded in the original constitution of man." But Christianity is not an original institution. How, then, can the Sabbath be "founded in the original constitution of man," and be at the same time the "Christian Sabbath"? It cannot be; it is a moral impossibility. Christian institutions are peculiar to the system of redemption through Christ; but the Sabbath antedates the system of redemption. The Sabbath was instituted before man had sinned, before he needed to be redeemed. It would have been kept by man had he never sinned; but had he never sinned, there never would have been any Christianity, nor any Christian institutions. Consequently it is impossible for the Sabbath to be the "Christian" Sabbath. It is utterly a misnomer to call it the Christian Sabbath. The only names the Author of the Sabbath has ever given it are "the Sabbath of the Lord," and, "the Lord's day."
AMS3	28	4	Let these titles, which alone the Author of the Sabbath has given to that institution, be put alongside of his own words in relation to what men owe to civil government, and see how the matter stands. He calls it "the Sabbath of the Lord," and, "the Lord's day." He says, "Render therefore unto Cesar the things which are Cesar's; and unto God the things that are God's." The Sabbath is the Lord's. It is the Lord's day. Therefore it is to be rendered to the Lord. The Sabbath pertains not to Cesar. It is not Cesar's in any sense. It is the Lord's. Therefore, the Sabbath being the Lord's and not Cesar's, it is proved by the words of Christ that the civil government has nothing at all to do with it. This annihilates at once the Doctor's idea that the Sabbath "has a civil as well as a religious side." The word of God says that the Sabbath is the Lord's, and Christ distinctly separates that which is the Lord's, from that which is Cesar's: therefore when Dr. Schaff or anybody else attempts to pass off the Sabbath as both civil and religious, as pertaining both to God and to Cesar, he confounds that which Christ has clearly distinguished, and virtually charges Christ with loose thinking.
AMS3	28	5	The commandment of God does not say, Remember the Sabbath day to keep it civilly; it does say, "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy." The Sabbath is wholly a religious institution; man's observance of it pertains wholly to the Lord. Therefore when the State undertakes to enforce the observance of the Sabbath, it thereby demands that to Cesar shall be rendered that which is God's; and in that it usurps the place of God. That which is the Lord's we are to render to him direct, without any of the meddling mediumship of Cesar. When we have rendered to Cesar that which is his, we have rendered to him all his due, and when he has so received his due, he has no right to demand any more. And it is none of his business how men render to God that which is God's, or whether they render it at all or not.
AMS3	28	6	All this is written in regard to the State and the Sabbath of the Lord. It is Sunday, however, that Dr. Schaff presents as the second connecting link which forms the union of Church and State in our country. And indeed this much of his article is true. Sunday is the link which connects Church and State, whenever the State has anything to do with it in the way of legislation. We ourselves showed in the SENTINEL of last month, that Sunday was the link that united Church and State in the fourth century, and that in the same way Sunday is now being used as the link by which Church and State will be united in fact in the United States. But whereas the Sabbath of the Lord belongs to God, though not to Cesar, the Sunday Sabbath belongs neither to God nor to Cesar. There is no command of God for it. It is wholly an institution of the church. The church, instituted the practice of Sunday observance; the first Sunday law that ever was issued--that by Constantine--was at the request of the church, and was expressly to favor the church; and that has been the only purpose of Sunday legislation from that time to this. And that is why it is that Sunday is in truth the "connecting link" that forms the union between the Church and the State. But the more permanently that link is severed amongst all people, the better it is for both Church and State. There has never yet been a union of Church and State, that has not tended only the more to corrupt both. And it never can be otherwise. The church of Christ is espoused "as a chaste virgin to Christ," and she cannot join herself to any other, without forsaking her Lord and making herself an adulteress.
AMS3	28	7	Let no one blame us for saying that there is no command of God for keeping Sunday, and that it is an institution of the church. We make the statements just as we find them, and we find them made by what is certainly high authority. The American Tract Society issues a $500 prize-essay on the subject, which says of the "Christian Sabbath," that there is "complete silence of the New Testament so far as any explicit command" "or definite rules for its observance are concerned." And the American Sunday School Union issues a $1,000 prize-essay on the same subject, which says: "Up to the time of Christ's death there had been no change in the day." And "so far as the record shows they [the apostles] did not give any explicit command en-joining the abandonment of the seventh-day Sabbath, and its observance on the first day of the week." And this $500 essay also fixes upon Sunday as a sacred day only by "a consensus of the Christian church." Now according to the word of Christ, which we are here discussing, men owe duty in but two directions--to God and to Caesar. But Sunday observance belongs to neither of these, but to "the church." Therefore as Sunday observance belongs neither to God nor to civil government, there is no power in existence that can of right command it; and there is no obligation resting upon any soul to observe it.
AMS3	28	8	Dr. Schaff's third "connecting link" the Public School, we must defer till our next.
			May 1888
------------------------Doctor Schaff and the Public School
AMS3	33	1	THE third of Doctor Schaff's "links" between Church and State, is, "The Public School." He confesses that,--
AMS3	33	2	"Positive religious instruction is the duty of the family and the church, which has the commission to teach all nations the way of life. The State cannot be safely intrusted with this duty."
AMS3	33	3	That is all true. The State cannot teach Christian religion, or Christian morality, because, as we showed in the April SENTINEL, it has not the credentials for it. That work is committed to the church alone. It is the church which is "the pillar and ground of the truth.' It is the church which was commissioned to go "into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature." It is with the church that Christ promised to be till the end of the world. Without the presence and help of the Holy Spirit, no religious teaching can ever be effectual. But it is the church, which is "an habitation of God through the Spirit." None of these things are spoken to the State, nor of the State. None of these things pertain to the State. But without these things no effectual religious instruction can ever be possible. Therefore it is perfectly certain that the State never can, with any propriety whatever, take it upon itself to give religious instruction. It is indeed true that "the State cannot be safely intrusted with this duty."
AMS3	33	4	But, as in this we perfectly agree with Doctor Schaff's statements, the reader may query wherein we sufficiently disagree with him to justify the writing of an article on the subject? It is in this: Although the doctor grants that to the church and not to the State belongs the work of imparting religious instruction, yet he insists that religious instruction shall be given in the public schools at the public expense. Now, as this work belongs to the church, and cannot be intrusted to the State, and as this work must be done in the public school, at the public expense, it therefore follows that Doctor Schaff proposes that the church shall use the machinery of the State with which to do her own work. In this way he makes the public school a "link" between Church and State. But we deny the right of the church to use the State for any such purpose. We protest that the church shall do her work, herself, with the means which God has appointed her, and with no other; for whatsoever is more than this is sin. If the church cannot do her own appointed work with the means which God has appointed her, she cannot do it at all. If the church cannot impart religious instruction without the help of the State, she cannot impart it with the help of the State. If the church possesses enough of the presence and power of the Spirit of God, to make her instruction effectual, she will not need the help of the State; and if she lacks that power her instruction will not be effectual even though the doors of every public school building in the Nation be opened to her.
AMS3	33	5	It is particularly interesting to notice the Doctor's plans for imparting religious instruction in the public schools. He says:--
AMS3	33	6	"The Catholics certainly have a right to demand the Douay version as a substitute for that of King James, and both might be read, the one to the Catholic the other to the Protestant pupils."
AMS3	33	7	There are some questions that we should like to have answered on this proposition: 1. Is the same teacher to give instruction from the Douay version to the Catholics, and from King James's to the Protestants? or shall there be two teachers--a Catholic and a Protestant--in every school? 2. If the Catholics have "a right to demand the Douay version," and the Protestant, have a right to demand King James's version, then why is it that those who are neither Catholics nor "orthodox" Protestants, have not "a right" to demand that there shall be no version at all used in the public schools? or is it true that all rights belong alone to Catholics and "Protestants"? 3. Is it so wholly essential to the welfare of the Nation that the Catholic "demanmands" shall be satisfied more than those of any other people in the nation?
AMS3	33	8	The reason which Doctor Schaff gives, why the State cannot be safely intrusted with this duty, is that,--
AMS3	33	9	"It might teach Rationalism, as is actually done in a great many public schools and Universities of Germany, Holland, and Switzerland."
AMS3	33	10	Therefore to make it certain that there shall be just the proper kind of teaching in the public schools of our country, he offers this plan:--
AMS3	33	11	"The State may, if necessary, allow the different denominations to monopolize certain school hours in the school building for religious instruction."
AMS3	33	12	Let us look at this a moment. The school day consists of about six hours, and the State is to allow the different denominations to monopolize certain of these hours in the schoolroom. Of the "different denominations" there are the Catholic, Episcopalian, five of the Methodist, eight of the Baptist, ten of the Presbyterian, Congregationalist, Dutch Reformed, Lutheran, Unitarian, Universalist, and two Adventist--this makes at least thirty-two "different denominations" who are to monopolize certain of the six school hours in the school building. Now will the Doctor have the State distribute the six hours of the school day equally among these thirty-two denominations? If so where is the State to get in any other instruction? Or will Dr. Schaff have each of the "different denominations" monopolize one hour a day in its turn? If that be it, then let us see--there are twenty school days in a month, and there are thirty-two different denominations. As it would take more than six weeks to go round once, there would be given to the different pupils but one hour of religious instruction in about six weeks. Then the same question again arises, During this round of "religious instruction" how are the regular teachers to get anything else into the minds of the pupils to any purpose? Or would the doctor have all thirty-two of the "different denominations" go to "the school building" and monopolize an hour each day all together?!! That would be Babel risen again indeed.
AMS3	34	1	And, says the Doctor:--
AMS3	34	2	"In this way the problem of united secular, and separate religious, instruction could be solved, at least to the reasonable satisfaction of the great majority."
AMS3	34	3	It is perfectly safe to say that in this way the problem could not be solved to the reasonable satisfaction of any reasoning person in the Nation. The "different denominations" themselves would not be satisfied with it; those who belong to none of the different denominations could not be satisfied with it; nor could the school authorities be satisfied with it. The truth of the matter is, that an attempt to carry into effect any such scheme would be the utter destruction of the whole public-school system. From another sentence in the same paragraph the Doctor seems to imply that the regular teachers of the schools are to do the work of the religious, as well as the secular instruction. He says:--
AMS3	34	4	"In communities which are sufficiently homogeneous one teacher would answer; in others two or more might be chosen, and the children divided into classes according to the will of the parents or guardians."
AMS3	34	5	A community sufficiently homogeneous to require but one teacher, would consist of but one denomination. But how many such school districts can be found in the United States? The places where two or more teachers would be required, would be of course where there are two or more "different denominations," and there would necessarily have to be as many teachers as there might be different denominations. Or does Doctor Schaff intend that the teachers in the schools shall all be so polemically versatile that any one of them shall be able to give religious instruction in harmony with the religious views of any one or all of the different denominations? Then, again, who is to examine the teachers, and pass upon their qualifications to impart the requisite amount and the quality of such religious instruction? Oh! that important office would fall to the church, of course. And thus we are brought round again to the point which we made at the first, that Dr. Schaff's proposition, and that of everybody else who proposes to put religious instruction, into the public schools, is only a scheme to secure to the church the help of the State in furthering her own aims, and so the "connecting link between Church and State" is to be formed.
AMS3	34	6	How it would be possible to frame a scheme of public instruction more utterly absurd than is set forth in this essay by Dr. Schaff it would be difficult to conceive. And how any man of the standing of Dr. Schaff could get off such a perfect medley of nonsense, would be surprising were it not patent on the very face of public affairs that the emasculated Protestantism of to-day has set itself to secure control of the power of the State to wield it in its own interests, and it is willing to countenance any absurd scheme, and propose any sort of a compromise to gain the support of the Roman Church, because its managers know that they cannot win without this. This is shown by another statement from the Doctor:--
AMS3	34	7	"Possibly the more liberal portion of our Roman Catholic fellow-citizens might agree to such a compromise" (as is proposed in the statements which we have quoted).
AMS3	34	8	There is a good deal being said about the danger to our institutions, from Romanism. There is such danger, but it lies not in Romanism direct, but in this degenerate Protestantism ambitious of civil power and willing to compromise with Rome to obtain it. This it is that needs to be constantly and carefully watched.
------------------------Not an Enduring Morality
AMS3	38	1	SOMETHING over two years ago the Presbyterian Synod of New York appointed a committee on Religion and Public Education to consider and report upon the following resolution:--
AMS3	38	2	"RESOLVED, That the Presbyterian Synod of the State of New York, believing that the lessons of history and the traditions of American liberty forbid the union of Church and State, discriminates between sectarianism and religion, and affirms that so far as public education is concerned, and enduring morality must derive its sanctions, not from policy, nor from social customs, nor from public opinion, but from those fundamental religious truths which are common to all sects, and distinctive of none.
AMS3	38	3	"It therefore urges upon its members the imperative necessity of opposing the attitude of indifference to religion, which appears both in public-school manuals, and in the educational systems of reformatories, and at the same time, of using every proper influence to secure the incorporation with the course of State and national instruction, of the following religious truths as a groundwork of national morality, viz.:--
AMS3	38	4	"1. The existence of a personal God.
AMS3	38	5	"2. The responsibility of every human being to God.
AMS3	38	6	"3. The deathlessness of the human soul as made in the image of God, after the power of an endless life.
AMS3	38	7	"4. The reality of a future spiritual state beyond the grave in which every soul shall give account of itself before God, and shall reap that which it has sown."
AMS3	38	8	That is a queer sort of a resolution on religion to be passed by a body of men who pretend to know anything about the religion of Christ. In the four "religious truths" which they set forth as "a groundwork of national morality," they certainly have made a success of getting those "which are common to all sects and distinctive of none for there is not one point in the four that is not accepted by nine-tenths of the people on earth.
AMS3	38	9	The Unitarian, the Trinitarian, the Jew, the Mohammedan, and the heathen can all accept every point named. As to "the existence of a personal God," whether it be Buddha, or Joss, or Allah, or Jehovah, it is all right: all that is necessary is to assent to the existence of a personal God. And there is nobody that believes in any sort of a god at all who does not believe in man's personal responsibility to him. "The deathlessness of the human soul" has been believed by the great majority of the race, almost ever since Satan told Eve that she should not die. And if a person believes that the soul is deathless, it is not likely to be very hard for him to believe that it is made after the power of an "endless life." The fourth point is already contained in the second and third, and it is difficult to see what they want to grain by repeating it.
AMS3	38	10	But the worst thing about it is that there is not in the whole statement a word or a hint about Christ, no more than if there were no such person in existence. And yet it is proposed by a body of professed Christians, as a statement of "religious truths." More than this, they make the whole thing but a piece of infidelity by resolving that "an enduring morality must derive its sanctions .... from those fundamental religious truths which are common to all sects and distinctive of none." The truth is, a person may believe all four of the points named and yet not have a particle of morality in him. All men have made themselves immoral by transgression of the moral law. And no man can attain to morality except by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. "An enduring morality" can only be secured by an abiding faith in Jesus Christ. And when these men make "an enduring morality" to derive its sanctions from these fundamental religious truths "which are common to all sects, and distinctive of none," they in that set Christ aside and present to men the hope of an enduring morality without him. But such a hope is a spider's web instead of an anchor of the soul. God forbid that such morality shall ever become national.
AMS3	38	11	As was to be expected, the report says:--
AMS3	38	12	"The earliest efforts of your committee were directed towards ascertaining the attitude of the Roman Catholics. Archbishop Corrigan, of New York, and Vicar-Generals Quinn and Preston, besides many leading priests and writers of the Roman Catholic persuasion, were interviewed, with the most satisfactory results."
AMS3	38	13	Now just see what that committee counts as a "most satisfactory result." A member of this committee wrote a letter to Archbishop Corrigan, "requesting for publication a distinct statement of the position which the Roman Catholics would be likely to assume." Vicar-General Preston answered the letter as follows:--
AMS3	38	14	"The Most Rev. Archbishop desires me in his name to say in response to your letter that the Catholic Church has always insisted, and must always insist, upon the teaching of religion with education. For this reason we cannot patronize the public schools, and are forced to establish our own parochial schools. The question, where there are many different denominations, each with its own creed, is a difficult one to settle. We could be satisfied with nothing less than the teaching of our whole faith. Protestant denominations, if they value their own creeds, ought to feel as we do.
AMS3	39	1	"Denominational schools are, to our mind, the only solution of the question. This plan should satisfy everyone, and would save the State a vast outlay of expense.
AMS3	39	2	"The points you propose, while better than none, would never satisfy us, and we think they ought not to satisfy many of the Protestant churches; while the infidels, who are now very numerous, would certainly reject them.
AMS3	39	3	"We believe that the country will yet see the ruinous effects of an education from which religion has been excluded. With sincere respects on the part of the Archbishop and myself. Yours very truly,
			"T.S. PRESTON, V.G.
			"REV. GEO. SHIPMAN PAYSON."
AMS3	39	4	Then says the committee:--
AMS3	39	5	"The position of the Roman Catholics upon the question, therefore, is well defined."
AMS3	39	6	Indeed it is, a good deal better defined than is this Presbyterian spider's web. That is not a position at all, it is only a floating scheme trying to catch whatever element it can. What an edifying spectacle it is indeed, to see a committee from the Presbyterian Synod of New York, soliciting the alliance of the Catholic Church, and that not only to meet with a rebuff, but to be snubbed with the reminder that Protestant denominations don't value their own creeds, and that the "points" proposed "ought not to satisfy many of the Protestant churches!" And then, more than all, to find the committee reporting this as a "most satisfactory" result! Well, well, what will the committee do next? We have not the least doubt, however, that they will do as was suggested by the National Reformers seven years ago--they will "make repeated advances," and allow themselves to be subjected to repeated "rebuffs," to get Rome's "co-operation in any form in which they may be willing to exhibit it." Because, "It is one of the necessities of the situation."
			June 1888
------------------------The Plea for National Sunday Legislation
AMS3	41	1	APRIL 6, the United States Senate Committee on Education and Labor, Senator Blair chairman, gave a hearing to arguments in support of the petitions of the W. C. T. U., for National Sunday Legislation. Rev. Wilbur F. Crafts, D. D., delivered what seems to have been the principal production on the question. He has since presented the same argument in the Philadelphia National Reform Convention. The paper is entitled, "National Sabbath Reform." We propose to reproduce here some of his arguments, not only that we may examine them for their own sake, but also that they may be examined by our readers in the light of the principles stated in the report of the United States Senate, given on another page.
AMS3	41	2	The petitions in support of which the argument was made, ask Congress to prohibit Sunday railroad trains, Sunday mails, and Sun-day parades in the army and navy. The Doctor instances the railroad strikes, riots, and wrecks, as proof that the Sunday train is a national evil, and says:--
AMS3	41	3	"There is abundance of evidence in the testimony of railroad men themselves of the fact that their Sabbath-breaking is closely related to their train-wrecking. They feel that, having broken one commandment of God, they might as well go through the whole list.... It is a perilous thing to allow men to be started in law-breaking."
AMS3	41	4	So, then, Doctor Crafts and his fellow-petitioners, want Congress to set itself up as the guardian of the law of God, to define what is the law of God and what is its transgression--to define and to punish sin--for Mr. Crafts said also in this very connection that "most of the railroad work" "is a sin against God's law."
AMS3	41	5	He demands that railroad trains shall be compelled to stop over Sunday wherever they may be when Sunday overtakes them, and then inquires:--
AMS3	41	6	"Why may not a few railway passengers be detained for one day, even at some slight inconvenience or loss, on the same ground that steam-boat passengers are detained in quarantine for a fortnight, namely, to protect the public health?"!!
AMS3	41	7	Does the Rev. Wilbur F. Crafts, D. D., mean seriously to assert that all steamboat passengers are detained in quarantine for a fortnight? He knows better. He knows that it is only the passengers of steamboats infected with cholera, or yellow fever, or small-pox, or some such deadly disease, that are detained in quarantine at all. Well, then, does he mean seriously to assert that a railroad train running on Sunday is as dangerous to the public health as is a cholera-infected steamboat? and that the train must therefore be quarantined on Sunday "to protect the public health"? If he does not mean this, then his argument is an utter non sequitur. And if he does mean this, then to what absurd lengths will men not run in their wild endeavors to find a basis for Sunday legislation? The lightning express on Sunday is as a streak of cholera, says the Rev. Wilbur F. Crafts, D. D.; so it must be quarantined.
AMS3	41	8	His next proposition is of the same piece. Here it is:--
AMS3	41	9	"An inter-State commerce bill to protect the health of cattle is now before the Senate. Why not add another to protect the health of railroad men?"
AMS3	41	10	Well, dear Doctor, there are several reasons for this. As you seem not to have discovered any, let us endeavor to enlighten you. There are several points of distinction between railroad men and cattle. You seem not to have discovered this. Allow us to point them out.
AMS3	41	11	First, there has always been recognized, by everybody, unless, perhaps, certain Doctors of Divinity, a distinction between railroad men and cattle in this, that railroad men have more sense than cattle have; that they are capable of taking care of their own health, and that they have all the facilities for it.
AMS3	41	12	Secondly, a distinction between railroad men and cattle appears in this, that railroad men are not bought and sold, nor are they crowded into cars and shipped, as cattle are.
AMS3	41	13	Thirdly, an important distinction between railroad men and cattle appears in this, Doctor, that railroad men are not killed and eaten as cattle are. You see, Doctor, cattle are eaten by the public. Therefore you will see, perhaps, that if the cattle be diseased, the public will be eating disease, and the public health will be endangered. Therefore an inter-State commerce bill to protect the health of cattle is a necessity to protect the public health. Now, Doctor, if the American public was killing and eating railroad men as it is cattle, then it would be the most proper thing to "add another" inter-State commerce bill to protect the health of railroad men. But, Doctor, we are happy to inform you that the American public does not do that thing yet. Therefore there is no necessity whatever for any inter-State commerce bill to protect the health of railroad men--by declaring a quarantine on all Sunday trains.
AMS3	41	14	Next the Doctor discusses Sunday mails, and it is in this that there appears the "true inwardness" of his whole Sunday-law argument, and, in fact, of the whole Sunday-law movement. He says:--
AMS3	42	1	"The law allows the local postmaster, if he chooses (and some of them do choose), to open the mails at the very hour of church, and to make the post-office the competitor of the churches."
AMS3	42	2	There is the secret of the whole Sunday-law agitation. The churches cannot bear competition. They must have a monopoly. The Sun-day trains must be stopped, because they are competitors of the churches. The Elgin Sunday-law Convention, which Doctor Crafts indorses, said so. The Sunday papers must be abolished, because they are competitors of the churches. The Elgin Sunday-law Convention said so. The post-offices must be closed on Sunday, because they are competitors of the churches. Doctor Crafts says so. Now by the side of these statements read this:--
AMS3	42	3	"The Sunday train, the Sunday newspaper, and the Sunday mail are a combine against public health."
AMS3	42	4	That is to say, the Sunday train is a competitor of the churches; therefore it must be quarantined--"to protect the public health." The Sun-day newspaper is a competitor of the churches; therefore it must be abolished--"to protect the public health." The post-office open on Sunday is a competitor of the churches; therefore it must be shut--"to protect the public health." The nation must secure to the churches a complete monopoly of Sunday, and all "to protect the public health." How very considerate of the public health these dear Doctors of Divinity are, to be sure! No, they are not. The public health is not in all their thoughts. They don't care a continental for the public health more than does anybody else. It is national power to enforce religious observances that they want. That is what they are determined to have. They know that if they should work in the name of that which they really want, they could get no hearing at all before any legislative body in this Nation. Therefore they trump up the hypocritical plea of "protection of the public health," or "protection of the workingman from the oppression of monopolies," or anything else under which they can hide their real intentions.
AMS3	42	5	This is further shown by the fact that although Doctor Crafts repeatedly stated that this Sunday legislation is to protect the public health, he declared that:--
AMS3	42	6	"A National Sabbath Committee, representing the religious organizations of the Nation, will be necessary to secure clear convictions on the subject among Christians, and also the enactment and enforcement of wholesome Sunday laws.... This National Sabbath Committee should be appointed by the churches."
AMS3	42	7	Now if this legislation is in the interest of the public health, why is it that the National Committee must be appointed by the churches instead of by the public? And why should this National Committee represent the religious organizations instead of the public? If all this legislation is in the interests of the public health, then why must the National Committee be chosen by the churches from the religious organizations, instead of by the public, from the Boards of Public Health of the different States? Ah! the truth is that the interests of the public health do not enter into the question at all. The whole thing is in the interest of the churches, and in behalf of the religious organizations; and the public health is nothing but a hypocritical plea swung in to hide the real motive. But they can't hide it all.
AMS3	42	8	Next Mr. Crafts tells what they want. In regard to closing the post-offices on Sunday during church hours, to stop this competition with the churches, he says:--
AMS3	42	9	"A law forbidding the opening between ten and twelve would accomplish this, and would be better than nothing; but we want more."
AMS3	42	10	Again:--
AMS3	42	11	"A law forbidding any handling of Sunday mail at such hours as would interfere with church attendance on the part of employes would be better than nothing; but we want more than this."
AMS3	42	12	Again:--
AMS3	42	13	"Local option in deciding whether a local post-office shall be open at all on Sunday, we should welcome as better than nothing,--a wholesome incentive to local agitation; but we desire more than this."
AMS3	42	14	And again--
AMS3	42	15	"A law forbidding all carrier delivery of mail on Sunday would be better than nothing; but we want more than this."
AMS3	42	16	Well, then, what do they want?
AMS3	42	17	"What we ask is a law instructing the Postmaster-General to make no further contracts which shall include the carriage of mails on the Sabbath, and to provide that hereafter no mail matter shall be collected or distributed on that day."
AMS3	42	18	And THEY WANT MORE THAN THIS. This is sufficient for them to begin with, but they will never stop here. Just as soon as these men get what they here ask, and find by that that the religious power can influence the civil in its own behalf, then they will push that power to the utmost extent that their influence can carry it. If they get what they here ask, in the very words of Doctor Crafts, there will be no stopping-place short of the fullest claims of the Papacy. If they get what they here ask, the first thing to be done will be for the national power, by some tribunal, either the legislative or judicial, to declare what day is the Sabbath. To do this will demand the interpretation of Scripture, and the decision of a religious question. Therefore, by this one act, by this single step, the Nation will be plunged at once into a whirl of religious controversy, of judicial interpretations of Scripture and judicial decisions of religious questions; and where shall the thing stop? This is precisely what the National Reformers are trying to do--and Doctor Crafts is one of them. They intend, in their own words, that "the whole frame-work of Bible legislation" shall be "thoroughly canvassed by Congress and State Legislatures, by the Supreme Courts of the United States and of the several States, and by lawyers and citizens;" and then, again in their own words, "the churches and the pulpits [will] have much to do with shaping and forming opinions on all moral questions, and with interpretations of Scripture on moral and civil, as well as on theological and ecclesiastical, points;" "and the final decisions will be developed there." And that will be the times of the Papacy over again. And the one single step that will plunge the nation into this maelstrom is this Sunday-law action which Congress is now petitioned to take, and in behalf of which the Union Signal has promised that Senator Blair is to frame and present a bill.
AMS3	42	19	When this question came before the United States Senate before, the Senate replied: "Let the National Legislature once perform an act which involves the decision of a religious controversy, and it will have passed its legitimate bounds. The precedent will then be established, and the foundation laid, for that usurpation of the divine prerogative in this country which has been the desolating scourge to the fairest portions of the Old World." We are anxiously waiting to see what reply the United States Senate now will make upon the same question. We are anxious to see whether Senator Blair will indeed frame and present a bill, and thus show himself ready to carry the National Legislature beyond its legitimate bounds. And if he does that thing, then we are anxious to see whether the National Legislature will allow itself to be carried beyond its legitimate bounds. We are anxious to see whether the National Legislature will establish the precedent, and lay the foundation, for the usurpation of the divine prerogative in this country. We are intensely anxious to know whether the National Legislature is ready to inflict this desolating scourge upon this fair land.
AMS3	42	20	Besides all this, we are really anxious to know whether or not the Senate Committee on Education and Labor, Senator Blair chairman, is so blind as not to be able to see the fallacy, the sophistry, and the hypocrisy, of the address of the Rev. Wilbur F. Crafts, D. D. If it is so, then we must confess that our estimate of the degree of intelligence that ought to be found in a United States Senator is greatly lowered.
------------------------An Open Letter
AMS3	46	1	IT will be remembered that in the February SENTINEL we replied to an "open letter" to us from Rev. W. T. McConnell, of Youngstown, Ohio. In the Christian Nation, of February 29, Mr. McConnell wrote to us another open letter, which we have not till now had the opportunity to notice. As in his first "open letter" he started out with the stock argument of the National Reformers--that of classing with infidels, atheists, liquor leagues, liberal leagues, etc., etc., every opponent, whoever he may be or whatever may be the grounds of his opposition--so in this "open letter" the first thing he does is to enter upon a long defense of it. But he need not have done that at all; we did not mention it with the object of having it enter as an element into the controversy between us and the National Reformers. As Mr. McConnell was a new champion in the lists, we simply called his attention to this point to see whether we might not be able to get from him some sort of an argument upon the merits of the controversy between us. But our effort was in vain. Mr. McConnell proves to be as destitute of argument on the merits of the controversy as are all the rest of the National Reformers.
AMS3	46	2	From the beginning we have invited the National Reformers, both as individuals and by their organs, to show wherein our opposition to the National Reform movement is not based upon sound principles. We have asked them repeatedly to show wherein our arguments against it are faulty, or wherein our conclusions are illogical. We have offered them our own columns in which to show this. But with a single exception--Rev. Robert White, of Steubenville--the principal, the first, the leading reply, has always been to call us names and to class us with all the elements of wickedness that they can think of. But we do not care for that. We know that "it is only in the absence of argument that recourse is had to ridicule; and that the chair of the scoffer is never filled until that of the logician is vacated." Therefore, as the National Reformers are destitute of arguments against us, we couldn't have the heart to deprive them of their only recourse--that of calling us names. We are not what they call us; and we know that their calling us bad names does not make us what they call us.
AMS3	46	3	In his first "open letter" it will be remembered that Mr. McConnell likened the National Reform movement to an express train which is fairly to knock into finders everybody who does not get off the track. In reply we freely confessed that "the National Reform movement is nothing but a Satanic car of Juggernaut that proposes relentlessly to crush every person who chooses to think for himself." This sets Mr. McConnell's imagination all aglow, and he says:--
AMS3	46	4	"Now, neighbor, let us step one side and take a look at this 'Satanic car.' ...There is the venerable Mr. Brunot holding the lines [yes, he is], while Doctors Stevenson, Barr, and McAllister urge on the high-spirited district secretaries, who are straining every nerve to increase its speed [yes, they are]. Then notice the it material of which the 'car' is composed. Its wheels and axle, its panels and arches, its furniture and adornments, are the names of men."
AMS3	47	1	The "names of men!" Yes, that is true, and a goodly number of those names are the names of dead men; others are the names of men who are decidedly opposed to the whole National Reform movement; others are the names of men who are not in the United States at all, and do not belong to the United States; others are names of men as living in certain places, while those men are not only not in those places but are not known there at all. Yes, sir, Mr. McConnell, that is a happy hit that you make, in saying that these were the names of men. We personally know that what we have here said is true. We know that the National Reform Association's Executive Committee in its very latest published list of vice-presidents has printed the names of men who have been dead for years.
AMS3	47	2	Then Mr. McConnell makes great ado, because we confessed his destructive express to be a Satanic car.
AMS3	47	3	To this we have just a word to say. Doctor Philip Schaff says:--
AMS3	47	4	"Secular power has proved a Satanic gift to the church."--Church and State in the United States, page 11.
AMS3	47	5	Now secular power is precisely what the National Reform Association proposes to give to the church; therefore the National Reform Association proposes to make a Satanic gift to the church. And as Mr. McConnell proposes that this Satanic gift shall be in the form of an express car upon which the church shall ride in her course of tyranny and destruction, then it is demonstrated by Doctor Schaff's sound principle, and by Mr. McConnell's sounding proposition, that that car is a Satanic car.
			July 1888
------------------------The Presbyterian Cardinal
AMS3	52	1	HENRY M. FIELD, D. D., is one of the foremost men of the Presbyterian Church in the United States, and a man of much more than national reputation. He is editor of the New York Evangelist, which appears to be the official organ of the Presbyterian Church in the East. He is, we believe, the only Protestant ecclesiastic who has entered upon a set discussion with the representative of infidelity--Colonel Ingersoll. He is quite an extensive traveler, and has written books about his travels, which have a wide circulation. Last summer he traveled in Spain, and wrote a book entitled "Old Spain and New Spain," in which he pays flattering tribute to the Catholic Church, and its influence in Spain, as being in harmony with the institutions of the country. Of this book the New York Observer says:--
AMS3	52	2	"From a Protestant point of view, such an extensive charity towards a system which in all times and lands has been hostile to liberty, and oppressive in the last degree, we can neither understand nor sympathize with. There are doubtless many devout persons who are Romanists, but the Roman Church is corrupt and cruel; under its present rulers it seeks not so much the salvation of souls as the political control of States and nations, and its supremacy in any country is the signal for decline in piety, morality, and prosperity. We therefore regret that so interesting and attractive a book should be pervaded by a spirit so favorable to the chief enemy of Protestantism."
AMS3	52	3	Doctor Field, very properly, as will be seen further on, sent a copy of this book to Cardinal Gibbons.
AMS3	52	4	Early in February Doctor Field was in Washington City, and attended a reception given in honor of Cardinal Gibbons, to whom he personally paid his respects. At this, somebody in Washington addressed Doctor Field, expressing surprise and pain that any Protestant minister, and much more such a prominent and influential one, should so far forget his profession and compromise his dignity. It is true the writer of the letter did not sign his name, in which he showed a trait which was unbecoming if not cowardly. Doctor Field printed the letter in the Evangelist, and in reply administered a strong rebuke, not only to the writer of the letter, but also to all who concur in the sentiments expressed in the letter. He calls it "a piece of gross impertinence;" says that he prints it "as a specimen of the narrowness which exists in the minds of some well-meaning, but very simple (not to say silly) people;" and further says:--
AMS3	52	5	"It is not that we take any personal offense at this communication, that we notice it; but because it is the manifestation of a spirit which itself needs to be rebuked--a disposition to stand entirely aloof from Roman Catholics, which we believe is most mischievous to the church and to the country."
AMS3	52	6	Somebody sent to Cardinal Gibbons a copy of the Evangelist which contained this letter and the reply to it. This, with the present of Mr. Field's book, drew from the Cardinal a very gracious letter, which in its turn so pleased the editor of the Evangelist that he gushed clear over. We insert the matter just as it stands in the Evangelist of March 29, 1888:--
AMS3	52	7	"Private correspondence is commonly of interest only to the parties, and of no concern whatever to the public. But a man in high position is a public character, in whose personality all may feel a legitimate interest. And if it discloses itself in a letter written with the freedom of private correspondence, it may, with his consent, be seen by the eyes of others. Certainly few men in Church or State hold so high a dignity as our only Cardinal, the head of the Roman Catholic Church in America. His letter grew out of a slight incident--our attendance at a reception given him in Washington, for which some unknown person in that city wrote us a very sharp letter, which, instead of throwing into the fire, we published, and answered as we thought it deserved. This correspondence someone sent to the Cardinal, which called forth the following, that we now have his full consent to give to the public:--
			"'CARDINAL'S RESIDENCE, 408 N. Charles St.,
			Baltimore, March 6, 1888.
AMS3	52	8	"'REV. DEAR SIR: I beg to thank you very cordially for the copy of your work, "Old Spain and New Spain," which you kindly sent me through Mrs. Mullan, From the praise which she bestows on it, I am sure I will read it with interest and pleasure. [In a postscript he adds: 'Since writing the foregoing, I have read with great satisfaction and edification your beautiful tribute to the good Archbishop of Granada. Had you lived in the days of Ignatius Loyola, I am sure you would have revered and cherished the man on account of his burning love for Christ.]
AMS3	52	9	"'I avail myself of this occasion by tendering to you my sincere expression of gratitude for your manly and well-merited rebuke to the writer who had the hardihood to expostulate with you for attending the reception given to me at Mrs. Admiral Dahlgren's. I was delighted to meet yourself and your honored brothers on that occasion, but you have risen still higher in my estimation by your noble reply to the writer in question. Such men as that writer exhibit very little of Christian charity, and do much to make the enemies of Christianity rejoice.
AMS3	53	1	"Your words, on the contrary, serve to remind us all that if we cannot agree in matters of faith, we should never be wanting in the courtesy and urbanity which Christians of all denominations owe to one another.
AMS3	53	2	"'I am with great regard, yours faithfully in Christ,
			"'JAMES CARD, GIBBONS, Abp. Baltimore.
			"'REV. H. M. FIELD, D. D.'
AMS3	53	3	"Could anything be more gentle than this? Can anyone detect in it the slightest tone of arrogance? The writer does not assume that the Roman Catholic Church is the only Christian body on earth; on the contrary, he distinctly recognizes 'Christians of all denominations,' and asks only for the 'courtesy and urbanity' which all Christians 'owe to one another.' The gentleness of the letter is the best answer to the fierce intolerance which will not recognize a Christian faith or Christian life anywhere but within the narrow bounds of its own sect. Comparing it with the one in which a correspondent (who did not dare even to sign his name to his own letter) undertook to call us to account, we think our readers will agree that the Cardinal may well say that 'such men as that writer exhibit very little of Christian charity, and do much to make the enemies of Christianity rejoice.' Are we to refuse the outstretched hand of one who signs himself, 'Yours faithfully IN CHRIST'--that blessed name which is the bond that holds the world together?"
AMS3	53	4	This is a good specimen of the mawkishness that now passes for the best Protestantism; with the exception, however, that this is the first instance in which we have seen Mr. Gibbons acknowledged as a Cardinal outside of the Catholic Church. We do not know exactly in what sense it is that Doctor Field uses the word "our" in calling Mr. Gibbons "our only Cardinal." We do not know whether he uses it as a representative Presbyterian, or whether he presumes to speak for the whole nation. If he speaks as a representative Presbyterian, and thus acknowledges Mr. Gibbons as the Presbyterian Cardinal, as well as a Catholic Cardinal, then we have nothing to say, it is their right to do so if they choose. Nevertheless we shall watch with considerable interest to see whether there are any Protestants in the Presbyterian Church, or whether they have gone bodily over to allegiance to their "only Cardinal, the head of the Roman Catholic Church in America."
AMS3	53	5	If Mr. Field has in this taken it upon himself to speak for the whole Nation, and, for the Nation, to acknowledge Mr. Gibbons as our only Cardinal, then, as American citizens, we do most decidedly protest. He is not our Cardinal in any sense. The United States knows no Cardinal, it recognizes no such dignity as a Cardinalate. And as for Doctor Field's saying that "certainly few men in Church or State hold so high a dignity as our only Cardinal," it is utterly false. So far as the church is concerned, the humblest Christian in it holds an infinitely higher dignity than does Doctor Field's "only Cardinal." And as for the State, there is not an American citizen in this Union, who appreciates what American citizenship is, who does not hold a dignity vastly greater than that of Doctor Field's "only Cardinal," who is bound in a contemptible vassalage to a foreign and despotic lord.
AMS3	53	6	But the strangest thing in this whole connection is to see how unquestioningly Doctor Field accepts the dignity of a disciple of Loyola, conferred upon him by his Cardinal in the words: "Had you lived in the days of Ignatius Loyola, I am sure you would have revered and cherished the man on account of his burning love for Christ." Not only does the Doctor unquestioningly accept this high honor, but he shows his high appreciation of it by acknowledging the donor as "our only Cardinal."
AMS3	53	7	We believe that Cardinal Gibbons is entirely correct in his estimate. We do not doubt at all that had Henry M. Field, D. D., "lived in the days of Ignatius Loyola, he would have revered and cherished the man in his burning" fanaticism--"burning" in more senses of the word than one, as is abundantly proved by the dreadful history of the Jesuits in every nation. We do not doubt at all that had Doctor Field lived in the days of Ignatius Loyola, he would have stood with him and his Jesuitism against Luther and Protestantism. Doctor Field accepts the discipleship of Loyola which his "only Cardinal" gives him. Loyola was the founder of the Society of the Jesuits. He was a Spaniard. Spain has seen more of Jesuitism than has any other nation. Jesuitism may fairly be said to be a Spanish institution. Doctor Field spent part of a summer there, and flatters the influence of the Catholic Church there as being in harmony with the institutions of the country. Now let us have an estimate of Jesuitism and its influence, recorded by a native Spaniard who has spent his life in that country and knows its history as he knows its language. Señor Castelar says of Jesuitism:--
AMS3	53	8	"Never was there founded an institution so openly at war with the spirit of its time. The sixteenth century was the century of renovation; Jesuitism a sect of relapse. The sixteenth century founded the liberty of thought; Jesuitism founded intellectual slavery. The one tended to religious reform, the other to religious reaction, the one celebrated the emancipation of the conscience, the other adored the person of the Pope; the one heard the divine voice, the Holy Spirit, in the idea of every man, the other saw God only in traditional and ecclesiastical authority; the one wrenched the conscience away from Rome, the other returned to Rome the absolute dominion over time and eternity. Never in human memory has there existed a religious association, regular and secular at once, equally at home in palaces and in deserts, lying in wait for the courtier, the minister, and the monarch, as well as for the savage lost in the pampas of America, or the forests of Asia; never, I repeat, was there a religious association like this, founded upon absolute authority and obedience, which with such sovereign command exacted the subjugation of man and his living spirit, his indomitable liberty, his unconquerable inclinations to the cold apathy of a corpse."--Harper's Monthly Magazine, October, 1873.
AMS3	53	9	Another writer speaking of the wounds which turned Loyola from a soldier into a fanatic, says:--
AMS3	53	10	"They were the cause of many an auto-da-fé in Italy, and of a persecution worse than that of Diocletian, in Spain.... They led to the massacre of St. Bartholomew's, the death of Mary, Queen of Scots, the Spanish Armada, and the Gun-powder Plot. They disturbed the New World, gave rise to many deeds of self-denial and piety, and many horrible crimes and woes. They were felt in distant Russia. They aroused the Poles against the Russians, and excited a fierce war in which Poland inflicted injuries upon its feeble neighbors that have scarcely yet been expiated in seas of blood. They spread their fatal influence over China, and stirred that vast empire with a violent impulse. They were felt in Ethiopia and Hindostan, in Canada and Brazil; they gave rise, in fact, to the company of the Jesuits."--Eugene Lawrence, Historical Studies, p. 99.
AMS3	53	11	Loyola himself procured the erection of the Inquisition in Portugal, in 1545-46. And yet to be commended by a Papal Cardinal, as one who "would have revered and cherished" such a man as this, the intentional founder of such a system as this, is considered by Doctor Field as of sufficient honor to deserve in return the grateful platitude that "certainly few men in Church or State hold so high a dignity as our only Cardinal"!! We do not wonder at all that the Cardinal gave his "full consent" that the letter should be published in the editorial columns of the Evangelist. Nothing pleases "our only Cardinal" better than to see the Presbyterians recognizing in him "so high a dignity," and acknowledging as their "only Cardinal the head of the Roman Catholic Church in America." Protestants there are yet some, but Protestantism is dead.
			August 1888
------------------------Rome's Influence
AMS3	58	1	IF anybody fails to see that the Papacy is now fast moving into the place of the greatest influence of any earthly organization, not only in Europe, but in this Nation as well, we can only wonder what he can be doing with his eyes. In Europe, to say nothing of Catholic countries, which, as a matter of course, are subject to the Pope, Germany is subject to the dictation of the Pope; England is glad to obtain his help in her political affairs; and even the autocrat of all the Russia is willing to make overtures to the Pope.
AMS3	58	2	In our own country Rome's influence is growing faster than any other one thing. Everybody knows that it was the word "Romanism" in an unfortunate alliteration that cost Blaine the presidency in 1884. The editor of the Converted Catholic says that more Senators and Representatives send their sons to the Jesuit College at Georgetown, than to all the other institutions of learning at Washington. This proves, either that a large number of Senators and Representatives are Catholics, or that Rome has more influence with Senators and Representatives than have all the other educational institutions in Washington put together.
AMS3	58	3	L. Q. C. Lamar was lately Secretary of the Interior. He was charged with giving to Catholics more positions in his department than to other denominations. His reply was, that "if the Roman Catholics have been recognized to a greater extent than other denominations, it is only because they have asked more largely;" and explains this by saying that the Romish Church has at Washington "an energetic and tireless director, who is active to seize opportunities for extending missionary and educational work among the Indians." The Government Superintendent of Indian Schools is a Catholic; and the Christian Union says that four-fifths of the Government Indian schools, under religious control, have been given to the Romish Church.
AMS3	58	4	The Assistant Attorney-General of the Department of the Interior--Mr. Zach. Montgomery--is a Roman Catholic, with all the Roman Catholic enmity to the public schools, and hesitates not to use his official influence to show it. Not long since, in an address at Carroll Institute, he openly denounced the public-school system as godless, anti-parental, and destructive of happiness. And the Senate knew his enmity to the public schools when it confirmed him as Assistant Attorney-General.
AMS3	58	5	We would not have a word to say against Catholics being given public and official positions in any department of Government, were it not that the allegiance of every Catholic is paid to the Pope before it is to the United States, and must be so paid, or else he ceases to be a good Catholic; every soul of them enters politics, or into official positions, as a Catholic; and the Pope has commanded all Catholics to do all in their power to cause the legislation of States to be shaped upon the model of the "true church."
AMS3	58	6	Next the secular press is captivated by the seductive influences of the Papacy. Not only is this true of that portion of the press which makes politics a trade, and which professedly follows, while it leads, public influence; it is equally true of the great magazines. In the Century for May, 1888, there was published a most flattering tribute to the Pope, with full-page portrait, under the title of "The Personality of Leo XIII." And in the Forum for April, 1888, Rome forms the subject of two long articles--one, "Civil Government and Papacy," the other, "Socialism and the Catholic Church."
AMS3	58	7	Next after the political world and the secular press, there is the "Protestant" religious world and its press. And in hardly anything does this take second place after the others, in this truckling flattery to the Papacy. The Evangelist, the Christian Union, the Christian at Work, the Independent, and other papers of lesser note, all pay flattering tribute to Rome. The Evangelist acknowledges Cardinal Gibbons as its "only Cardinal;" the Independent wishes the Pope "a long reign and Godspeed in his liberalizing policy;" the Christian at Work salutes him as "Holy Father," and in the name of "the whole Christian world" glorifies him as "this venerable man whose loyalty to God and zeal for the welfare of humanity are as conspicuous as his freedom from many of the errors and bigotries of his predecessors, is remarkable;" and the Christian Union acknowledges him as "a temporal prince" and "Supreme Pontiff." Nor are the "Protestant" doctors of divinity one whit behind these "Protestant" papers. Rev. Charles W. Shields, D. D., of Princeton College, writing of the reunion of Christendom, said of a certain position, that it would not do to take it, because--
AMS3	58	8	"You would exclude the Roman Catholic Church, the mother of us all; the church of scholars and saints, of Augustine, and Aquinas, and Bernard, and Fenelon; the church of all races, ranks, and classes, which already gives signs of being American as well as Roman, and the only church fitted, by its hold upon the working masses, to grapple with that labor problem before which our Protestant Christianity stands baffled to-day."--New York Evangelist, February 9, 1888.
AMS3	58	9	Yes, the Catholic Church does give signs of becoming American as well as Roman, and the surest sign of this is the readiness with which Americans and professed Protestants surrender to her all their dearest interests of man in order to secure her influence.
AMS3	58	10	Now to all these elements add the National Reform Association, which, under the name and form of Protestantism, proposes to unite all Protestant bodies in one, and then to trade them off bodily to Rome for her influence, for the sole purpose of securing to the church the control of the civil power, and the scheme is completely sketched, as it now stands.
AMS3	58	11	At the present rate, how long will it be before Rome's influence will be supreme everywhere? This question is worth thinking about.
------------------------The National Reform Vice-Presidency
AMS3	59	1	IN his report in the SENTINEL for June our correspondent from the Philadelphia National Reform Convention, made a remark which lets considerable light upon the National Reform method of getting the names of so many eminent men in its list of vice-presidents. It has been a puzzle to some of these gentlemen, whom they run as their vice-presidents, to know how they ever became vice-presidents of an association whose objects they utterly oppose. The following sentence reveals the secret:--
AMS3	59	2	"The motion was made and supported that all those citizens of Philadelphia whose names were attached to the call for the convention, should be made vice-presidents of the association, when, without discussion, it was put and unanimously carried. By this simple act, and without the consent of the persons concerned, seventy-eight new officers were elected."
AMS3	59	3	Now everybody knows that it is the easiest thing in the world to get names, and the names of eminent men too, signed to a petition or call for a convention or public meeting to consider important questions. Men will sign such a call without even fairly looking at it, much less reading and considering it. So the National Reformers circulate a "Call for a National Conference on the Christian Principles of Civil Government," and get a large number of signatures to it. That is a most innocent-looking thing; who would not sign it? And in the circular sent out it is distinctly stated that "the sessions of the Conference will be distinct from the sessions of the National Reform Association." That makes doubly innocent the "Call for a Conference." But, lo! at one of the sessions of the association, all who signed the call for the conference are at one swoop made vice-presidents of the National Reform Association; and henceforth those names, whether their owners be living or dead, will be made to do service for all they are worth in behalf of National Reform and as officers of its association.
AMS3	59	4	More than this, the National Reform managers know that not all of those gentlemen are in favor of the object of the association. In the circular before referred to, it is plainly stated that--
AMS3	59	5	"Some of the signatures of citizens concurring in the 'Call for the National Conference' are those of persons who ... have not yet been convinced of the necessity for the proposed Christian amendment to the National Constitution. An eminent representative of this class is found in Bishop O. W. Whitaker, of the diocese of Pennsylvania."
AMS3	59	6	And yet Bishop O. W. Whitaker, with all the rest of these gentlemen "who have not yet been convinced," is now a vice-president, in eminent standing, of the association whose sole purpose is to secure just such an amendment. That is to say, they are all vice-presidents of an association whose sole object is to do a thing of the necessity of which they have not yet been convinced.
AMS3	59	7	In 1872 the National Reformers played this same trick on Marshall Jewell. They got his signature to a call for a convention, and then swung him in as a vice-president of the association. But Mr. Jewell issued a circular in which he said:--
AMS3	59	8	"Such action on the part of the association was entirely unwarranted, and, so far from consenting to it, I desire that my name be stricken from the list. I should have refused my name had I received notice of it. After giving the matter considerable thought, I am entirely opposed to the movement, and the objects sought to be accomplished by it, believing that it is impracticable and uncalled for. If the people at large do not acknowledge in their actions the divine authority, it is worse than useless to attempt a national acknowledgement."
AMS3	59	9	Such, therefore, is the National Reform method of securing such abundance of eminent "names of men" as vice-presidents to their association. And it is in perfect keeping with other of the methods which they employ to make their movement a success. Anything for influence seems to be their motto.
------------------------Russia and Religion
AMS3	60	1	IN the April Century, Mr. George Kennan gave an invaluable article on the "Russian Penal Code," from which we make the following extract on the subject of religion. In reading it it must be borne in mind that Russia is a "Christian nation," that the religion of Russia is a national religion, and that what is there called Christianity is the national religion. Also in reading it, it will be well to bear in mind the National Reform scheme to make the United States a "Christian nation," to establish here a national religion, and to make what the National Reformers call Christianity, the national religion. At the same time, too, may very properly be borne in mind the National Reform proposition in regard to dissenters from their national religion when they get it established, which is as follows:--
AMS3	60	2	"If the opponents of the Bible do not like our Government and its Christian features, let them go to some wild, desolate land; and ... stay there till they die."
AMS3	60	3	Let the reader compare this with the Russian Penal Code on "Crimes against the Faith," and tell, if he can, what would be the difference between this and the oft-repeated Russian penalty of "exile for life to the most remote part of Siberia."
AMS3	60	4	Mr. Kennan says:--
AMS3	60	5	"The first important title or division of the Russian penal code is that which comprises what are called 'Crimes against the Faith,' and the severity with which such crimes are punished furnishes a striking illustration of the importance which the State attaches to the church as the chief bulwark of its own authority. The first section, which may be taken as fairly indicative of the spirit of the whole title, is as follows:
AMS3	60	6	"'SECTION 176. Whoever dares, with premeditation, and publicly in a church, to blaspheme [literally, "to lay blame upon"] the glorious Triune God, or our Most Pure Ruler and Mother of God, the ever-Virgin Mary, or the illustrious Cross of the Lord God Our Saviour Jesus Christ, or the incorporeal Heavenly Powers, or the Holy Saints of God and their images, such person shall be deprived of all civil rights, and exiled for life, with not less than twelve nor more than fifteen years of penal servitude. If such crime shall be committed not in a church but in a public place, or in the presence of a number of assembled people, be that number large or small, the offender shall be deprived of all civil rights and exiled for life, with not less than six nor more than eight years of penal servitude.'
AMS3	60	7	"The next section, which deals with another aspect of the same crime, is as follows:--
AMS3	60	8	"'SECTION 177. If the offense described in the foregoing section [No. 176] be committed not in a public place nor before a large assemblage of people, but nevertheless in the presence of witnesses, with an intention to shake the faith of the latter, or lead them astray, the offender shall be deprived of all civil rights, and exiled for life to the most remote part of Siberia.'
AMS3	60	9	"SECTION 178 provides that 'whoever, with premeditation, in a public place and in the presence of a large or small assemblage of people, dares to censure [or condemn] the Christian faith, or the orthodox church, or to revile [or abuse] the sacred Scriptures or the holy sacraments [literally, "mysteries"], such person shall be deprived of all civil rights, and exiled for life, with not less than six nor more than eight years of penal servitude. If such crime shall be committed not in a public place nor in the presence of an assemblage of people, but nevertheless before witnesses, and with an intention to shake the latter's faith, and lead them astray [literally, "to seduce them"], the offender shall be deprived of all civil rights, and exiled for life to the most remote part of Siberia.'
AMS3	60	10	"SECTION 179 declares that if any person shall witness or have personal knowledge of the commission of the crimes set forth in sections 176-178, and shall fail to inform the authorities thereof, he shall be imprisoned for not less than four nor more than eight months, according to the circumstances of the case.
AMS3	60	11	"SECTION 181 is as follows: 'Whoever, in a printed work, or even in a written composition, if the latter be by him in any manner publicly circulated, indulges in blasphemy, or speaks opprobriously of the saints of the Lord, or condemns the Christian faith or the orthodox church, or reviles the sacred Scriptures or the holy sacraments, such person shall be deprived of all civil rights, and exiled for life to the most remote part of Siberia. The same punishment shall be inflicted upon all persons who knowingly sell, or in any other way publicly circulate, such works or compositions.'
AMS3	61	1	"SECTION 182 provides that 'all persons who shall be found guilty of so-called scoffing--that is, of making sneering or sarcastic gibes that show manifest disrespect for the rules or ceremonies of the orthodox church, or for Christianity in general--shall be imprisoned for not less than four nor more than eight months.'
AMS3	61	2	"It would be hard, I think, to find in the criminal laws of any other civilized State punishments of such severity attached to crimes of such a nature. In most countries an insulting or contemptuous reference, even in a church and during service, to the `Incorporeal Heavenly Powers' [the angels] would be regarded merely as a misdemeanor, and would be punished with a small fine, or with a brief term of imprisonment, as a disturbance of the public peace. In Russia, however, disrespectful remarks concerning the 'Saints of the Lord and their Images,' even although such remarks be made to three or four acquaintances, in the privacy of one's own house, may be punished with 'deprivation of all civil rights, and exile for life to the most remote part of Siberia'--that is, to the coast of the Arctic Ocean in the territory of Yakutsk....
AMS3	61	3	"Blasphemous or disrespectful remarks concerning holy persons or things are not, however, the only offenses contemplated by Title II, and included among 'Crimes against the Faith.' One whole chapter is devoted to heresy and dissent, and punishments of the most cruel severity are prescribed for adjuration of the orthodox faith, for secession from the true church, and for the public expression of Heretical opinions. Section 184, for example, provides that if a Jew or Mohammedan shall, by persuasion, deception, or other means, induce an orthodox Christian to renounce the true church and become an adherent of the Jewish or Mohammedan faith, he shall be deprived of all civil rights, and exiled for life, with not less than eight nor more than ten years of penal servitude.
AMS3	61	4	"SECTION 187 declares that if any person tempt or persuade an adherent of the Russo-Greek Church to leave that church and join some other Christian denomination, he shall be banished to Siberia for life.
AMS3	61	5	"SECTION 188 provides that if any person shall leave the orthodox church and join another Christian denomination, he shall be handed over to the ecclesiastical authorities for instruction and admonition; his minor children shall be taken into the custody of the Government; his real estate shall be put into the hands of an administrator; and until he abjures his errors he shall have no further control over either.
AMS3	61	6	"Parents who are required by law to bring up their children in the true faith, but who, in violation of that duty, cause such children to be christened or educated in accordance with the forms and tenets of any other Christian church, shall be imprisoned for not less than eight nor more than sixteen months. During such time the children shall be taken in charge by orthodox relatives, or shall be turned over to a guardian appointed by the Government. [Section 190.]
AMS3	61	7	"If a Jew or a Mohammedan shall marry an orthodox Christian and shall fail to bring up the children of such marriage in the orthodox faith, or shall throw obstacles in the way of the observance by such children of the rules and forms of the orthodox church, the marriage shall be dissolved, and the offender shall be exiled for life to the most remote part of Siberia. [Section 186.]
AMS3	61	8	"All persons who shall be guilty of aiding in the extension of existing sects, or who shall be instrumental in the creation of new sects hostile or injurous to the orthodox faith, shall be deprived of all civil rights, and exiled for life, either to Siberia or to the Trans-Caucasus. [Section 196.]
AMS3	61	9	"I met large numbers of dissenters exiled under this section, both in the Caucasus and in all parts of Siberia. It is the unvarying and universal testimony of both the civil and military officers of the Russian Government that these dissenting Christians form the most honest, the most temperate, the most industrious, and altogether the most valuable part of the whole population in the regions to which they have been banished. The ispravnik, or chief police officer, of Verkhni Udinsk, in Eastern Siberia, speaking to me of three or four settlements of dissenters in his okrug, or circuit, said: 'If all the people in my territory were only exiled heretics, I could shut up the jails and should have little or nothing to do; they are the best people within my jurisdiction.' I need hardly comment upon the cruel injustice of sending good citizens like these to the remotest part of Eastern Siberia simply because they do not believe in worshiping images and kissing bones, or because they cross themselves with two fingers instead of three.
AMS3	61	10	"It would be easy to fill pages with illustrative examples of the unjust and oppressive character of Russian penal legislation in the field of religious crime. Every paragraph fairly bristles with threats of 'imprisonment,' 'exile,' and 'penal servitude,' and the whole title seems to the occidental mind to breathe a spirit of bigotry and intolerance. One might perhaps expect to find such laws in a penal code of the Middle Ages; but they strike one as an extraordinary anachronism when they appear in a code which was revised and amended in the capital of a so-called Christian State in the year of our Lord 1885."
AMS3	61	11	And yet, in the face of such an infamous code as that, Prince Gortschakoff, Chancellor of the Russian Empire, declared, in 1871, that Russia is "the most tolerant country in the world." Now, with this Russian code and the Russian Chancellor's idea of tolerance, read the following proposition of the National Reform Association upon the subject of tolerance, as announced by Rev. Jonathan Edwards, D. D., one of its Vice-Presidents, bearing in mind that Mr. Edwards holds that all who oppose National Reform are atheists:--
AMS3	61	12	"What are the rights of the atheist? I would tolerate him as I would tolerate a poor lunatic.... So long as he does not rave, so long as he is not dangerous, I would tolerate him. I would tolerate him as I would a conspirator.... Yes, to this extent I will tolerate the atheist, but no more.... Tolerate atheism, sir? There is nothing out of hell that I would not tolerate as soon. The atheist may live, as I said, but, God helping us, the taint of his destructive creed shall not defile any of the civil institutions of all this fair land! Let us repeat, atheism and Christianity are contradictory terms. They are uncompatible systems. They cannot dwell together on the same continent."
AMS3	61	13	Let the reader compare this with the Russian Penal Code and Prince Gortschakoff's idea of tolerance, and then honestly say, if he can, whether the establishment of the National Reform principles in this Government would not be the establishment of the same sort of a despotism that now reigns in Russia--with the advantage, however, in favor of Russia. For whereas Russia will allow the victims of her tolerance to dwell on the same continent with her, the National Reformers will not allow the victims of their tolerance to dwell on the same continent with them. And yet we are compelled to contemplate, and are asked to condone, the fact that the Woman's Christian Temperance Union is a close and fond ally of the National Reform Association, and that Joseph Cook, President Seelye, Bishop Huntingdon, Dr. Crafts, and scores of others like them, are Vice-Presidents of it!
------------------------That Sunday Commandment
AMS3	62	1	IN the February SENTINEL, in reply to Mr. McConnell's first "open letter" to us, we asked him or any other of the National Reformers to cite us to a commandment of God for keeping Sunday. Mr. McConnell accepted the invitation, and in the Christian Nation of April 11, devoted to the task a six-column article, the columns the same size as those of the SENTINEL. But we did not ask for arguments, we asked for a commandment. We did not ask the National Reformers for statements of their own, we asked for a commandment of God.
AMS3	62	2	After four and a half columns of special pleading Mr. McConnell says:--
AMS3	62	3	"The most important testimony is that in Paul's letter to the Corinthian Church (1 Corinthians 16:2). This constitutes our warrant for observing the first day of the week as the rest day or Sabbath."
AMS3	62	4	Very well, now let us read 1 Corinthians 16:2, and see what it says. Here it is:--
AMS3	62	5	"Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come."
AMS3	62	6	And "this," says the Rev. W. T. McConnell, "constitutes our warrant for observing the first day of the week as the rest day or Sabbath." This then is the commandment for the keeping of Sunday, or the first day of the week, as a rest day! But what is said there about resting or about a rest day, or anything of the kind? Not a single word. It seems to us that anybody who can find in that a commandment for the keeping of a rest day, must be hard pushed and easily satisfied. But Mr. McConnell not only chooses to find there such a commandment, but he wants a National law which shall compel everybody else to keep Sunday because he chooses to find a warrant for it in a text which says not a word about it. He seems to be conscious of the weakness of his case, for he begs off, after this manner:--
AMS3	62	7	"If anyone has time or inclination to quibble about the possible interpretation of subordinate clauses in the verse quoted, let such please themselves, remembering, if they please, that 'the letter killeth but the spirit maketh alive.'"
AMS3	62	8	But we have no confidence in the leading of any spirit which leads, not only contrary to the letter of the word of God, but contrary to the whole spirit and purpose of the word of God. And that only such is W. T. McConnell's application and interpretation of this text, we shall conclusively show, and that in but few words. The whole connection in which the verse is found, is this: "Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come. And when I come, whomsoever ye shall approve by your letters, them will I send to bring your liberality unto Jerusalem. And if it be meet that I go also, they shall go with me." 1 Corinthians 16:1-4.
AMS3	63	1	From this it is seen at a glance that the subject of rest, or a rest day, was not in the apostle's thoughts at all, but that the direction is wholly concerning collections for the poor Christians; and that the matter might be systematically followed up, he directed that upon the first day of the week each one was to lay by him in store as God had prospered him, what he should choose to give for this purpose. But into this manifest and only purpose of the apostle's the Rev. W. T. McConnell proposes to read a "warrant for observing the first day of the week as the rest day, or Sabbath," and thereby to clothe himself and his fellow National Reformers with the prerogative of enforcing its observance, by National power, upon everybody in the Nation.
AMS3	63	2	The way in which Mr. McConnell gets into this text a warrant for the observance of a rest day is by claiming that that was the day on which the Corinthians met for worship, and that this text, in view of that, means that "it is more than likely that the money was separated from the rest to be put that day into the treasury of the church, if one existed."
AMS3	63	3	That is to say, When Paul said, "Let every one of you lay by him in store," the money he would send to the poor, he meant, Let every one of you put into the hands of others, as God hath prospered him. He meant no such thing. A year afterward he wrote again to the Corinthians on this very subject, and said to them:--
AMS3	63	4	"For as touching the ministering to the saints, it is superfluous for me to write to you; for I know the forwardness of your mind, for which I boast of you to them of Macedonia, that Achaia was ready a year ago; and your zeal hath provoked very many. Yet have I sent the brethren, lest our boasting of you should be in vain in this behalf; that, as I said, ye may be ready; lest haply if they of Macedonia come with me, and find you unprepared, we (that we say not, ye) should be ashamed in this same confident boasting. Therefore I thought it necessary to exhort the brethren, that they would go before unto you, and make up beforehand your bounty, whereof ye had notice before, that the same might be ready, as a matter of bounty, and not as of covetousness." 2 Corinthians 9:1-5.
AMS3	63	5	Now if Mr. McConnell's theory be correct, that the Corinthians were to separate this money from the rest and put it "that day into the treasury of the church," and if that is what Paul meant that they should do, then why should he think it "necessary" to send brethren to Corinth, before he should come, "to make up" this bounty, so "that it might be ready" when he came? If Mr. McConnell's invention be correct, what possible danger could there have been of anybody finding them "unprepared"? The truth is that Mr. McConnell's theory is contrary both to the Scripture and to the facts. And that is the "warrant" under authority of which the Rev. W. T. McConnell proposes to arrest the demon of Sabbath-breaking in this nation. Mr. McConnell, your warrant is bogus. It is forged.
AMS3	63	6	Further says Mr. McConnell:--
AMS3	63	7	"In giving this direction for the performance of religious duties, the apostle Paul, incidentally, but positively, locates a time for such duties in the Christian church at Corinth, but with the statement that he had given the same apostolic instructions to the other gentile churches, he extends the appointment of a day to all under the apostolic jurisdiction."
AMS3	63	8	Now for the sake of the argument, and for that reason only, let us grant all that Mr. McConnell here claims--suppose that we grant that in this scripture the apostle Paul extends the appointment of a day to all under the apostolic jurisdiction. Then we want to know by what right it is that the National Reformers claim the power to extend that appointment beyond the apostolic jurisdiction? The apostolic jurisdiction extends only to those within the bounds of the church. The bounds of the church extend only to those who voluntarily take upon them the obligations of the name of Christ. Those who are not members of the church are not under the apostolic jurisdiction. Again we ask, By what right is it that the National Reformers claim the power to enforce the apostolic instructions upon those who are not subject to the apostolic jurisdiction? It can be by no right whatever. It is downright usurpation. To attempt to extend the apostolic jurisdiction beyond the distinct bounds of the church of Christ, is of the very spirit of the Papacy. But this is precisely what the National Reformers propose to do. They intend to make National the power and jurisdiction of the church, and whoever will not submit to the appointments of the church cannot remain in the Nation. And that is but the Papacy over again.
AMS3	63	9	But Mr. McConnell and the National Reformers as such, are not alone in this project. Every person who claims the right to enforce the claims of the "Christian" Sabbath upon those who are not Christians is guilty of the same usurpation. No person who is not a Christian has any right to partake in any way in the celebration of Christian days or in the observance of Christian solemnities. If the Sabbath be, as is almost unanimously claimed, the Christian Sabbath, then not only have its advocates no right to enforce its observance upon those who are not Christians, but those who are not Christians have no right, even voluntarily, to observe it, any more than they have to partake of the Lord's Supper. Christian institutions and Christian ordinances are for Christians only.
AMS3	63	10	Then in closing Mr. McConnell makes his "application" thus:--
AMS3	63	11	"Now in closing, a word of application. The National Reform Association has a 'plain commandment' for its demand that the Nation shall by law direct the keeping of a rest day."
AMS3	63	12	And, according to the National Reform "warrant," the Nation shall direct the keeping of a rest day, by commanding everyone "upon the first day of the week" to "lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him." Is that it, Mr. McConnell? If not; by what right shall the Nation direct the observance of what is not in the "warrant"?
AMS3	63	13	Dear boy, you had better study your lesson some more, and try again.
			September 1888
------------------------The American Sentinel and the Woman's Christian Temperance Union
AMS3	65	1	THE SENTINEL has had occasion frequently to criticise some of the workings of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union. Upon the part of those who favor the establishment of a religious instead of a civil government here, this fact has been made the means of an attempt to create prejudice at the expense of the SENTINEL. They try to make it appear that the AMERICAN SENTINEL is opposed to temperance. We propose to make plain our attitude toward temperance in general and toward the Woman's Christian Temperance Union in particular.
AMS3	65	2	The AMERICAN SENTINEL is thoroughly and consistently devoted to the genuine principles of temperance. And what the SENTINEL considers to be the genuine principles of temperance can be stated in this single sentence, viz.: Total abstinence from all stimulants and narcotics of whatever kind or nature or degree. More than this, it is out of allegiance to Christian principle that the Sentinel is devoted to this principle of temperance. It is thorough-going Christian temperance in which the SENTINEL thoroughly believes. It is because allegiance to Christ demands that we shall be temperate in all things, that we advocate the principle of temperance. Both of the editors of the SENTINEL are doing their very best to act strictly in accordance with this principle of temperance. It must therefore be manifest to every soul that the AMERICAN SENTINEL is decidedly in favor of temperance, and Christian temperance at that. And in this it must likewise be manifest to everybody that whatever criticisms we have ever made, or shall ever make, upon the workings of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union, are not in any sense in opposition to the purest principles of Christian temperance.
AMS3	65	3	Although we are decidedly in favor of Christian temperance, and endeavor personally to practice it, and to persuade others to practice it, we are not in favor of using the civil power to compel anybody either to favor or to practice it. And when the Woman's Christian Temperance Union attempts, as it does, to use the civil power to compel people to conform to the principles of Christian temperance, it goes beyond its legitimate province, it acts contrary both to civil polity and Christian principle, and therefore we oppose it. Christian principle knows no such thing as outward force; it never seeks either the support or the control of the civil power. Christian principle knows only the force of conscientious conviction, aroused to action by persuasive reason, under the blessed influence of the Spirit of God. Christian principle knows no power but the power of God as manifested in the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. Believing this with all our heart, although we are decidedly in favor of temperance, of Christian temperance, of woman's Christian temperance, and even of woman's Christian temperance union, we are just as decidedly opposed to the political aspirations of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union.
AMS3	65	4	The Woman's Christian Temperance Union proposes to establish a theocracy in this country, and to that end demands that the ballot shall be put into the hands of women. Proof:--
AMS3	65	5	"A true theocracy is yet to come; ... hence I pray devoutly, as a Christian patriot, for the ballot in the hands of women, and rejoice that the National Woman's Christian Temperance Union has so long championed this cause."--W.C.T.U. Monthly Reading for September, 1886.
AMS3	65	6	Now the establishment of a man-made, or a woman-made, theocracy will be but a repetition of the establishment and working of the hideous principles of the Papacy, if not the establishment of the Papacy itself, in this country. The Papacy is a theocracy. Its workings throughout history have been but the practice of the principles of a man-made theocracy--such a theocracy as the Woman's Christian Temperance Union proposes to establish here by the ballot. The rule of such a theocracy is the wickedest rule that the world has known or can know.
AMS3	65	7	It puts man in the place of God, and deifies human passions; and such a régime is but one remove from that of Satan himself. Therefore, as such a theocracy is such a wicked thing, as it is such an utter perversion of every principle of government, we are entirely and everlastingly opposed to it. And as the National Woman's Christian Temperance Union is pledged to the establishment of such a theocracy, and rejoices that it has so long championed such a cause, we are entirely and everlastingly opposed to that part of the aims and workings of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union. And why should we be blamed for it?
AMS3	65	8	In order to the establishment of this theocracy here, they "pray devoutly for the ballot in the hands of women." But whenever the ballot is put into the hands of women, for any such purpose as that, then the ballot will be the worst thing that was ever put into the hands of a woman.
AMS3	66	1	Again; the SENTINEL is first, last, and all the time, opposed to the aims of the National Reform Association. That association likewise proposes to turn this Government into a theocracy, ruled by "the leaders and teachers in the churches." It declares that dissenters from National Reform opinions "cannot dwell together on the same continent" with the National Reformed Christianity; and that "there is nothing out of hell" that should not be "tolerated" as soon as these. In Senator Blair's proposed National Sunday law and constitutional amendment, both of which are now pending in the United States Senate, the National Reformers see taken the first steps toward making effective their "tolerant" intentions. Now the Woman's Christian Temperance Union is the closest ally, and the most powerful support, that the National Reform Association has in this Nation to-day. Many of the officers of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union are also vice-presidents of the National Reform Association. It was the Woman's Christian Temperance Union that first started the petitions for this National Sunday law, which pleases the National Reformers so well, and which so fitly plays into their hands; and the Union went before the Senate Committee with the names of one and a half million petitioners, and more to follow, in favor of that law which, in more than one of its provisions, is subversive of liberty, and which savors all over of tyranny. (See the judicial decision, in another part of this paper.) It is perfectly safe to say that from the position which she occupies, the present president of the National Woman's Christian Temperance Union, herself alone, is doing more to spread National Reform ideas and principles than are all the National Reform "District Secretaries" put together. And there are other leaders of the Union who are not much behind her in this bad accomplishment.
AMS3	66	2	Therefore, as we are totally opposed to the aims of the National Reform Association, and as the Woman's Christian Temperance Union is the most powerful support of that association, we are, consequently, totally opposed to that part of the workings of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union. And why should we not be?
AMS3	66	3	Nor is this all. We view with grave apprehensions the encroachments of the Papal power, on its own part, upon the civil institutions of this Government. Everybody knows that the Papacy has never wearied of condemning our public schools because they are not made the medium of religious instruction. The National Reform Association and its allies now echo the Papal condemnation, and seek to remove the cause of it, by the pending amendment to the National Constitution, in which the National power is pledged to see that every State "shall establish and maintain" a system of religious public schools. Now to secure this and the co-operation of the Papacy at the same time, the National Reform Association agrees that the Catholic Bible, and Catholic instruction, shall be established in the public schools wherever "Roman Catholics are in the majority." And also in securing and enforcing the pending National Sunday law, the National Reformers pledge themselves to "gladly join hands" with the Roman Catholics, and to make repeated advances to secure the co-operation of the Roman Catholics "in any form in which they may be willing to exhibit it." Therefore the two points,--the National Sunday law, and religion in the public schools,--upon which the Woman's Christian Temperance Union is diligently working to secure National religious legislation, are the very points upon which the National Reform Association stands pledged to unite with the Papacy.
AMS3	66	4	Now the Woman's Christian Temperance Union supports the National Reform Association. The National Reform Association is pledged to Rome. Rome stands, pledged forever to the subversion of every principle of liberty. Therefore, as we are forever opposed to the encroachments of Rome, so we are forever opposed to that part of the working of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union which supports the National Reform Association, which is pledged to Rome. And why should we not be opposed to it? And why should not everybody else be opposed to it?
AMS3	66	5	We know that there are many of the women of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union who do not favor the political, nor the theocratical, nor the National Reform, aspirations of the leaders of the Union. We know a number of women who have separated themselves from the workings of the Union because of the very things which we have here pointed out. They joined the Union to work for Christian temperance upon Christian principles, and to secure the practice of Christian temperance by Christian means. But when they saw that by the leadership of the Union, political efforts and means were supplanting the Christian principles, efforts, and means, they left it. They did well to leave it. And so will every other woman do well to leave it, who does not want to be sold into the hands of Rome through the political, theocratical, and National Reform aspirations of the present leadership of the National Woman's Christian Temperance Union.
AMS3	66	6	We only pray that the whole body of the Union, leadership and all, may awake to the danger of their position before they shall have delivered the civil power, and themselves and us all with it, into the hands of a religious despotism.
------------------------The Savor of Tyranny
AMS3	67	1	SENATOR BLAIR'S National Sunday Bill declares that no person shall "engage in any play, game, or amusement, or recreation, to the disturbance of others on the first day of the week, commonly called the Lord's day, or during any part thereof." Some of the States already have the same sort of Sunday laws as this. California has no Sunday law, much less one of this kind. But not long ago the city of San Francisco had, on another subject, an ordinance of the same nature as this passage in the National Sunday Bill. San Francisco has no such ordinance now, however; the merit of the ordinance came up before the Superior Court, and the whole thing was treated with the contempt which all such statutes only deserve.
AMS3	67	2	The ordinance read as follows:--
AMS3	67	3	"No person shall in any place indulge in conduct having a tendency to annoy persons passing or being upon the public highway or upon adjacent premises."
AMS3	67	4	A man by the name of Ferdinand Pape was distributing some circulars on the street, which had "a tendency to annoy" somebody; he was arrested. He applied to the Superior Court for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that the offense charged against him did not constitute a crime, and that the ordinance making such action an offense was invalid and void, because it was unreasonable and uncertain. The report of the case says:--
AMS3	67	5	"The writ was made returnable before Judge Sullivan, and argued by Henry Hutton in behalf of the imprisoned offender. Disposing of the question, the Judge gave quite a lengthy written opinion, in which he passed a somewhat severe criticism upon the absurdity of the contested ordinance, and discharged Pape from custody. Said the Judge:--
AMS3	67	6	"If the order be law, enforceable by fine and imprisonment, it is a crime to indulge in any conduct, however innocent and harmless in itself, and however unconsciously done, which has a tendency to annoy other persons. The rival tradesman who passes one's store with an observant eye as to the volume of business is guilty of a crime, because the very thought of rivalry and reduction of business has a tendency to annoy. The passing of the most lenient creditor has a tendency to annoy, because it is a reminder of obligations unfulfilled. The passing of a well-clad, industrious citizen, bearing about him the evidence of thrift, has a tendency to annoy the vagabond, whose laziness reduces him to a condition of poverty and discontent. The importunities of the newsboy who endeavors with such persistent energy to dispose of his stock, has a tendency to annoy the prominent citizen who has already read the papers, or who expects to find them at his door as he reaches home. He who has been foiled in an attempted wrong upon the person or property of another, finds a tendency to annoy in the very passing presence of the person whose honesty or ingenuity has circumvented him. And so instances might be multiplied indefinitely in which the most harmless and inoffensive conduct has a tendency to annoy others. If the language of the ordinance defines a criminal offense, it sets a very severe penalty of liberty and property upon conduct lacking in the essential element of criminality.
AMS3	68	1	"'But it may be said that courts and juries will not use the instrumentality of this language to set the seal of condemnation on unoffending citizens, and to unjustly deprive them of their liberty and brand them as criminals. The law countenances no such dangerous doctrine, countenances no principle so subversive of liberty as that the life or liberty of a subject should be made to depend upon the whim or caprice of judge or jury, by exercising a discretion in determining that certain conduct does or does not come within the inhibition of a criminal action. The law should be engraved so plainly and distinctly on the legislative tablets that it can be discerned alike by all subjects of the commonwealth, whether judge upon the bench, juror in the box, or prisoner at the bar. Any condition of the law which allows the test of criminality to depend on the whim or caprice of judge or juror savors of tyranny. The language employed is broad enough to cover conduct which is clearly within the constitutional rights of the citizen. It designates no border-line which divides the criminal from the non-criminal conduct. Its terms are too vague and uncertain to lay down a rule of conduct. In my judgment the portion of the ordinance here involved is uncertain and unreasonable.'"
AMS3	68	2	This decision applies with full force to Senator Blair's proposed National Sunday law. Under that law all that would be necessary to subject any person to a criminal prosecution, would be for him to engage in any sort of play, or game, or amusement, or recreation, on Sunday, because there are many of those rigid National Reformers who would be very much "disturbed" by any such amusement or recreation, however, innocent it might be in itself. And it is left entirely to the whim or the caprice of the "disturbed" one, or of the judge or jury, to say whether the action has really disturbed him or not.
AMS3	68	3	The California decision is, that such a statute "sets a very severe penalty of liberty and property upon conduct lacking in the essential element of criminality." California courts "countenance no such dangerous doctrine, countenance no principle so subversive of liberty," or which so "savors of tyranny." It is very likely that should Senator Blair's Bill be enacted into a law, the United States courts would decide in the same way as did the Superior Court of California. But it is an exceedingly ominous sign, and one most startling in the danger which it displays, when a bill which so "savors of tyranny," and which embodies a principle so "subversive of liberty," can be introduced into the National Legislature, can be received and reported favorably, can pass two readings, can be spread broadcast throughout the land, and only one single voice--that of the AMERICAN SENTINEL--be raised against it.
AMS3	68	4	The American people have so long enjoyed the liberty, which has been justly their boast, that they seem, from appearances, to think that now they can lie down safely and hibernate undisturbed for all time to come. We wonder what can ever awaken them. "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty;" but "corrupted freemen are the worst of slaves.
------------------------The National Establishment of the Christian Religion
AMS3	69	1	THAT amendment to the National Constitution that has been offered by Senator Blair, and which is now pending in Congress, is a singular sort of a document, though hardly any more so than was to be expected in the promotion of the scheme which underlies it, i.e., the establishment of a National religion. The proposed amendment is just about as flatly self-contradictory as any proposition could be. Section 1 reads as follows:--
AMS3	69	2	"No State shall ever make or maintain any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
AMS3	69	3	The first sentence of section 2 reads as follows:--
AMS3	69	4	"Each State in this Union shall establish and maintain a system of free public schools adequate to the education of all the children living therein, between the ages of six and sixteen years, inclusive, in the common branches of knowledge, and in virtue, morality and the principles of Christian religion."
AMS3	69	5	That is to say, No State shall ever make or maintain a law respecting an establishment of religion; but every State in this Union shall make and maintain laws establishing the principles of the Christian religion. And to make assurance doubly sure, section 3 declares that--
AMS3	69	6	"The United States shall guaranty to every State, and to the people of every State and of the United States, the support and maintenance of such a system of the free public schools as is herein provided."
AMS3	69	7	And that is to say that the United States Government pledges itself that every State shall establish and maintain the principles of the Christian religion. This proposed amendment therefore, at one stroke, establishes Christianity as the National religion, because it declares that every State shall maintain the principles of the Christian religion in the public schools, and the Nation is pledged to see that this is done. Therefore there must be a National decision of some kind declaring just what are the principles of the Christian religion. Then when that decision shall have been made, every State will have to receive from the Nation just those principles of religion which the Nation shall have declared to be the principles of the Christian religion, and which the Nation will have pledged itself shall be taught in the public schools of every State. In other words, the people of the United States will then have to receive their religion from the Government of the United States. Therefore, if Senator Blair's proposed amendment to the National Constitution does not provide for the establishment and maintenance of a National religion, then no religion was ever established or maintained in this world.
AMS3	69	8	But how shall this National decision be made as to what are the principles of the Christian religion? It would seem that the second sentence of section 2 makes provision for this. It declares that no "instruction or training shall be given in the doctrines, tenets, belief, ceremonials, or observances peculiar to any sect, denomination, organization, or society, being, or claiming to be, religious in its character; nor shall such peculiar doctrines, tenets, beliefs, ceremonials, or observances, be taught or inculcated in the free public schools."
AMS3	69	9	As therefore no religious tenets, doctrines, or beliefs can be taught in the schools, except such as are common to all denominations of the Christian religion, it will follow inevitably that there shall be officially called a National council of the churches to decide what are the principles common to all, and to establish a National creed, which shall be enforced and inculcated by National power in all the public schools in the United States. And that will be but the establishment of a National religion. And that is exactly what Senator Blair's constitutional amendment assures, so surely as it or anything similar to it shall ever be adopted. And that is what the National Reformers intend shall be.
AMS3	69	10	It was in this way precisely that the thing was worked in the fourth century. Constantine made Christianity the recognized religion of the Roman Empire. Then it became at once necessary that there should be an imperial decision as to what form of Christianity should be the imperial religion. To effect this an imperial council was necessary to formulate that phase of Christianity which was common to all. The Council of Nice was convened by imperial command, and an imperial creed was established, which was enforced by imperial power. That establishment of an imperial religion ended only in the imperious despotism of the Papacy.
AMS3	69	11	As surely as the complete establishment of the Papacy followed, and grew out of, that imperial recognition of Christianity in the fourth century, just so surely will the complete establishment of a religious despotism after the living likeness of the Papacy, follow, and grow out of, this National recognition of Christianity provided for in the constitutional amendment proposed by Senator Blair, and which is now pending in Congress.
			October 1888
------------------------Rome and the Public Schools
AMS3	70	1	ONE day in the late Convention of the National Educational Association, Professor Morgan, of Rhode Island, in replying to criticisms upon the public school, said that the opposition to the public schools comes from Roman Catholicism. The next day the following "open letter to the heads of the departments of the National Educational Association," appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle. The writer is chancellor of the archdiocese of San Francisco:--
AMS3	70	2	GENTLEMEN: When the National Educational Convention, now in session in this city, and over which you preside, began its work, we were told that the great object of the convention was in the assembled wisdom of numbers to compare methods, to interchange ideas, and unify the best methods of promoting the object of the public schools.
AMS3	70	3	We were naturally led to suppress that one other object would be carefully kept in view, namely, to maintain inviolate the boasted characteristic of the public-system of this country, namely, its non-sectarian character.
AMS3	70	4	Now, gentlemen, while these expectations were most reasonable, I beg to express what I believe to be the feeling of the great Catholic body of this community, including, I feel assured, every Catholic teacher in that convention, whether living here or coming hither from elsewhere, namely, our utter amazement at seeing your sessions regularly opened with prayer by Protestant ministers, representing the various Protestant denominations of this city.
AMS3	70	5	This we might have tolerated to gratify those who delight to pray in public places, but we certainly cannot permit to go, without a respectful protest, such remarks as the following. I quote from this evening's Bulletin. The report given of the gentlemen's words is substantially the same in the Post and the Report. Prof. Thomas J. Morgan, of Rhode Island, said:--
AMS3	70	6	"This rising opposition to the public schools comes from Roman Catholicism, and this opposition means nothing but their destruction--with them a destruction of our civilization, of our liberties, a return to the horrors of the Middle Ages."
AMS3	70	7	It is stated that these words were received with cheers and with hisses, but it is not said that these sentiments were repudiated by your presiding officer. Perhaps it was not his duty to do so. But if not, it is due the public to say that these sentiments are an insult to, and an outrage upon, the feelings of half the community in which this convention is sitting; an outrage upon the feelings of a large number of teachers composing that convention; an insult to the largest body of Christians in this great and free country, where, until now, it was supposed that no law, not even a school law, should operate or permit such insult. Since the Catholic body of this country pays more taxes than any other body of Christians to support these schools, shall we then be insulted and outraged and have no means of redress? I ask the fair-minded of every shade of opinion if this is not true.
AMS3	71	1	It is not true that "this rising opposition to the public-school system comes from Roman Catholicism" alone. Some of the best and purest men and the ablest and profoundest thinkers outside of Roman Catholicism are as much opposed to it as Catholicism is.
AMS3	71	2	Gentlemen, is it fair, is it honest, to oblige teachers to attend that convention under pain of incurring the displeasure of the School Board, and thus insult them in this way? I ask the heads of this convention to answer.
AMS3	71	3	Very respectfully,
AMS3	71	4	GEORGE MONTGOMERY.
AMS3	71	5	San Francisco, July 19, 1888.
AMS3	71	6	The following is Professor Morgan's reply:--
AMS3	71	7	To the Editor of the Chronicle--SIR: Will you kindly allow me space for a very brief reply to Rev. Father Montgomery's "protest" against my remarks yesterday, which you publish to-day?
AMS3	71	8	I assume all responsibility for my utterances and do not wish "the heads of departments" to be censured for what I have said.
AMS3	71	9	I wish, however, to disclaim any intention of "insulting" my Roman Catholic fellow-citizens. Some of the best friends I have in the world are Roman Catholics. If in the hurry of a three-minute utterance on a great theme I used any words that could be regarded as insulting, I greatly regret it.
AMS3	71	10	he point I wanted to make was this: I was asked, What answer can we give to the criticism made upon the public schools that they fail to cultivate the religious sentiment or to teach morality? My reply was that a part of this criticism from the Roman Catholics, and I asserted that the Catholics who make it would be satisfied with nothing less than the destruction of the public schools and the substitution therefor of parochial schools. In other words, the charge that the public schools are "godless" means that they are not Roman Catholic, and should be destroyed.
AMS3	71	11	Not to multiply authorities, let me cite the words of Rev. F. T. McCarthy, S. J., used in a sermon reported in the Boston Journal, December 23, 1887. He says the public-school system "is a national fraud." "It must cease to exist, and the day will come when it will cease to exist." "There are some 8,000,000 Catholics in the United States, and they protest against this institution." "It is subversive of the rights of the individual, subversive of the rights of the family, subversive of the rights of religion, and subversive of the divine rights of God himself." The States "have no right to educate." "God never gave a commission to the State to educate." He asserts that if Catholics patronize the "godless" public schools, when they have other schools to send to, "they are guilty of mortal sin."
AMS3	71	12	The priest, whose words I am quoting, declares that he is not "giving his opinion," but laying down "the teachings of the church."
AMS3	72	1	I respectfully submit that if Rev. Mr. McCarthy correctly represents the Catholics then they are in favor of the absolute overthrow of the American public-school system, and the criticism on the schools that they are godless is not made with a view of improving them, but is intended to undermine and destroy them.
AMS3	72	2	As a teacher, a member and an officer of the National Educational Association; as a friend of the public-school system; as one who believes that our free Government rests upon the virtue and intelligence of our people--I felt at liberty when called upon to answer the grave criticism made upon our schools, to point out the animus of the criticism, so that we may know for what we are contending.
AMS3	72	3	If Father Montgomery and the Catholics of the Pacific Coast agree with Father McCarthy, of Boston, I do not see that they have anything to complain of in what I have said. If, however, they do not accept his teachings, if they are the friends of the public schools, no one will rejoice over that fact more sincerely than I will.
AMS3	72	4	THOMAMS J. MORGAN.
AMS3	72	5	San Francisco, July 19, 1888.
AMS3	72	6	We shall not attempt to add anything to Professor Morgan's reply, as to the merits of the case; but there are two expressions used by the priest to which we would call attention for a moment.
AMS3	72	7	The first of these is that in which he speaks repeatedly of Professor Morgan's words being an "insult and an outrage." Priest Montgomery knows that the Professor states the fact. Priest Montgomery, and everybody else, knows that Roman Catholicism, everywhere and always, is opposed to our public-school system. Everybody knows that Professor Morgan stated the fact. And it is neither an insult nor an outrage publicly to state what is publicly known. The priest says there are some outside of Roman Catholicism who "are as much opposed to it [the public school] as Catholicism is." Whoever outside of Roman Catholicism opposes the public-school system is but a Roman Catholic in disguise, for the principle of his opposition is essentially Roman Catholic. More than this, nine-tenths of those who oppose the public-school system, outside of the Catholic Church, do so expressly to please the Catholics and so secure their co-operation in carrying into operation certain religio-political schemes which both have in view, and which will end in that which Roman Catholicism has long desired--the destruction of the American public-school system.
AMS3	72	8	The other expression is that in which the priest says that "to gratify those who love to pray in public places," the Roman Catholics "might have tolerated" the opening of the sessions of the convention "with prayer by Protestant ministers, representing the various Protestant denominations." Mr. Montgomery should be told that the American people know no such word as "tolerate." "What other nations call religious toleration we call religious rights." That Educational Convention had the right to have its sessions opened with prayer by anybody whom it should choose, or opened without prayer at all, just as it should choose. And when Mr. Montgomery talks of "tolerating" it, he casts a slur upon every man who has any respect for himself. In 1827 Lord Stanhope said: "The time was when toleration was craved by dissenters as a boon; it is now demanded as a right; but a time will come when it will be spurned as an insult." That time has now come. And every man who is acquainted with the true principle of liberty will consider it an insult when anybody, be he so-called Protestant or straight-out Catholic, proposes any such thing as religious "toleration." The vocabulary of American ideas knows no such word as "toleration;" it asserts RIGHTS.
------------------------The Savor of Tyranny
AMS3	75	1	SENATOR BLAIR'S National Sunday Bill declares that no person shall "engage in any play, game, or amusement, or recreation, to the disturbance of others on the first day of the week, commonly called the Lord's day, or during any part thereof." Some of the States already have the same sort of Sunday laws as this. California has no Sunday law, much less one of this kind. But not long ago the city of San Francisco had, on another subject, an ordinance of the same nature as this passage in the National Sunday Bill. San Francisco has no such ordinance now, however; the merit of the ordinance came up before the Supreme Court, and the whole thing was treated with the contempt which all such statutes only deserve.
AMS3	75	2	he ordinance read as follows:--
AMS3	75	3	No person shall in any place indulge in conduct having a tendency to annoy persons passing or being upon the public highway or upon adjacent premises."
AMS3	75	4	 man by the name of Ferdinand Pape was distributing some circulars on the street, which had "a tendency to annoy" somebody; he was arrested. He applied to the Superior Court for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that the offense charged against him did not constitute a crime, and that the ordinance making such action an offense was invalid and void, because it was unreasonable and uncertain. The report of the case says:--
AMS3	75	5	The writ was made returnable before Judge Sullivan, and argued by Henry Hutton in behalf of the imprisoned offender. Disposing of the question, the Judge gave quite a lengthy written opinion, in which he passed a somewhat severe criticism upon the absurdity of the contested ordinance, and discharged Pape from custody. Said the Judge:--
AMS3	75	6	'If the order be law, enforceable by fine and imprisonment, it is a crime to indulge in any conduct, however innocent and harmless in it-self, and however unconsciously done, which has a tendency to annoy other persons. The rival tradesman who passes one's store with an observant eye as to the volume of business is guilty of a crime, because the very thought of rivalry and reduction of business has a tendency to annoy. The passing of the most lenient creditor has a tendency to annoy, because it is a reminder of obligations unfulfilled. The passing of a well-clad, industrious citizen, bearing about him the evidence of thrift, has a tendency to annoy the vagabond, whose laziness reduces him to a condition of poverty and discontent. The importunities of the newsboy who endeavors with such persistent energy to dispose of his stock, has a tendency to annoy the prominent citizen who has already read the papers, or who expects to find them at his door as he reaches home. He who has been foiled in an attempted wrong upon the person or property of another, finds a tendency to annoy in the very passing presence of the person whose honesty or ingenuity has circumvented him. And so instances might be multiplied indefinitely in which the most harmless and inoffensive conduct has a tendency to annoy others. If the language of the ordinance defines a criminal offense, it sets a very severe penalty of liberty and property upon conduct lacking in the essential element of criminality.
AMS3	75	7	'But it may be said that courts and juries will not use the instrumentality of this language to set the seal of condemnation on unoffending citizens, and to unjustly deprive them of their liberty and brand them as criminals. The law countenances no such dangerous doctrine, countenances no principle so subversive of liberty as that the life or liberty of a subject should be made to depend upon the whim or caprice of judge or jury, by exercising a discretion in determining that certain conduct does or does not come within the inhibition of a criminal action. The law should be engraved so plainly and distinctly on the legislative tables that it can be discerned alike by all subjects of the commonwealth, whether judge upon the bench, juror in the box, or prisoner at the bar. Any condition of the law which allows the test of criminality to depend on the whim or caprice of judge or juror savors of tyranny. The language employed is broad enough to cover conduct which is clearly within the constitutional rights of the citizen. It designates no border-line which divides the criminal from the non-criminal conduct. Its terms are too vague and uncertain to lay down a rule of conduct. In my judgment the portion of the ordinance here involved is uncertain and unreasonable.'"
AMS3	75	8	This decision applies with full force to Senator-Blair's proposed National Sunday law. Under that law all that would be necessary to subject any person to a criminal prosecution, would be for him to engage in any sort of play, or game, or amusement, or recreation, on Sunday, because there are many of those rigid National Reformers who would be very much "disturbed" by any such amusement or recreation, however innocent it might be in itself. And it is left entirely to the whim or the caprice of the "disturbed" one, or of the judge or jury, to say whether the action has really disturbed him or not.
AMS3	75	9	The California decision is, that such a statute "sets a very severe penalty of liberty and property upon conduct lacking in the essential element of criminality." California courts "countenance no such dangerous doctrine, countenance no principle so subversive of liberty," or which so "savors of tyranny." It is very likely that should Senator Blair's bill be enacted into a law, the United States courts would decide in the same way as did the Superior Court of California. But it is an exceedingly ominous sign, and one most startling in the danger which it displays, when a bill which so "savors of tyranny," and which embodies a "principle so subversive of liberty," can be introduced into the National Legislature, can be received and reported favorably, can pass two readings, can be spread broadcast throughout the land, and only one single voice--that of the AMERICAN SENTINEL--be raised against it.
AMS3	76	1	The American people have so long enjoyed the liberty which has been justly their boast, that they seem, from appearances, to think that now they can lie down safely and hibernate undisturbed for all time to come. We wonder what can ever awaken them. "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty;" but "corrupted freemen are the worst of slaves."
			"The Sentinel and the Woman's Christian Temperance Union" American Sentinel 3, 10, pp. 78, 79.
AMS3	78	1	THE following letter is from a thorough-going National Reformer. We willingly give it space.
AMS3	78	2	EDITORS AMERICAN SENTINEL: Your last month's article, under the head of "The AMERICAN SENTINEL and the Woman's Christian Temperance Union," and signed "A. T. J.," will bear criticism; and I hope you will permit a friend of the Woman's Union to write a word in their defense.
AMS3	78	3	1. Your assertion that the W. C. T. U. is in favor of using the civil power to compel people to favor or to practice Christian temperance, or to compel people to conform to the principles of temperance, is unfair because it is untrue. No temperance society known to the writer is "in favor of using the civil power to compel anybody either to favor or to practice" temperance. Yet all agree that no license should be granted to sell liquor to common drinkers. But there is a vast difference between "compelling people to favor or practice temperance" and compelling men to desist from selling poison to people who wish to poison themselves.
AMS3	78	4	3. You err when you say that "Christian principle knows no power but the power of God as manifested in the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ." This is a grave error. There is a divine power in law as well as in the gospel. God is the Author of both. "The powers that be are ordained of God." That means civil powers. "There is no power but of God." This, too, includes civil power. "He beareth not the sword in vain." This means the civil men; and he who "resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God." If civil government has not the power to pass civil law to prohibit the liquor traffic, then it bears the sword in vain. "The law was made for man-stealers." This means civil law. And there is power as well as majesty in law, because all righteous law is from God, the source of all power. And "rulers," civil rulers, legislators, governments, "are not a terror to good works, but to the evil." The SENTINEL knows very well what kind of works, whether good or evil, are perpetrated by saloonists. The women are worthy of commendation, not of censure, for endeavoring to bring the power of civil law to bear against saloons. Your charge against the W. C. T. U. is unjust. All temperance prohibitionists wish the power of law to be brought to bear against the ruinous traffic.
AMS3	78	5	And why should not Christian women, as well as Christian men, desire civil prohibition? Why are you so "decidedly opposed" to such "political aspirations of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union"?
AMS3	78	6	That I may not occupy too much of your space, what I wish to say further in defense of the women must be deferred until your next number.
			N. R. JOHNSTON.
AMS3	79	1	Mr. Johnston's denial on behalf of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union Convention of 1887 declared "Christ and his law to be the supreme authority in National as in individual life," and in other places it is added, "to whose laws all human laws should conform." Human laws are made to be enforced; if not enforced they are a nullity. If therefore the law of Christ is of supreme authority in National life, and human laws are to conform to it, then the enforcement of such laws can be nothing else than to compel men to practice Christian duties, whether of temperance or any other. Our assertion is only the logic of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union premises. It is therefore neither unfair nor untrue.
AMS3	79	2	We know full well that "the powers that be are ordained of God;" we also know that though they are ordained of God, they are not ordained to exercise any authority in things which pertain to God. The civil powers are ordained only to the exercise of power in civil things, and not at all in moral or religious things.
AMS3	79	3	"Christian women as well as Christian men" should "desire civil prohibition;" but it is essentially religious prohibition that is desired by both the W. C. T. U. and the Prohibition party, and not the religious prohibition of the liquor traffic alone, but the religious prohibition of things that are not irreligious nor even uncivil. And that is why we are "so 'decidedly opposed'" to the political aspirations of the W. C. T. U., and the religious aspirations of the Prohibition party.
			November 1888
------------------------Joseph Cook and Roman Catholicism
AMS3	80	1	IN the prelude to the 201st Boston Monday lecture, Joseph Cook discussed the attitude of the Catholic Church toward the public school. He said:--
AMS3	80	2	"Roman Catholic authorities wholly deny to civil government the right to conduct the secular education of all the people, and intend to apply to the United States, as soon as the opportunity permits, the same educational principles which have kept the mass of the populations of Roman Catholic countries in a state of intellectual childhood. The Popes have often declared that the toleration of schools not under the control of the Catholic Church is a sin on the part of the civil government."
AMS3	80	3	He referred to James Anthony Froude's statement that in his late visit to the West Indies he held a long conversation with a Catholic ecclesiastic from America, in which the discussion ranged through a long course of history, and he found that on nearly every point they differed as to matters of fact. "And the outcome of the conversation was to open the eyes of the English historian to the fact that the most systematic mutilation of history goes on in the Roman Catholic schools on the American as well as on the European side of the Atlantic."
AMS3	80	4	He quoted from the Catholic World these words:--
AMS3	80	5	"We, of course, deny the competency of the State to educate, to say what shall or shall not be taught in the public schools."
AMS3	80	6	And these:--
AMS3	80	7	"Before God, no man has a right to be of any religion but the Catholic."
AMS3	80	8	And from a paper entitled The Catholics of the Nineteenth Century, he quoted this:--
AMS3	80	9	"The supremacy asserted for the church in matters of education implies the additional and cognate functions of censorship of ideas, and the right to examine and approve, or disapprove, all books, publications, writings, and utterances in-tended for public instruction, enlightenment, or entertainment, and the supervision of places of amusement."
AMS3	80	10	And yet this same Joseph Cook is a vice-president of an Association which stands pledged to join hands with Rome whenever she is ready, and gladly to accept co-operation in any way in which she is willing to exhibit it; and to put the Catholic Bible, and Catholic instruction, into the public schools wherever the Catholics are in the majority. In a National Reform Conference held at Saratoga, August 15-17, 1887, during which Joseph Cook made a speech, the corresponding secretary of the National Reform Association, of which Joseph Cook is a vice-president, was asked this question:--
AMS3	80	11	"If we put the Protestant Bible in the schools where Protestants are in the majority, how could we object to the Douay version [the Roman Catholic Bible] in schools where Roman Catholics are in the majority?"
AMS3	80	12	And the corresponding secretary answered--"We wouldn't object."
AMS3	80	13	Further along in the proceedings we have the following record:--
AMS3	80	14	"Rev. Dr. Price, of Tennessee: 'I wish to ask the secretary, Has any attempt ever been made by the National Reform Association to ascertain whether a consensus, or agreement, could be reached with our Roman Catholic fellow-citizens, whereby we may unite in support of the schools as they do in Massachusetts?'
AMS3	80	15	"The secretary: 'I regret to say there has not ... But I recognize it as a wise and dutiful course on the part of all who are engaged in, or who discuss, the work of education, to make the effort to secure such an agreement.
AMS3	80	16	"Dr. Price: 'I wish to move that the National Reform Association be requested by this conference to bring this matter to the attention of American educators and of Roman Catholic authorities, with a view of securing such a basis of agreement if possible.'
AMS3	80	17	"The motion was seconded and adopted."
AMS3	80	18	That is what the National Reform Association is pledged and commissioned to do; Joseph Cook took an active part in that same conference; and he is yet a vice-president of that Association, exerting his influence for its success. In view of these facts Joseph Cook's position is rather "amphibious." His Boston Monday lecture compared with his official connection with this Association reveals a course which, to say the least, is highly inconsistent.
AMS3	80	19	Note, in the above quotation they propose to secure this agreement with the Catholics "in support of the schools as they do in Massachusetts." Upon this the action of the Catholic school board of Boston in banishing from the Boston schools Swinton's "Outlines of History," is a most telling comment. That is how the Catholics unite with Protestants (?) in support of the schools in Massachusetts; and that is just how the National Reform Association--Joseph Cook a vice-president--proposes that the Catholics shall unite with Protestants throughout the Nation. In other words, that association proposes to hand over the American public-school system, as far as possible, to the Catholic Church.
AMS3	80	20	But Mr. Cook proposes a remedy for this "Roman Catholic aggression," which he, as vice-president of the National Reform Association, is helping forward; and it is this:--
AMS3	81	1	"We must teach in the common schools, in an unsectarian way, the broad, undisputed principles of morals and religion as to which good men agree, and thus stop the mouths of those who say that the American common schools may be justly called godless."
AMS3	81	2	That is, he will cure the disease either by increasing it, or by introducing another not quite so bad at first, but with the moral certainty that it will soon grow fully as bad.
AMS3	81	3	Teach in the schools, says Mr. Cook, those "principles of morals and religion as to which good men agree;' that is, the "good men" of all denominations, of course, because the teaching is to be wholly unsectarian. And these good men would certainly be the representative men of the different denominations, as Dr. Schaff, in telling what parts of the Bible should be taught, says:--
AMS3	81	4	"A competent committee of clergymen and laymen of all denominations could make a judicious selection which would satisfy every reasonable demand."
AMS3	81	5	That gives it wholly to the church to say what shall or shall not be taught in the public schools; and that is precisely the declaration of the Catholic Church as quoted from the Catholic World by Joseph Cook himself. If Mr. Cook would confine to Protestants the exercise of this prerogative that is not much relief, for the principle is the same as the Catholic, and the exercise of it by a Protestant censorship would be scarcely less unbearable than by a Catholic censorship.
AMS3	81	6	But it could not be confined even to a Protestant censorship; for Senator Blair's proposed Constitutional Amendment, which Joseph Cook heartily indorses, distinctly specifies "the Christian religion." Now the leading Protestants acknowledge the Catholic to be an important branch of the Christian religion. Therefore, amongst these "good men" suggested by Mr. Cook, and that "competent committee of clergymen and laymen" mentioned by Dr. Schaff, there would assuredly be numbered "good" Cardinal Gibbons, and a troop of "good" archbishops and bishops of the Catholic Church. And when it shall have been decided arid settled just what principles of religion shall be taught in the public schools, they will be such principles as will be satisfactory to the Catholic Church, which will only open the way for the Catholic Church to enter the public school and teach the Catholic religion at the public expense. And that is precisely what Joseph Cook's "remedy" amounts to--it only fastens the disease more firmly upon the victim.
AMS3	81	7	As the principle laid down by him is essentially Catholic, it was hardly to be expected that he would leave the subject without supporting his Catholic principle by Catholic doctrine and argument, accordingly he says:--
AMS3	81	8	"With a rule excusing children from any religious exercise to which their parents object, the private right of conscience need not come into conflict with public rights. It is a legal principle that where the right of society and the right of the individual come into conflict, the former is deemed paramount. We need not insist on making religious exercises compulsory against the will of parents; but it is preposterous to suppose that because a Jew objects to our Sabbath laws therefore we must repeal the Sabbath laws for the whole Nation. Shall we allow the fly to rule the coach-wheel upon which he happens to sit?"
AMS3	81	9	Any public speaker who would count, even by comparison, the consciences and the rights of men, as worthy of no more consideration than a fly, ought not to be listened to. But such views of the consciences and the rights of the minority have ever been those of the National Reformers, and although Mr. Cook has been a vice-president of the National Reform Association only about two years, he appears already to be entirely worthy of the position. These views moreover are being popularized very fast by the influential politico-religious leaders, such as Joseph Cook and his W. C. T. U.-Prohibition-National-Reform confreres.
------------------------The Banished Book
AMS3	82	1	BY the exclusion of that little book from the public schools of Boston, there has been revived considerable notice of the subject of indulgences. We have owned, for a number of years, a copy of the little book that has caused all this stir--Swinton's "Outlines of the World's History." The passage that has shut out the book, and a teacher with it, from the public schools of Boston, is as follows:--
AMS3	82	2	"When Leo X. came to the Papal chair, he found the treasury of the church exhausted by the ambitious projects of his predecessors. He therefore had recourse to every means which ingenuity could devise for recruiting his exhausted finances, and among these he adopted an extensive sale of indulgences, which in former ages had been a source of large profits to the church. The Dominican friars, having obtained a monopoly of the sale in Germany, employed as their agent Tetzel, one of their own order, who carried on the traffic in a manner that was very offensive, and especially so to the Augustinian friars."
AMS3	82	3	To this paragraph in the book there is added the following note:--
AMS3	82	4	"These indulgences were, in the early ages of the church, remissions of the penances imposed upon persons whose sins had brought scandal on the community. But in process of time they were represented as actual pardons of guilt, and the purchaser of indulgence was said to be delivered from all his sins."
AMS3	82	5	Now we should like for anybody candidly to state where there is anything said in this that should subject the book to banishment from the public schools. It is simply a statement of facts, and a very mild statement at that. Whether the treasury of the church had been exhausted by the ambitious projects of Leo's predecessors; or whether it was exhausted by his predecessors at all, is a question upon which it is not necessary to enter, because it is not germane to the subject. The main question is one of simple fact, Was the treasury exhausted? and did that lead to the traffic in indulgences, which stirred up Luther, and led to the Reformation?
AMS3	82	6	Leo's immediate predecessor, Julius II., had spent the whole time of his pontificate--a little more than nine years--in almost constant wars, in some of which he led the troops himself and acted the part of general.
AMS3	82	7	It was he who began the building of the Church of St. Peter at Rome; and he issued a bull granting indulgences to those who would contribute to the project. Although to sustain his wars and alliances the expenses of Julius were enormous, yet he did leave considerable treasure. But even though the treasury was not exhausted by his predecessors, it was easy enough for Leo X. to exhaust it, for he was almost a matchless spendthrift. Says Von Ranke:--
AMS3	82	8	"'That the Pope should ever keep a thousand ducats together was a thing as impossible,' says Francesco Vettori of this pontiff, 'as that a stone should of its own will take to flying through the air.' He has been reproached with having spent the revenues of three Popes: that of his predecessor, from whom he inherited a considerable treasure, his own, and that of his successor, to whom he bequeathed a mass of debt."--History of the Popes, book 4, sec. 2.
AMS3	82	9	Says Lawrence:--
AMS3	82	10	"He was the spendthrift son of an opulent parent; he became the wasteful master of the resources of the church." "It was because Leo was a splendid spendthrift, that we have the Reformation through Luther. The Pope was soon again impoverished and in debt. He never thought of the cost of anything; he was lavish without reflection. His wars, intrigues, his artists and architects, his friends, but above all the miserable Lorenzo [his nephew], exhausted his fine revenues; and his treasury must again be supplied. When he was in want, Leo was never scrupulous as to the means by which he retrieved his affairs; he robbed, he defrauded, he begged, he drew contributions from all Europe for the Turkish war, which all Europe knew had been spent upon Lorenzo; he collected large sums for rebuilding St. Peter's, which were all expended in the same way; in fine, Leo early exhausted all his spiritual arts as well as his treasury."--Historical Studies, pp. 66, 77.
AMS3	82	11	The "Encyclopedia Britannica" says that Leo. "bequeathed his successors a religious schism and a bankrupt church;" that "his profusion had impoverished the church, and indirectly occasioned the destruction of her visible unity."--Art. Leo X. It is a fact, therefore, that the Papal treasury was exhausted.
AMS3	82	12	Now to the second question of fact, Did this lead to the sale of indulgences? Before his coronation as Pope, Leo had entered into an engagement "to issue no brief for collecting money for the repair of St. Peter's;" but neither that, nor anything else, was allowed to stand in the way when he wanted money. Says D'Aubigne:--
AMS3	82	13	"Leo was greatly in need of money.... His cousin, Cardinal Pucci, as skillful in the art of hoarding as Leo in that of lavishing, advised him to have recourse to indulgence. Accordingly, the Pope published a bull announcing a general indulgence, the proceeds of which were, he said, to be employed in the erection of the Church of St. Peter, that monument of sacerdotal magnificence. In a letter dated at Rome, under the seal of the fisherman, in November, 1517, Leo applies to his commissary of indulgences for one hundred and forty-seven ducats to pay for a manuscript of the thirty-third book of Livy. Can all the uses to which he put the money on the Germans, this was doubtless the best. Still, it was strange to deliver souls from purgatory, in order purchase a manuscript history of the wars of Roman people."--History of the Reformation, book 3, chap. 3.
AMS3	83	1	Says Bower:--
AMS3	83	2	"Leo, wanting to continue the magnificent structure of St. Peter's Church, begun by his predecessor Julius, but finding his coffers drained, chiefly by his own extravagance, in order to replenish them, granted, by a bull, a plenary indulgence, or remission of all sins, to such as should charitably contribute to that work."--History of the Popes, under Leo X., A. D. 1517.
AMS3	83	3	Says Macaulay:--
AMS3	83	4	"It was to adorn Italy that the traffic in induIgences had been carried to that scandalous excess which had roused the indignation of Luther."--Essays, Von Ranke.
AMS3	83	5	And a Roman Catholic "History of the Church of God," written by B. J. Spalding, Roman Catholic priest, with a commendatory preface by Bishop Spalding, of Peoria, Ill., says:--
AMS3	83	6	"The incident which served as an opportunity for the breaking out of Luther's revolt, was the promulgation by Leo X. (1517) of a plenary [bull] indulgence, the alms attached to the gaining of which were to defray the expenses of a crusade against the Turks and aid in completing magnificent basilica of St. Peter's at Rome. The Dominican Tetzel was appointed to preach this indulgence in Germany."--Page 506.
AMS3	83	7	It is a fact, therefore, that the papal treasury was exhausted, and that Leo resorted to the sale of indulgences to replenish it.
AMS3	83	8	Now to the third question of fact. The banished book says: "These indulgences are, in the early ages of the church, remissions of the penances imposed upon persons whose sins had brought scandal on the community." Notice, this does not say that indulgences were remissions of sins, but that they were remissions of the penances, or penalties, imposed upon persons because of their sins. Nor does it say by whom the penances were imposed. Now read the following definition of indulgence by Archbishop Purcell:--
AMS3	83	9	"An indulgence is nothing more nor less than a remission of the temporal punishment which often remains attached to the sin, after the eternal guilt has been forgiven the sinner, on his sincere repentance.... The doctrine of indulgences is this: When a human being does everything in his power to atone for sin, God has left a power in the church, to remit a part or the entire of the temporal punishment due to it."--Debate with Campbell, pp. 307, 308.
AMS3	83	10	What Archbishop Purcell means by "temporal punishment," is precisely what Swinton's note is by penances imposed; for, to sustain his doctrine, the archbishop quoted 2 Corinthians 2:6, 10, where Paul, speaking of that man who had been disfellowshiped and had repented of his sin, says: "Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, which was inflicted [penance imposed] of many." "To whom ye forgive anything, I forgive also, for if I forgave anything, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ." Then the archbishop says:--
AMS3	83	11	"'In the person of Christ,' mark those words, that he, in the person of Christ, forgave--what? Not the eternal guilt of the incestuous man--God alone can forgive that--but the temporal punishment; to restore him to the privileges of the church and Christian society."
AMS3	83	12	Therefore it is demonstrated that Swinton's note in that book is precisely the same statement of the doctrine of indulgences as that given by an archbishop of the Catholic Church.
AMS3	83	13	The other statement in the note is, that, "in process of time they [indulgences] were represented as actual pardons of guilt, and the purchaser of indulgence was said to be delivered from all his sins." Notice, this does not say that they were actual pardons of guilt, but only that they were represented as such. He does not say that the representation was true. It is but the statement of the fact that they were represented to be so and so. The note does not say that the purchaser of indulgence was delivered from all his sins; nor does it say that the Catholic Church teaches or taught that it was so; it simply states the fact that the purchaser was said to be delivered from all his sins.
AMS3	83	14	Now is it a fact that they were represented as actual pardons of guilt? Says the "Encyclopedia Britannica:"--
AMS3	83	15	"The doctrine of indulgences is singularly open to misunderstanding; and in its practical applications it has too often been used to sanction the most flagrant immorality."--Art. Indulgences.
AMS3	83	16	If, therefore, that doctrine has been so used, will the Catholic Church say that indulgences were never represented as actual pardons of guilt? or that the purchaser was never said to be delivered from all sin? Will that church say that no person who ever handled or dispensed indulgences ever gave a wrong impression as to the precise effect of them? This of itself would show that in the words used there is no reproach cast upon the Catholic Church. But read the following. A Jesuit historian, quoted by D'Aubigne, speaking of the associates of Tetzel, the chief indulgence peddler, says:--
AMS3	83	17	"Some of these preachers failed not, as usual, to outrage the subject which they treated, and so to exaggerate the value of indulgences as to make people suppose they were sure of their own salvation, and of the deliverance of souls from purgatory, as soon as the money was paid."--History of Reformation, book 3, chap. 1.
AMS3	83	18	And the Catholic "History of the Church of God," before quoted, says:--
AMS3	83	19	"There had been for some time abuses in the form of dispensing and preaching indulgences; pious bishops had pointed them out, and statesmen had protested against them. Tetzel did not altogether avoid the abuses, and later the Papal legate, Miltitz, sharply rebuked him for his indiscretions."--Id., p. 506.
AMS3	83	20	Now read the following words of Tetzel himself:--
AMS3	83	21	"Think, then, that for each mortal sin you must, after confession and contribution, do penance for seven years, either in this life or in purgatory. Now, how many mortal sins are committed in one day--in one week? How many in a month--a year--a whole life? AhI these sins are almost innumerable, and innumerable sufferings must be endured for them in purgatory. And now, by means of these letters of indulgence, you can at once, for life--in all cases except four which are reserved to the Apostolic See--and afterwards at the hour of death, obtain a full remission of all your pains and all your sins."
AMS3	83	22	These words make positive the fact stated in Swinton's note that indulgences were represented to be actual pardons of guilt, and that the purchaser was said to be delivered from all sin. It is not sufficient for Catholics to say that such is not the teaching of the Catholic Church. The banished book does not say that such is or ever was the teaching of the Catholic Church. It simply says that such things "were represented," and "were said," and here are the words of Catholics showing that that is the fact.
AMS3	83	23	So the case of the book and the Boston School Board stands just thus:--
AMS3	83	24	1. The book says that at the time of Leo X. the Papal treasury was exhausted: and that is a historical fact.
AMS3	83	25	2. The book says that to recruit his exhausted finances, he adopted an extensive sale of indulgences: and that is a historical fact.
AMS3	83	26	3. The book says that indulgences were remissions of the penances imposed upon persons because of their sins: and that is a doctrinal fact of the Catholic teaching according to the words of a Catholic archbishop.
AMS3	83	27	4. The book says that in process of time indulgences were represented as actual pardons of guilt: and that is a literal historical fact.
AMS3	83	28	5. The book says the purchaser of indulgence was said to be delivered from all his sins: and that is the literal historical fact as to what was said.
AMS3	83	29	All of which conclusively demonstrates that the action of the Boston School Board in banishing that book from the public schools, rests not upon the slightest particle of justice or reason, but is wholly an exhibition of that arbitrary and unreasoning despotism which is characteristic of the Papacy everywhere that it secures enough power to make itself felt. It demonstrates the fact that it is not the statements in the book that the Catholics hate, so much as it is that they hate everything that is not subject to the despotic authority of Rome. For if historical facts in regard to which both Catholic and Protestant authorities agree, cannot be taught in the public schools without the interference of Rome, then what can be taught there without her dictation?
AMS3	83	30	That everyone may see for himself how the matter stood we append a copy of the indulgence that was actually sold by Tetzel. Here it is:--
AMS3	83	31	"May our Lord Jesus Christ have pity on thee, N----N----, and absolve thee by the merit of his most holy passion. And I, in virtue of the apostolic power intrusted to me, absolve thee from all ecclesiastical censures, judgments, and penalties, which thou mayest have deserved; moreover, from all the excesses, sins, and crimes, which thou mayest have committed, how great and enormous soever they may have been, and for whatever cause, even should they have been reserved to our most holy father the Pope, and to the apostolic See. I efface all the marks of disability, and all the notes of infamy which thou mayest have incurred on this occasion. I remit the pains which thou shouldst have to endure in purgatory. I render thee anew a partaker in the sacraments of the church. I again incorporate thee into the communion of saints, and re-establish thee in the innocence and purity in which thou wert at the hour of thy baptism; so that, at the moment of thy death, the gate of entrance to the place of pains and torments will be shut to thee; and, on the contrary, the gate which leads to the heavenly paradise, will be opened to thee. If thou art not to die soon, this grace will remain unimpaired till thy last hour arrive. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
AMS3	84	1	"Friar John Tetzel, commissary, has signed it with his own hand."--D'Aubigne, History of Reformation, book 3, chap. 1.
------------------------The Woman's Christian Temperance Union Defended
AMS3	86	1	MR. JOHNSON has sent us another communication in reply to our article in the September SENTINEL on the Woman's Christian Temperance Union; and here it is:--
AMS3	86	2	EDITORS AMERICAN SENTINEL: The next charges you bring against the Woman's Christian Temperance Union are, first, that it "proposes to establish a theocracy in this country," and to this end demands the ballot for women. Second, that it is the closest ally and the most powerful support of the National Reform Association.
AMS3	86	3	What you say under the first charge I confess I am not sure that I understand. If I do, the burden of your objection lies against "putting the ballot into the hands of women." But how this would "establish a theocracy" I cannot see. A theocracy is a Government immediately directed by God. A true theocracy in the United States now would be a pure republic in which the people--not the men only, but both men and women--would choose all the officers, and in which the will of God would be supreme, higher than the will of the people, and higher by the consent and will of the people. And I cannot see how any Christian man or woman can object to such a theocracy. I wish our Government was such now.
AMS3	86	4	As to woman suffrage I may say that I am not aware the Woman's Christian Temperance Union has ever given any deliverance. No doubt many of the members favor it and have so said; and probably some local Unions may have so voted. I do not know. Good women as well as good men all over the country favor it; multitudes of both oppose it. Your charge against the Woman's Christian Temperance Union is founded only on what somebody in 1886 wrote for some monthly reading. It seems to me, therefore, that it is "far-fetched."
AMS3	86	5	But the big end of your assault upon the Woman's Christian Temperance Union is its affiliation with the National Reform Association. And in your amplification of the charges against said Association, you make various propositions that I think are without foundation. I am not a member of the Association (I like my church better), but I indorse its principles and am familiar with its history and work, and I most unhesitatingly deny the statements you make. The Association does not "propose to turn this Government into a theocracy," except in the sense defined above. The Association does not "declare that dissenters from National Reform opinions cannot dwell together on the same continent with National Reformed Christianity." The Association never did declare that "there is nothing out of hell that should be tolerated as soon as these."
AMS3	86	6	You do not like Senator Blair's proposed constitutional amendment. Will you be so kind as to publish it in the SENTINEL, so that your readers may judge of it for themselves, for I think your greatest objection must be that it is worded on the presumption that the first day of the week is the Christian Sabbath.
AMS3	86	7	Finally, you charge the National Reform Association with being an ally of the Papacy. Among other things of the same kind and very doubtful you say that "the Association argues that the Catholic Bible and Catholic instruction shall be established in the public schools wherever Roman Catholics are in the majority." This, like your other statements, must be positively denied. The Association never said anything of the kind. Secretary Stevenson, I think, at some public meeting at Saratoga a year ago, said something about permitting the Catholics to read the Douay Bible in their schools rather than have no Bible-reading at all; but I never heard that other National Reformers agreed with him. And sure I am that the Association never said a word in approval of what he had said at Saratoga. This, your charge against the Association, is therefore not only "far-fetched" but unfair.
AMS3	86	8	In reference to what you say about National Reformers pledging themselves to join hands with the Roman Catholics to secure and enforce the National Sunday Law, I am not so well informed and cannot deny so positively. Perhaps some of them have been guilty of it. But even if they have been it is unfair to charge it against the Association or against other members of it.
			N. R. JOHNSTON.
AMS3	86	9	1. Mr. Johnston says we "charge" that the Woman's Christian Temperance Union proposes to establish a theocracy in this country, and then defends the Union by declaring such a theocracy a good thing, and by saying he cannot see how any Christian man or woman can object to it. In other words, he defends the Union against the charge, by confessing that the charge is valid. A theocracy is a Government immediately directed by God; and it must be established immediately by God. But these people nowadays do not intend that this proposed theocracy shall be either established or directed immediately by God. They intend to establish it by popular vote, and to have it directed by human administration as now. Then, such a Government being, as they claim, a Government of God, whoever shall sit at the head of the Government will sit there in the place of God, and as the representative of God and the executor of his will. And that is all that the Papacy has ever claimed to be. Under the theory of the National Reform-Woman's Christian Temperance Union the claims of the Pope are neither presumptuous nor extravagant. And if the Woman's Christian Temperance Union theory shall ever be formed into Government here, there will be here but the Papacy over again.
AMS3	86	10	2. He says our charge "against the Woman's Christian Temperance Union is founded only on what somebody in 1886 wrote for some monthly reading. It seems to me, therefore, that it is farfetched." Yes, our charge is founded only on what "somebody" wrote, etc. Exactly who wrote it we do not know, but we do know that Miss Frances E. Willard edited it; and we count her somebody, at least so far as the Woman's Christian Temperance Union is concerned. She edited it and published it in her official capacity as president of the National Woman's Christian Temperance Union; and it was sent abroad to the local Unions as an official document, and it was received and read in the local Unions as such. Mr. Johnston or anybody else can find the whole reading with these particulars in the Christian Statesman of September 30, 1886. This it is upon which our charge is founded, and it is not "far-fetched."
AMS3	87	1	3. Next he defends the National Reform Association, by saying that it does not propose to turn this Government into a theocracy, "except in the sense indicated above." That is to say that the National Reformers do not propose to turn this Government into a theocracy except by turning it into a theocracy.
AMS3	87	2	4. He says, "The Association does not declare that dissenters from National Reform opinions cannot dwell together on the same continent with National Reformed Christianity;" and that "it never did declare that there is nothing out of hell that should not be tolerated as soon as these." The speech in which both these statements were made is printed in this number of the SENTINEL, which Mr. Johnston may read, and our readers may read it and judge between us and Mr. Johnston. That speech was made by Rev. Jonathan Edwards, D. D., a vice-president of the Association, in a National Reform National Convention held in New York City, February 26, 27, 1873. It was officially published by the Association, of whom we bought it; and it is at this day still advertised and sold by the Association as official and representative National Reform literature. If that does not make it the declaration of the National Reform Association, then how would it be possible for the Association to declare anything.
AMS3	87	3	5. We printed in full in the July SENTINEL (1888) both the Sunday Bill, and the proposed constitutional amendment introduced by Senator Blair. We oppose them both because they are both antichristian, subversive of liberty, savoring of tyranny, and directly in the line of the establishment of a religious despotism.
AMS3	87	4	6. Our charge that the Association agrees that the Catholic Bible and Catholic instruction shall be established in the public schools wherever the Roman Catholics are in the majority, Mr. Johnston says must be positively denied, and then admits that Secretary Stevenson did say something about it at Saratoga, but that the Association never said a word in approval of it. Mr. Stevenson did say it,--and he was officially representing, and acting for, the Association when he said it. And when Dr. Price made his motion, that motion commissioned "the National Reform Association" to secure such an agreement with the Catholic officials "if possible." And Mr. Stevenson, as secretary of the Association, and for the Association, accepted the commission; and the whole thing was printed in the Christian Statesman. If that is not the word and act of the Association then what could be?
AMS3	87	5	7. About pledging the National Reform Association to join hands with the Catholic Church, he thinks that "perhaps" some of them have been guilty of it. Yes, they are guilty of it. There is no perhaps about it. The statement was made in an editorial in the Christian Statesman, December 11, 1884. The Christian Statesman is the official organ of the National Reform Association, and if its editorial utterances are not the utterances of the Association then whose utterances are they?
AMS3	87	6	The SENTINEL does not dwell on technicalities; it does not take unfair advantages; it does not make people or parties transgressors for a word. By the plainest, fairest, and most logical interpretation possible, the iniquity of this National Reform, Woman's Christian Temperance Union political scheme is great enough. There is no need to dwell on technicalities. And as for our statements, they are always made on authority, and as nearly correct as we can possibly make them. The SENTINEL knows precisely what it is doing, and Mr. Johnston and others like him had better stop criticising, and go to believing, what the SENTINEL says.
			December 1888
------------------------The American Sentinel and the Churches
AMS3	89	1	THE AMERICAN SENTINEL has occasion frequently to criticise the actions, political and otherwise, of the churches, yet this does not in any way spring from any disrespect for the churches as such, nor for the religion which the Protestant churches profess. The SENTINEL is entirely Christian so far as we are able to understand Christianity from the Scriptures. As true Christianity is as far as the east is from the west from the principles and practices of the Roman Catholic Church, and we being to the best of our ability allied to true Christianity, it follows as a matter of course that we are decidedly Protestant.
AMS3	89	2	We believe in one God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. We believe in Jesus Christ as the Word of God, who is God, by whom "were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers," who is before all things, and by whom all things consist; by whom alone there is salvation; and who "is able to save to the uttermost all who come unto God by him." We believe in the Holy Spirit as the one who convinces the world of sin and of righteousness, and of judgment; and as the Comforter and the Guide into all truth, of all who believe in Jesus. We believe that "except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God," either here or hereafter; and that in order to this new birth, men must be "justified by faith without the deeds of the law." We believe that it is by the obedience of Christ alone that men are made righteous; that this righteousness is the gift of God; that it is received by faith and kept by faith; and that there is no righteousness that will avail for any man, except this "righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe; for there is no difference; for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." We believe the Bible to be the word of God.
AMS3	89	3	We believe, according to the word of God, that the church is utterly separated from the world, and bound to Christ in the love of God, as a chaste virgin to a lawful and loving husband. This being so, the members of the church cannot be joined to the world without being counted by the word of God as adulterers against him to whom they profess to be joined in love. Says the Scripture, "Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God." James 4:4. "Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world." 1 John 2:15, 16.
AMS3	89	4	As the individual members of the church of Christ cannot be joined to the world without being counted by the word of God as adulterers against him, so also the church as a body cannot be joined in any way to the powers of the world without likewise being declared by the word of God an adulteress and a harlot. When the professed Christian church of the fourth century forsook her Lord and joined herself to the imperial power of Rome, she was fully committed to that corrupt course in which the word of God describes her as that great harlot, "with whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication." "And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet color, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication." "And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus." Revelation 17:2, 4, 6. That is the Lord's description of the Church of Rome; and in the light of history no man can deny the truthfulness of the description. But everybody knows that she never could have committed fornication with the kings of the earth if she had maintained her allegiance to Christ. She never could have been made drunken with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus, if she had not traded upon her lascivious charms for the control of the civil power, by which she could persecute to the death those who denied the authority which she had so adulterously gained.
AMS3	89	5	Now the leaders of the Protestant churches of the United States are going in the same way in which the church leaders of the fourth century went. They are seeking an alliance with the civil power. They are seeking for this alliance for the same purpose, in the same way, and by precisely the same means. And when they shall have secured the alliance and gained the control of the power, the same results will inevitably follow this in our day that followed that of the fourth century. And to make the surety of this success doubly sure, they are seeking an alliance with Rome herself. And when these professed churches of Christ shall have formed their illicit connection with worldly power, they will have thus turned themselves into a band of harlots committing fornication with the powers of earth, as did their harlot mother before them. And then the inspired description of Babylon the Great will be complete: "Upon her forehead was a name writ-ten, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH." Revelation 17:5.
AMS3	90	1	Let not the professed Protestant churches blame us for this application of the Scripture. They themselves have acknowledged the Church of Rome as their mother, and they need not blame us if we call attention to the Scripture description of the family. In the New York Evangelist of February 9, 1888, Rev. Charles W. Shields, D. D., of Princeton College, in proving that it would never do, in the reunion of Christendom, to forbid a doctrine of Apostolic Succession, said:--
AMS3	90	2	"You would exclude the Roman Catholic Church, the mother of us all, the church of scholars and saints...You would exclude also the Protestant Episcopal Church, the beautiful daughter of a beautiful mother."
AMS3	90	3	This declaration, although made in one of the most influential religious papers in the country, has never yet, so far as we have read, been repudiated or even criticised by any of the leading denominations, or by any paper of any of those denominations. We say again that when these churches declare and admit Rome to be their mother, and "a beautiful mother" at that, they cannot justly blame us for calling attention to the Scripture description of the family. The only things of which the Scriptures declare the Church of Rome to be the mother, are harlots. Therefore whatever church confesses Rome to be its mother, therein confesses itself to be a harlot. And the Protestant churches of the United States, by their religio-political workings, are doing their best to make Doctor Shields's apparently representative confession a fact.
AMS3	90	4	We recognize and maintain the right of every people who believe alike to organize themselves into a church on whatever order they choose, and to call themselves by whatever name they please; but we utterly deny the right of any church, or all of them together, to use the civil power for any religious purpose whatever. We maintain that any man has as much right to be a Methodist, or a Presbyterian, or a Congregationalist, as any other man has to be a Baptist, an Episcopalian, or a Lutheran; but we deny that any one of these denominations has any right to seize upon the civil power and compel all the others to act as that denomination shall dictate. We deny that all the others have any right to band together and compel any one denomination to conform to the dictates of the many. We maintain that any man in this Nation has just as much right to be a Catholic as any other man has to be a Protestant; but we deny the right of the Catholics to compel any Protestant to act as though he were a Catholic, as we deny the right of the Protestants to compel any Catholic to act as though he were a Protestant. We maintain that any man has just as much right not to be a Christian as any other man has to be a Christian; but we deny any right in those who are not Christians to compel any man who is a Christian to act as though he were not. And we likewise deny that there is any shadow of right in those who are Christians to compel any man who is not a Christian to act as though he were. Christians have no more right to compel any man to partake of Christian ordinances, or to observe Christian institutions, than those who are not Christians have to compel Christians not to partake of Christian ordinances nor to observe Christian institutions.
AMS3	90	5	This is the position of the AMERICAN SENTINEL, and we are Christians too. We know that to many this sounds strange, but it is a fact. We know that many who call themselves Christians are just as ready to call us Liberals, and do call us that; but we are Christians nevertheless. We are glad, however, to let all men know that there are Christians--we do not say that we are the only ones, but there are not enough of them--who are liberal enough to maintain that all other men inalienably possess all the rights, human, civil and religious, that Christians possess.
AMS3	90	6	We are compelled, also, in the interests of truth and right, occasionally to criticise the political workings of professed ministers of the gospel. We have all the respect for ministers of the gospel that the Scriptures require men to have, but when professed ministers of the gospel set themselves up as ministers of the law, both civil and moral, and of politics, then we no longer respect those men as ministers of the gospel; for such they are not. Christ never sent any man forth as a minister of the law, either civil or moral, nor of politics; and whenever any professed minister of the gospel sets himself to work by political influence to secure the enactment and enforcement of statutes compelling religious observances, then he is doing what Christ never sent him to do, and he then ceases to be a minister of Christ or of his gospel.
AMS3	90	7	Both the editors of the AMERICAN SENTINEL are regularly ordained ministers of the gospel, but neither of them ever expects to become a minister of the law, either civil or moral, nor of politics.
AMS3	90	8	NOTE.--Let no one misconstrue our statement that any man has as much right to be a Catholic as any other man has to be a Protestant; and any man has as much right not to be a Christian as any other man has to be a Christian. This is not by any means an admission that the man who is not a Christian is as near right as is the Christian, nor that the Catholic is as near right as is the Protestant. This is not a question of moral right but of civil rights. Of course no man has any moral right to be anything else than perfect before God; and this perfection can only be attained through faith in Christ. But if any man chooses to despise the riches of God's goodness and grace, and refuses to believe in Christ, no power on earth has any right to call him to account. He is responsible alone to God, and whoever attempts to call him to account for neglect of the word or ordinances of God, thereby usurps the prerogative of God. And that is how it is that all men have the same equal and inalienable rights.

------------------------Christian Patriotism
CHPA	3	1	Introduction
CHPA	6	1	Chapter 1. The First of All the Commandments
CHPA	10	1	Chapter 2. The Origin of the State
CHPA	18	1	Chapter 3. The Separation of Church and State
CHPA	24	1	Chapter 4. The Renunciation of Egypt
CHPA	28	1	Chapter 5. The Singular Nation--Choosing a King
CHPA	34	1	Chapter 6. "Like All the Nations"
CHPA	40	1	Chapter 7. Result of Being "Like the Nations"
CHPA	46	1	Chapter 8. The True Principle Taught to Babylon
CHPA	55	1	Chapter 9. The True Principle Taught to Medo-persia
CHPA	62	1	Chapter 10. Christ the Example
CHPA	70	1	Chapter 11. "The Powers That Be"
CHPA	77	1	Chapter 12. Christian Patriotism
CHPA	80	1	Chapter 13. Christian Naturalization
CHPA	90	1	Chapter 14. The Land of our Fathers
CHPA	95	1	Chapter 15. Through the Christian Era
CHPA	99	1	Chapter 16. Christian Loyalty

------------------------Introduction
CHPA	3	1	Christian patriotism, loyalty to the law and government of the Most High, is the loftiest aspiration that can ever come to any soul.
CHPA	3	2	The separation of religion and the State is one of the most important questions that any people can ever be called upon to consider in connection with Christian patriotism; because the union of religion and the State has marked the greatest apostasies from God, and has caused more misery than any other thing in all history.
CHPA	3	3	The complete separation of religion and the State is Christian. Unswerving loyalty to this principle is Christian patriotism. This is not a mere sentiment or side issue of Christianity; it is one of the fundamental principles and chief characteristics of Christianity.
CHPA	4	1	The Bible, not merely the New Testament, but the whole Book, is the Book of Christianity. The New Testament is not a revelation new and distinct from the Old; it is the culmination of the revelation begun in the Old Testament.
CHPA	4	2	The Old Testament and the New are one book--one consistent, harmonious revelation of God through Jesus Christ; because Jesus Christ is the revelation of God before the world was made, when the world was made, and through all the history of the world from beginning to end.
CHPA	4	3	The first chapter of Genesis is Christian as certainly as is the first chapter of John. The book of Genesis is Christian as really as is the book of Revelation or any other book in the Bible. We repeat, therefore, that the whole Bible is the Book of Christianity, the Book of the Christian religion, the revelation of God through Jesus Christ.
CHPA	4	4	And the separation of religion and the State is one of the great thoughts of this great Book. It is one of the leading principles of that Book which for man is the source of all sound principle.
CHPA	4	5	Many people think that the two or three expressions of Christ as recorded in the New Testament are all that the Bible contains on the subject of the separation of Church and State; and many others are disposed even to argue against these passages, and to modify them by other passages from the Old Testament. But separation of religion and the State is one of the original thoughts of the Bible, and reaches from the beginning to the end of the Book; and neither the Book nor this subject can be fairly understood in reference to this matter till this is clearly defined in the mind.
CHPA	5	1	We purpose here to give a series of studies of the Bible from beginning to end, on this great subject of Christian patriotism or the separation of religion and State.
CHPA	5	2	Being one of the great thoughts of the Bible, one of the great thoughts of God and of our Lord Jesus Christ, this subject is of vital importance to men everywhere in their relations to God, and not merely in their relations to the State. It is a principle that is involved in the daily experience of the Christian in his relation to God; and not merely an abstract question that man can stand, as it were, apart from and view simply as a speculative question of the relations between religion and the State.
CHPA	5	3	The ways of God are right. His Word is the only certain light, the only sure truth. The principles which He has announced are the only safe principles for the guidance of men. We hope, and shall seriously endeavor, to make each study so plain that every reader can easily see and readily grasp the truth of it in very principle. We shall begin at the beginning.
------------------------Chapter 1. The First of All the Commandments
CHPA	6	1	"The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel, The Lord our God is one Lord; and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength. This is the first commandment.
CHPA	6	2	"And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these."
CHPA	6	3	"On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."
CHPA	6	4	These two commandments exist in the very nature, and circumstances of existence, of any two intelligent creatures in the universe. They existed thus in the existence of the first two intelligent creatures that ever had a place in the universe.
CHPA	6	5	When the first intelligence was created and there was no creature but himself; as he owed to his Creator his existence, as he owed to God all that he was or could be, heart, soul, might, mind, and strength; it devolved upon him to render to God the tribute of all this, and to love God with all his heart, and all his soul, and all his mind, and all his strength. And this is the first of all the commandments. It is first in the very nature and existence of the first, and of every other, intelligent creature.
CHPA	7	1	But the second of these would have no place if there were but one intelligent creature in the universe; for then he would have no neighbor. But when the second one was created, the first of all the commandments was first with him equally with the other one; and now the second great commandment exists in the very nature and existence of these two intelligent creatures, as certainly as the first great commandment existed in the nature and existence of the first one.
CHPA	7	2	Each of the two created intelligences owes to the Lord all that he is-or has, and all that he could ever rightly have. Neither of them has anything that is self-derived. Each owes all to God. There is between them no ground of preference. And this because of the honor which each owes to God; because to each, God is all in all. Therefore the second great commandment exists as certainly as the first; and it exists in the nature and circumstance of the very existence of intelligent creatures. Consequently, "there is none other commandment greater than these."
CHPA	7	3	These two commandments, then, exist in the nature of cherubim, seraphim, angels, and men. As soon as the man was created, the first of all the commandments was there, even though there had been no other creature in the universe. And as soon as the woman was created, these two great commandments were there. And there was none other commandment greater than these.
CHPA	8	1	Now, if these two great commandments had been observed by man on the earth, that is, had man never sinned, there always would have been perfect and supreme religion; and there never would have been a State. God would always have been by every one recognized as the only Ruler, His law as the only law, His authority as the only authority. There would have been government, but only the government of God. There would have been society, but only the society of saints. But there would have been, and could have been, no State.
CHPA	8	2	Therefore it is certain that the observance of these first two of all the commandments, at any time and everywhere, which is simply Christian loyalty, means the absolute separation of religion and the State, in all who observe them. And thus the principle of separation of religion and the State inheres in the very existence of intelligent creatures.
CHPA	8	3	But man did sin. And, having sinned, having departed from God, mankind did not love God with all the heart nor their neighbor as themselves. Christianity was introduced to bring man back to the position, and the original relations, which he had lost. "For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." Ephesians 2:10. And Christ hath suffered for us, "the Just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God." 1 Peter 3:18.
CHPA	8	4	It being, then, the one great purpose of Christianity to restore man to his original condition and relation to God, its purpose is to restore him to the condition in which he can love God with all the heart, with all the soul, with all the mind, and with all the strength, and his neighbor as himself. It is to restore him to obedience to these first two of all the commandments. It is to restore him to perfect and supreme religion.
CHPA	9	1	We have seen that such a condition maintained from the beginning would have been the absolute separation of religion and the State; because, then, there never could have been any State. And now, as the one great purpose of Christianity is to restore man completely to that condition, it follows with perfect conclusiveness that Christianity in its very essence, from the beginning to the end, and everywhere, demands the absolute separation of religion and the State in all who profess it.
CHPA	9	2	And it must not be forgotten that the complete separation of religion and the State in those who profess religion, can be maintained only by these persons themselves being separated from the State. For it is so plain as to be indisputable that if the professor of religion is himself a part of the State, then in him there is at once a union of religion and the State.
------------------------Chapter 2. The Origin of the State
CHPA	10	1	It is certain that if the two greatest of all the commandments had always been observed by all men, there never could have been a State on the earth.
CHPA	10	2	There would have been society, but no State. The government would have been altogether the government of God; He, the only King, the only Governor, on earth even as in heaven.
CHPA	10	3	There would have been society, but no State. Because, men loving God with all the heart, and all the soul, and all the mind, and all the strength, and their neighbors as themselves, the will of God would have been done on earth even as in heaven. All would have been one united, harmonious, happy, holy family.
CHPA	10	4	There is an essential distinction between society and the State.
CHPA	10	5	"Society is the union which exists between men, without distinction of frontiers--without exterior restraint--and for the sole reason that they are men.
CHPA	10	6	"The civil society or State is an assemblage of men subject to a common authority, to common laws,--that is to say, a society whose members may be constrained by public force to respect their reciprocal rights. Two necessary elements enter into the idea of the State: laws and force."--Janet, Elements of Morals, p. 143.
CHPA	11	1	This distinction, however, though clear and easily evident, is seldom recognized. Indeed, it is not recognized at all by those who are anxious to secure the union of religion and the State.
CHPA	11	2	But men did not observe these two "first of all the commandments." They would not love God with all their heart; they would not love their neighbors as themselves. They rejected God as their only ruler, their only sovereign, and became ambitious to rule over one another. And thus originated politics and the State.
CHPA	11	3	The Scripture outlines the story of this: "When they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful, but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things." "And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind." Romans 1:21-25, 28.
CHPA	11	4	Note that at the first men did know God. But they chose not to glorify Him, not to honor Him, not to give Him the first place in all their thoughts and actions. Knowing God, they did not like to retain Him in their knowledge.
CHPA	12	1	The next step was that they became vain in their own imaginations. They professed themselves to be wise, of themselves. The consequence was that they became fools; and their foolish heart was darkened.
CHPA	12	2	In their vain imaginations they made gods of their own. And then to assist themselves in their worship, they made images of the gods which they had imagined.
CHPA	12	3	The image was always the outward, tangible form of the god which they had already conceived in the imagination. Imagining is simply mental image-ing. The outward form of the god, whether it be the shining sun in the heavens or a hideously-shaped block of wood or stone, is only the outward form of the image-ing that has already been performed in the imagination.
CHPA	12	4	Thus, from the knowledge of the true God, they went to the worship of false gods. From the light, they went into darkness. From righteousness, they went to wickedness.
CHPA	12	5	This is the truth. And the records of the earliest nations witness to it. The earliest records--those of the plain of Shinar--witness that the people at first had a knowledge of the true God. The records of the next two of the earliest nations, Egypt and Assyria, bear witness to this same thing.
CHPA	12	6	In all these places the earliest records testify that the gods were their first rulers and the real kings; while men, in the places of authority, were but the servants, the viceroys, of the gods who were held to be the real kings.
CHPA	13	1	For instance, one of the earliest records from Shinar runs thus: "To [the god] Ninridu, his King, for the preservation of Idadu, viceroy of Ridu, the servant, the delight of Ninridu." Another: "To [the god] Ninip the King, his King, Gudea, viceroy of [the god] Zirgulla, his house built." Another: "To Nana, the lady, lady splendid, his lady, Gudea, viceroy of Zirgulla ...raised."--Empires of the Bible, chap. 6, par. 3, 4.
CHPA	13	2	These are not only the earliest of the records that have been found in that land, but they themselves show that they are of the earliest records that were made in that land. And they clearly testify of a time when there were no kings amongst men. The gods were the kings; and the men in authority claimed only to be the viceroys of the gods who were held to be the real kings.
CHPA	13	3	And all this testifies of a time further back, when the people knew and recognized God as the only king and rightful ruler of men. They show also that this knowledge of God was so recent, and still so strong upon the minds of the people, that men who stood in places of authority had not the boldness to assume the title of king, even though they held the power.
CHPA	13	4	The records of Egypt and Assyria testify precisely to these same things. And at that time, also, there was no State. There was society.
CHPA	13	5	There came a time, however, when even this lingering knowledge of God as king and the only rightful ruler, was cut off; and the man himself assumed the full title and prerogatives of king.
CHPA	14	1	The first man to do this was Nimrod. Nimrod was the first man in the world who had the boldness to take to himself the title and prerogative of king, in the face of the yet lingering idea of God as king. And the name which he bears itself testifies to the fact that his action in this was considered by men, and also by the Lord, as precisely the bold thing which is here indicated. The word "Nimrod" "signifies rebellion, supercilious contempt, and is equivalent to 'the extremely impious rebel.'"
CHPA	14	2	The Bible record of Nimrod is that "he began to be a mighty one in the earth." Another translation reads: "Cush begat Nimrod, who was the first to be a despot on the earth. He was an overbearing tyrant in Jehovah's sight; wherefore the saying, Even as Nimrod, the overbearing tyrant in Jehovah's sight." Genesis 10:8, 9.
CHPA	14	3	That is, Nimrod was the first one to establish the might, the power, the authority, of human government, in the form of an organized State. He was the first man to assert the power and prerogatives, and assume the title, of king over men. "And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar."
CHPA	14	4	Consequently: "With the setting up of Nimrod's kingdom, the entire ancient world entered a new historical phase. The oriental tradition which makes that warrior the first man who wore a kingly crown, points to a fact more significant than the assumption of a new ornament of dress, or even the conquest of a province. His reign introduced to the world a new system of relations between the governor and the governed. The authority of former rulers rested upon the feeling of kindred; and the ascendancy of the chief was an image of parental control. Nimrod, on the contrary, was a sovereign of territory, and of men just so far as they were its inhabitants, and irrespective of personal ties. Hitherto there had been tribes--enlarged families--society: now there was a nation, a political community--the state. The political and social history of the world henceforth are distinct, if not divergent."--Empires of the Bible, chap. 6, par. 7.
CHPA	15	1	Such was the true origin of the State. The State was, and is, the result of the apostasy of men from God. Such only could possibly be its origin; for if all men had always observed the two "first of all the commandments," it would have been impossible for there ever to have been any State. There could have been no human authority exercised. All would have been equally subject to God; He would have been the only sovereign.
CHPA	15	2	Before Nimrod there was society. Respect of the rights of persons and of their property was maintained. It was only when the apostasy grew, and men got farther and farther from God, that the monarchical idea was established and personified in Nimrod.
CHPA	16	1	Let no one misunderstand. This is not to say, nor even to imply, that there should now be no human government, that there should be no State, nor even that there should be no monarchy. It is simply to say that which is the truth, that if there never had been any apostasy from God, there never could have been on earth a State, nor any human government.
CHPA	16	2	It is true that these things are the consequences of the apostasy from God. But men having apostatized from God, these things all, even to such monarchy as that of Nimrod or of Nero, became necessary, just in proportion to the degree of apostasy.
CHPA	16	3	It is better that there should be a government, bad as it may be, than that there should be no government at all. Even such a government as Nimrod's or Nero's is better than none at all. But without apostasy there could never have been any human government at all; and without the apostasy having gone to a fearful length, there never could have been any such government as Nimrod's or Nero's.
CHPA	16	4	Nimrod's example was eagerly followed by all the tribes around, until they were all absorbed in it. Society had passed away, and only States remained; and these universally idolatrous. In all that region, only Abraham believed God, even his own parents being idolaters. "They served other gods." Joshua 24:2.
CHPA	16	5	God chose Abraham then to be the father of all them that believed God; the father of all who will have God alone to be their God. Abraham represented then the religion of God, the beginning of the church of God.
CHPA	17	1	And from that State God separated Abraham. He said to Abraham, "Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, into a land that I will show thee." Genesis 12:1.
CHPA	17	2	And in thus separating Abraham from that State, from his country, God taught the people then, and through all time, the separation of religion and the State, the separation of Church and State.
CHPA	17	3	And it must not be forgotten that in the case of Abraham, this universal example, the separation of religion and the State, was the separation of the individual believer from the State. And as Abraham was at that time the church, and he was separated from the State, in this it is plainly taught that the true separation of Church and State is in the separation of the individual church-member from the State. Besides, it is perfectly plain in itself that where the same individual is a member of the Church and of the State at the same time, there is at once in him a union of Church and State.
------------------------Chapter 3. The Separation of Church and State
CHPA	18	1	When God said to Abraham, "Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will show thee," Abraham "went out, not knowing whither he went." Hebrews 11:8.
CHPA	18	2	God had not yet showed to him the land or country into which he was to go, and which was to be his. So far, the Lord had only promised to show it to him.
CHPA	18	3	There were three things, however, which Abraham must do before he could fairly expect God to show him the country which He had promised, and which was to be his. First, he was to get out of his country; secondly, from his kindred; thirdly, from his father's house.
CHPA	18	4	He left his country; but when he did so, his father and his kindred went with him to Haran, and dwelt there. There his father died; and now, separated from his father's house, he went on to the land of Canaan.
CHPA	18	5	But there accompanied him yet one of his kindred--Lot, his brother's son. While Lot was with him, and he was thus not separated from his kindred, though separated from his country and his father's house, the time could come for God to show to him the land, nor the country which He would give him.
CHPA	19	1	But there came a day when Lot should be separated from him. Lot chose all the plain of the Jordan, and journeyed east, and "they separated thus, one from the other." Genesis 13:11.
CHPA	19	2	And just then it was that God showed to Abraham the land which He had promised to show him, the country which should be his. "And the Lord said unto Abraham, after that Lot was separated from him, Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward; for all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed forever." Genesis 13:14, 15.
CHPA	19	3	And the country which the Lord then showed to Abraham, and which He there promised him should be his for an everlasting possession--that country embraced the world; for "the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith." Romans 4:13.
CHPA	19	4	Therefore, when at the word of the Lord Abraham lifted up his eyes to see what the Lord would show him, he saw "the world to come," which is to be the everlasting possession of all them which be of faith. For "if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." Galatians 3:29.
CHPA	19	5	And from that day forward Abraham "sojourned in the land of promise as in a strange country," looking for "a better country, that is, an heavenly," and looking "for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God." Hebrews 11:9, 16, 8. For, though God promised that He would give to Abraham that land, and to his seed after him, yet as long as he was in this world God really "gave him none inheritance in it, no not so much as to set his foot on." Acts 7:5.
CHPA	20	1	Now note: God had called Abraham out of his original country, and thus had separated him from that. Then He gave him not even so much as to set his foot on in any other country in this world.
CHPA	20	2	Abraham at that time represented the religion of God. The Lord in His dealing thus with Abraham and in recording it, has shown, for all time and to all people, that it is His will that there should be an absolute separation of His religion from any State. And in thus showing the complete separation of His religion from any State, He shows that this separation consists in the separation of the individual believer of His religion, from any State. Are you walking "in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham," the friend of God? Romans 4.
CHPA	20	3	Abraham, representing at that time the church of Christ, being thus totally separated by the Lord from every State and country on the earth, there is thus shown to all people, as an original truth of the Gospel of Christ, that there should be total separation of Church and State, and that the church of Christ can never have any country in the world. And in thus showing that the church of Christ can never have any country in this world, He shows that the individual members of the church of Christ can never have any country in this world; for that which composes the church of Christ is the individual membership.
CHPA	21	1	So also dwelt Isaac and Jacob, heirs with Abraham of the same promise, accepting with Abraham separation from every earthly State and country, confessing "that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth," looking for the country which God had prepared for them, and the city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.
CHPA	21	2	And that they accepted this freely of their own choice, by faith in God, is shown by the fact, as recorded: "Truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned. But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly; wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for He hath prepared for them a city." Hebrews 11:15, 16.
CHPA	21	3	This dealing of God with Abraham, and the record of it, were for the instruction of all the people who would believe God, from that time to the world's end. For Abraham was the called, the chosen, the friend, of God, the father of all them that believe. And all "they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham." Galatians 3:9. And not the least element of instruction in this account of God's dealings with Abraham, is the great lesson it teaches that the religion of God means separation of religion and the State. Are you walking in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham? Have you gotten out of your country? Or have you still a country in this world? Is there in you a union of religion and the State?
CHPA	22	1	Further: "Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy Seed, which is Christ." Galatians 3:16. Therefore the promises recorded and referred to in the scripture, "To Abraham and his Seed," are always to Abraham and Christ, and to Abraham in Christ. And, therefore, "if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." Galatians 3:29.
CHPA	22	2	And when Christ, that promised Seed, came into the world a man amongst men, then in Him, as formerly in Abraham, there was represented the religion of God and the church of Christ. And as such He ever maintained the same principle of separation of religion and the State which He Himself had set before the world in the life and record of Abraham.
CHPA	22	3	He refused to recognize, even by a sign, the wish of the people to make Him king. John 6:15. He refused, when requested, to act the part of a judge or a divider over men as to the rights of property. Luke 12:13-15. He refused to recognize the national lines of distinction, the wall of partition, which Israel in their exclusiveness had built up between themselves and other nations. He refused to judge, or to allow any others to judge, any one for not believing on Him. John 12:47, 48. He distinctly declared that, though He is a king, yet His kingdom is not of this world, and that it is not in any way connected with this world. John 18:36. He distinctly declared the separation of His religion from the State. "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." Mark 12:17. And when He sent forth His disciples with His heavenly commission to preach the Gospel of His kingdom, He sent them not to one particular nation, but to "teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost." He sent them to preach the Gospel; not to one particular, favored, exclusive people, but "to every creature."
CHPA	23	1	Thus it is seen again that in every phase of the fundamental principle of the religion of God and the church of Christ, from the beginning to the end of the world, there is required the absolute separation of religion and the State--the total disconnection of His church from every State and country in the world, and from the world itself.
CHPA	23	2	And this total disconnection of His church from every State and country in this world, and from the world itself, is, and can be, accomplished only by the total disconnection of the individual members of His church from every State and country in the world, and from the world itself. "Ye are not of the world; for I have chosen you out of the world." "They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world." John 15:19; 17:16. Are you?
------------------------Chapter 4. The Renunciation of Egypt
CHPA	24	1	In the beginnings of Egypt the same course was followed as in the beginnings of Babylon and Assyria.
CHPA	24	2	At first they knew the one true God; and He was their only King, their only Ruler.
CHPA	24	3	But they did not like to retain God in their knowledge; and therefore they went into idolatry, and from idolatry into monarchy.
CHPA	24	4	The Egyptian records state that the first rulers of Egypt were the gods; after them the demigods; and after these the kings.
CHPA	24	5	In Egypt, however, the king was not content, as in Assyria, to call himself the viceroy of his god; he claimed to be the very embodiment of the god itself--the god was personated in the king; from him, it was declared, the people "received the breath of their nostrils;" he was "the giver of life."--Empires of the Bible, chap. 7, par. 38, 44.
CHPA	24	6	And thus, though Nimrod was the first man to establish monarchical authority and assume the kingly title and crown, yet in Egypt his example was followed to the greatest lengths, as Egypt was undoubtedly the most idolatrous nation that ever was on the earth. There apostasy of every kind culminated, so that throughout the Bible the one word "Egypt" symbolizes everything that is contrary to God.
CHPA	25	1	When the power of monarchy had filled the Mesopotamian plain, God called Abraham out of that country into the land of Canaan, where he could be free, and thus made a separation of Church and State, and preached the same to all people.
CHPA	25	2	But in process of time, and by Egypt, the power of monarchy was spread over all countries, from Ethiopia to Ararat and central Asia. Then, as His people were obliged to live under the power of monarchy anyhow, the Lord put them where they could do the most possible good--He placed them at the very seat of the world's empire, in Egypt itself.
CHPA	25	3	And there, through all the time of the supremacy of the Egyptian Empire, with Joseph and Moses beside the throne, and Israel amongst the people, of Egypt, God held before all nations the knowledge of Himself. And as soon as the time came when the Egyptian Empire must fall, God would place His people once more in Canaan, the pivot of the highways of the nations.
CHPA	25	4	To this end there must be again taught to the world the separation of religion and the State, the separation of Church and State. God's people must be called out of Egypt, in order that they and all the nations might be instructed in the great principles of the Gospel, of supreme allegiance to God, of the separation of religion and the State, of church and country.
CHPA	26	1	Moses understood this, and therefore he "refused to be called the son of Pharoah's daughter." Hebrews 11:24. Moses was the adopted son of Pharaoh's daughter. Pharaoh's daughter was Pharaoh's chief wife, and queen. Moses, therefore, by the most complete claim, was heir apparent to the throne of Egypt. And as the king was then more than eighty years old, it could be but a little while till Moses would possess and throne of Egypt. The throne of Egypt was at that time the throne of the world; for the power of Egypt then ruled the world. It was the supreme State, the governing empire over all. See "Empires of the Bible," chapter 7.
CHPA	26	2	For Moses to refuse to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter was therefore to renounce the throne of Egypt. To renounce the throne of Egypt was to renounce the power of empire. It was definitely to disconnect from the State.
CHPA	26	3	At that time Moses was called to have charge over "the house of God, which is the church of the living God." Hebrews 3:2, 5; 1 Timothy 3:15. It was in obedience to this call that he renounced the throne of Egypt and the power of empire. It was because of this that he definitely disconnected himself from the State. And in recording it, God designed to teach all people that conformity to His will means the separation of Church and State; that it means the renunciation of the throne and the power of earthly empire--the total separation of religion and the State. In recording it God designs to teach, and does teach, that union with His church means separation from the State.
CHPA	27	1	And it was through the faith of Christ that Moses did all this. It was "through faith" that "Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter; choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt." Hebrews 11:24-26.
CHPA	27	2	Therefore, from that day to this, it has been made plain to all people that faith in God, the faith of Jesus Christ, the original principle of the Gospel and of the church, means the absolute separation of Church and State; the renunciation of the throne and power of earthly dominion; the total separation of religion and the State; and that uniting with the church of Christ means separation from the State and countries of this world.
CHPA	27	3	And this is what faith in God, the faith of Jesus Christ, the fundamental principle of the Gospel and of the church, means to all people in the world to-day.
------------------------Chapter 5. The Singular Nation--Choosing a King
CHPA	28	1	Forty years the Lord led and fed His people in the wilderness.
CHPA	28	2	All this time He was teaching them the way of allegiance to Himself--the way of faith.
CHPA	28	3	This He did in order that His purpose might be fulfilled through them in the land whither they were going to possess it.
CHPA	28	4	At the end of the forty years they were encamped in the plain of Moab, opposite Jericho, preparatory to entering the land of their possession.
CHPA	28	5	While there encamped, the will of God concerning them was declared by an irresistible inspiration upon the prophet Balaam, and in words of instruction to His people for all time.
CHPA	28	6	And the words are these: "Lo, the people shall dwell alone, and shall not be reckoned among the nations." Numbers 23:9.
CHPA	28	7	At that time the Lord's people composed "the church in the wilderness" (Acts 7:38); and in thus declaring that they should dwell alone and not be reckoned among the nations, He plainly declared His will that His church should be forever separated from every State and nation on the earth.
CHPA	29	1	God never intended that His people should be formed into a kingdom, or State, or government, like the people of this world; nor that they should in any way be connected with any kingdom, or State, or government, of this world.
CHPA	29	2	They were not to be like the nations or the people around them. They were to be separated unto God "from all the people that are upon the face of the earth." Exodus 33:16. The people were to dwell alone, and were not to be reckoned among the nations.
CHPA	29	3	Their government was to be a theocracy pure and simple--God their only King, their only Ruler, their only Lawgiver. It was indeed to be a church organization, beginning with the organization of "the church in the wilderness," and was to be separated from every idea of a State. The system formed in the wilderness through Moses, was to continue in Canaan; and was intended to be perpetual.
CHPA	29	4	"The government of Israel was administered in the name and by the authority of Jehovah. The work of Moses, of the seventy elders, of the rulers and judges, was simply to enforce the laws that God had given. They had no authority to legislate for the nation." For God had declared plainly, "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish aught from it." Deuteronomy 4:2.
CHPA	29	5	Thus the principles of their government were solely those of a pure theocracy. And such "was and continued to be the condition of Israel's existence as a nation." In any government it is only loyalty to the principles of the government, on the part of its citizens, that can make it a success. Consequently, on the part of Israel, it was only loyalty to the principles of a pure theocracy--God their only King, their only Ruler, their only Lawgiver--that could possibly make that government a success.
CHPA	30	1	But loyalty to these principles demanded that each one of the people should constantly recognize, and court, the abiding presence of God with him as the sole King, Ruler, and Lawgiver, in all the conduct of his daily life. Yet it is "by faith" that God dwells in the heart and rules in the life. And "without faith it is impossible to please Him." Therefore the existence of the original government of Israel, and the existence of Israel as a nation, depended upon a living, abiding faith in God, on the part of each individual of the people of Israel.
CHPA	30	2	And just here, the only point where Israel could fail, Israel failed. The people did not abide in faith. They did not remain loyal to God as their King. And "Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of the Lord, died, being an hundred and ten years old.... And also all that generation were gathered unto their fathers; and there arose another generation after them, which knew not the Lord, nor yet the works which He had done for Israel." "And the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the Lord, and served Baalim; and they forsook the Lord God of their fathers, which brought them out of the land of Egypt, and followed other gods, of the gods of the people that were round about them, and bowed themselves unto them, and provoked the Lord to anger. And they forsook the Lord, and served Baal and Ashtaroth." Judges 2:8-13.
CHPA	31	1	Then all the evils that came upon them only as the result of their apostasy and idolatry, they charged back upon the government of God. In their unbelief and apostasy, they could see in the continued raids of the heathen, by which their country was sacked, and themselves were oppressed, only evidence that for all practical purposes the government of God had failed.
CHPA	31	2	They therefore reached the conclusion "that in order to maintain their standing among the nations, the tribes must be united under a strong central government. As they departed from obedience to God's law, they desired to be freed from the rule of their divine Sovereign; and thus the demand for a monarchy became widespread throughout Israel." Accordingly, they said to Samuel, "Make us a king to judge us like all the nations." 1 Samuel 8:5.
CHPA	31	3	As their hearts were fully set on having a king like all the nations, and as practically they were much like all the nations anyhow, the best thing the Lord could do for them was to let them have their king. Nevertheless, He said to Samuel, "Protest solemnly unto them." 1 Samuel 8:9.
CHPA	31	4	Samuel did so, but still they insisted: "Nay; but we will have a king over us; that we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles." 1 Samuel 8:19, 20.
CHPA	32	1	And of it all the Lord said to Samuel, "They have not rejected thee, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them." And Samuel said unto them, "Ye have this day rejected your God," and "have said unto Him, Nay; but set a king over us." 1 Samuel 8:7; 10:19.
CHPA	32	2	It was the same story of Babylon, Assyria, and Egypt, over again. When they knew God, they glorified Him not as God. And as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, the arch-deceiver seduced them into idolatry, and from idolatry into monarchy, in order that he might gain supremacy over them, and by wordly influence entire them, or by force prohibit them, from the service of God.
CHPA	32	3	It was to save them from all this that the Lord had said of them, "The people shall dwell alone, and shall not be reckoned among the nations."
CHPA	32	4	If they had remained faithful to this principle, there never would have been amongst Israel a State or a kingdom.
CHPA	32	5	Therefore, in announcing this principle, God intended forever that they should be completely separated from any such thing as a State or kingdom on the earth.
CHPA	32	6	And as when that word was spoken they were "the church," it is absolutely certain that in announcing that principle, God intended to teach them and all people forever that His plainly-declared will is that there shall be a complete separation between His church and every State or kingdom on the earth; that there shall never be any connection between His religion and any State or kingdom in the world.
CHPA	33	1	And, further: As that people were then the church, and as the Lord said they rejected Him when they formed that State and kingdom, it is perfectly plain by the Word of the Lord that whenever the church forms any connection with any State or kingdom on the earth, in the very doing of it she rejects God.
CHPA	33	2	But it is impossible for the church ever to form any connection with any State except by the individual members of the church forming a connection with the State. Therefore, as the church in forming such connection rejects God, and as it is impossible to do this except by the individual members of the church, it is perfectly plain that the teaching of the Word of God is that for members of the church to form connection with the State is to reject God.
CHPA	33	3	And from ancient time all this was written for the admonition of those upon whom the ends of the world are come. Will the people to-day be admonished by it?
------------------------Chapter 6. "Like All the Nations"
CHPA	34	1	God had said of Israel, "Lo, the people shall dwell alone, and shall not be reckoned among the nations." Numbers 25:9.
CHPA	34	2	But, contrary to His expressed will, and against His solemn protest, Israel set up a kingdom and established a State.
CHPA	34	3	They did this, they plainly said, that they might be "like all the nations." Contrary to all the Lord's wishes, the people would "be reckoned among the nations."
CHPA	34	4	But Israel was the church, while all the nations were States. Israel, therefore, could not be like the nations without forming themselves into a State.
CHPA	34	5	But Israel, being the church, could not possibly from themselves into a State without at the same time, and in the very doing of it, forming a union of Church and State.
CHPA	34	6	They did form themselves into a State, and did thus unite Church and State. But as this was contrary to the Lord's plain Word, and against His solemn protest, it certainly stands as the truth that any union of Church and State is against the plain Word and the solemn protest of God.
CHPA	35	1	Israel as "the church," which is "the pillar and ground of the truth," was the depository and the representative of the true religion in the world. Then when Israel formed themselves into a State, this was nothing else than a union of religion and the State. And as their forming of a State was contrary to the expressed will and the solemn protest of the Lord, it is clearly the truth that any connection between religion--and above all the true religion--and the State is positively against the expressed will and the solemn protest of God.
CHPA	35	2	And as Israel, the depository and representative of the true religion, in order to form a union of religion and the State, had to reject God, it is certainly true that every other people, in forming a union of religion and the State, do, in the very doing of it, reject God.
CHPA	35	3	Nothing can be plainer, therefore, than that the God of heaven and earth, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, is eternally opposed to a union of religion and the State. He will never be a party to any such transaction.
CHPA	35	4	This is why He desired that "the people should dwell alone." This is why He would have it that they should "not be reckoned among the nations." He desired that they should abide with Him, and have Him their only God, their only King, their only Ruler, their only Lawgiver--their "all in all."
CHPA	35	5	God wanted not only that Israel, but that all people on the earth, should know that He is better than all other gods, that He is a better King than all other kings, that He is a better Ruler than all other rulers, that He is a better Lawgiver than all other lawgivers, that His law is better than all other laws, and that His government is better than all other governments.
CHPA	36	1	For this reason He would station Israel in Palestine, at the pivot of the highways of the nations; with the God of heaven as their only King, Ruler, and Lawgiver; with His law their only law, and His government their only government; the people dwelling alone and not reckoned among the nations--a holy, happy people; a glorious church.
CHPA	36	2	Dwelling thus in the sight of all the nations that had forgotten God, those nations would be constantly taught the goodness of God and would be once more drawn to Him. Accordingly He told them: "Behold I have taught you statutes and judgments, ...that ye should do so in the land whither ye go to possess it. Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people." Deuteronomy 4:5, 6.
CHPA	36	3	But Israel would not have it so. Israel would "be reckoned among the nations." Israel would be "like all the nations." And so it has been, from that day to this. God has never been allowed by His professed people to reveal Himself to the world as He really is. His church has always been too willing to "be reckoned among the nations," too willing to be "like all the nations." She has always been too willing to be joined to the State, to be a part of the State, to have religion a matter of State and government, "like all the nations." And so it is with the church in all the world to-day.
CHPA	37	1	"'Like all the nations.' The Israelites did not realize that to be in this respect unlike other nations was a special privilege and blessing. God had separated the Israelites from every other people, to make them His own peculiar treasure. But they, disregarding this high honor, eagerly desired to imitate the example of the heathen.
CHPA	37	2	"And still the longing to conform to wordly customs and practices exists among the professed people of God. As they depart from the Lord they become ambitious for the gains and honors of the world. Christians are constantly seeking to imitate the practices of those who worship the god of this world. Many urge that by uniting with worldlings and conforming to their customs, they might exert a stronger influence over the ungodly.
CHPA	37	3	"But all who pursue this course thereby separate from the Source of their strength. Becoming the friends of the world, they are the enemies of God. For the sake of earthly distinction they sacrifice the unspeakable honor to which God has called them, of showing forth the praises of Him who hath called us out of darkness into His marvelous light.
CHPA	37	4	"The days of Israel's greatest prosperity were those in which they acknowledged Jehovah as their King--when the laws and government which He established were regarded as superior to those of all other nations."--Patriarchs and Prophets, chap. 59, par. 8-13. And such will be the days of any people's greatest prosperity.
CHPA	38	1	God's laws, just as they stand, without any re-enactment, without any adding to or diminishing from, are superior to all other laws. His government, administered by Himself through the operation of His own eternal Spirit in each individual heart, is superior to every other government.
CHPA	38	2	But how shall the people know this, who know not God, so long as His own people will not have it so? How shall the nations know this, when His own professed church will not recognize it nor have it so?
CHPA	38	3	Instead of holding fast God's laws and government as superior to those of all States and nations, the professed people of God consider that they must enter the politics and shape the policies, that they must tinker the laws and manipulate the governments, of the States and nations of the world.
CHPA	38	4	Instead of magnifying God's laws and government before all the world, as superior to the laws and governments of all the nations, and showing unswerving allegiance to them as such, the people of the professed churches of God seek to mingle heavenly citizenship with earthly citizenship; and to bring down from their superior place the laws and government of God, and mix them up with the laws and government of all the nations in an unseemly and ungodly union of religion and the State.
CHPA	39	1	And thus the people of the professed churches of God, of the young people's societies and leagues professing Christianity--of all the combined church elements of the land--are following directly in the track of the church of ancient Israel; they will not dwell alone; they will be reckoned among the nations; they will be like all the nations; they will join themselves to the State; they will form a union of religion and the State; they will reject God, that He should not reign over them.
------------------------Chapter 7. Result of Being "Like the Nations"
CHPA	40	1	Israel would form a State, and have a king, that they might be "like all the nations."
CHPA	40	2	All the nations were heathen. To be "like all the nations," then, was only to be like the heathen.
CHPA	40	3	All the nations became heathen by rejecting God. Then when Israel would be "like all the nations"--like all the heathen,--they could do so only by rejecting God.
CHPA	40	4	It was therefore but the simple statement of a fact when the Lord said, "They have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them."
CHPA	40	5	When Israel formed a State, they thereby created a union of religion and the State. But they had to reject God in order to form a State. Therefore they had to reject God in order to form a union of religion and the State.
CHPA	40	6	It follows, therefore, plainly, that no people can ever form a union of religion and the State without rejecting God.
CHPA	40	7	But though Israel had rejected God, yet He did not reject them. He still cared for them; and, through His prophets, still sought to teach and guide them, ever doing His best to save them from the evil consequences which were inevitable in the course which they had taken.
CHPA	41	1	Long before the days of Samuel and Saul, Israel had been taught what would be the outcome of forming themselves into a State and choosing a king; for the formation of a kingdom in the days of Saul was but the culmination of a long-cherished desire in that direction.
CHPA	41	2	After the great victories of Gideon, a hundred years before the day of Saul, "the men of Israel said unto Gideon, Rule thou over us, both thou, and thy son, and thy son's son also; for thou hast delivered us from the hand of Midian." Judges 8:22.
CHPA	41	3	This was nothing else than a proposition to establish at that time a kingdom, with Gideon as the first king, and the kingship to be hereditary in his family. But Gideon refused the offer, and "said unto them, I will not rule over you; neither shall my son rule over you; the Lord shall rule over you."
CHPA	41	4	Gideon knew that such a proposition meant the rejection of God; and he would have no part in any such thing. But the desire still lurked among the people; and forty years afterward, upon the death of Gideon, it was manifested openly in the men of Shechem making Abimelech, a son of Gideon, king in Shechem.
CHPA	41	5	But in a parable, Jotham, the only son of Gideon who had survived the slaughter wrought by Abimelech, mapped out plainly to the people what would be the sure result of their venture.
CHPA	42	1	Jotham stood on the top of Gerizim and called to the people of Shechem, and said:--
CHPA	42	2	"The trees went forth on a time to anoint a king over them; and they said unto the olive tree, Reign thou over us. But the olive tree said unto them, Should I leave my fatness, wherewith by me they honor God and man, and go to be promoted over the trees? And the trees said to the fig tree, Come thou, and reign over us. But the fig tree said unto them, Should I forsake my sweetness, and my good fruit, and go to be promoted over the trees? Then said the trees unto the vine, Come thou, and reign over us. And the vine said unto them, Should I leave my wine, which cheereth God and man, and go to be promoted over the trees? Then said all the trees unto the bramble, Come thou, and reign over us. And the bramble said unto the trees, If in truth you anoint me king over you, then come and put your trust in my shadow; and if not, let fire come out of the bramble, and devour the cedars of Lebanon. Now therefore, if ye have done truly and sincerely, in that ye have make Abimelech king, ...then rejoice ye in Abimelech, and let him also rejoice in you; but if not, let fire come out from Abimelech, and devour the men of Shechem, and the house of Millo; and let fire come out from the men of Shechem, and from the house of Millo, and devour Abimelech." Judges 9:8-20.
CHPA	42	3	And so it came to pass; for in three years the distrust and dissension had so grown between the parties to the transaction respecting the kingship, that open war broke out, which ended only with the death of Abimelech; and, with that, the end of their experiment at setting up a kingdom.
CHPA	42	4	Now all this was held up before all Israel who should come after, as a solemn warning and a forcible admonition of what would inevitably be the result of any attempt at setting up a kingdom. And when, in disregard of all this, and against the Lord's open protest, they did at last again set up a kingdom, this very result, though longer delayed, did inevitably come.
CHPA	43	1	Almost all the reign of Saul, their first king, was spent by him in envy and jealousy of David and a steady seeking to kill him. The reign of David was marred by his own great sin, which he never could have carried out if he had not been king; and was also disturbed by the treason of his chief counselor, and the insurrection of his son Absalom. The latter half of the reign of Solomon was marked by his great apostasy, and was cursed by the abominable idolatries that came in with his heathen wives--all "princesses," the daughters of kings--and which in turn brought heavy burdens and oppression upon the people.
CHPA	43	2	At the end of the reign of these three kings, the nation had been brought to a condition in which it was not well that they should continue as one; and they were therefore divided into two--the Ten Tribes forming the kingdom of Israel, and the two other tribes forming the kingdom of Judah.
CHPA	43	3	And from that day, with the Ten Tribes there was continuous course of apostasy, of contention, and of regicide, till at last, from the terrors of anarchy, they were compelled to cry out, "We have no king." Hosea 10:3. Then the Lord offered Himself to them again, saying: "Thou hast fled from Me." "O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself." "Return unto Me." "I will be thy King." Hosea 7:13; 13:9, 10. But they would not return, and consequently were carried captive to Assyria, and were scattered and lost forever.
CHPA	44	1	When this happened to the kingdom of Israel, it could yet be said of Judah, "Judah yet ruleth with God, and is faithful with the saints." Hosea 11:12. But this was only for a little while. Judah, too, went steadily step by step downward in the course of apostasy, until of her too the word had to be given: "Remove the diadem, take off the crown; ...exalt him that is low, and abase him that is high. I will overturn, overturn, overturn it; and it shall be no more, until He come whose right it is, and I will give it Him." Ezekiel 21:25-27.
CHPA	44	2	Thus Judah too was obliged to say, We have no king. And Judah had to go captive to Babylon, with her city and temple destroyed, and the land left desolate. Thereafter the Lord was obliged to govern His people by the heathen powers, until He Himself should come. And even when He came, because He would not at once set Himself up as a worldly king and sanction their political aspirations, they refused to recognize Him at all. And when at last even Pilate appealed to them, "Shall I crucify your King?" they still, as in the days of Samuel, insisted on rejecting God, and cried out, "We have no king but Caesar." John 19:15.
CHPA	44	3	And this was but the direct outcome, and the inevitable logic, of the step that they took in the days of Samuel. When they rejected God and chose Saul, in that was wrapped up the rejection of the Lord and their choosing of Caesar. In rejecting God that they might be like all the nations, they became like all the nations that rejected God.
CHPA	45	1	And such was the clear result of the union of Church and State among the people of Israel. And it is all written precisely as it was worked out in detail, for the instruction and warning of all people who should come after, and for the admonition of those upon whom the ends of the world are come.
CHPA	45	2	Will the professed people of God to-day in the churches, societies, leagues, unions, and associations of all sorts, everywhere, learn the lesson taught thus in the Word of God of the experience of the people of God of old who would have a State, and so rejected God?
------------------------Chapter 8. The True Principle Taught to Babylon
CHPA	46	1	God had delivered His people from Egypt, and had united them to Himself in order that they might be separated from all the nations. And having brought them out of Egypt, and joined them to Himself, He said of them, "The people shall dwell alone and shall not be reckoned among the nations." Numbers 23:9. It was only by remaining faithful to their union with God that they could be separated from all the nations. Exodus 33:16.
CHPA	46	2	Israel was then the church,--"the church in the wilderness." Acts 7:38. That church was united to God in solemn covenant, upon which the Lord said, "I am married unto you," and, "I was an husband unto them." Thus was that church united to God. And in this there was the complete separation of Church and State.
CHPA	46	3	But Israel was unfaithful to God. She rejected Him and set up a State, and thus formed a union of Church and State. The result was the complete ruin of the State which they had formed; the scattering of the people in captivity among the nations; and the desolation of their land. In their captivity and their trouble they sought the Lord in contrition; and joined themselves again in faithfulness to Him. And this brought them back to their original position of being the church only, and so to their original condition of total separation of Church and State.
CHPA	47	1	God had planted Israel--His church--in Canaan to be the light of the world, to give the knowledge of the true God; as at that time and for ages afterward Palestine was the pivot of the known world. By their being faithful to Him and having Him abide with them, He intended that they should influence all the nations for good. But they revolted and became not only "like all the nations," but even "worse than the heathen." Therefore the land became sick of them, and spewed them out, as it had spewed out the heathen before them. Leviticus 18:25, 28; 20:22.
CHPA	47	2	As by their apostasy and union of Church and State, Israel had frustrated God's purpose to enlighten all nations by them in the land where He had planted them, He would fulfill His purpose, nevertheless; and, separating them again entirely from the State, would enlighten all the nations by them in the lands where He had scattered them. Israel, by becoming like all the nations, had lost the power to arrest and command the attention of all the nations, that the nations might know God, and be taught of Him. Nevertheless, God would now use them to enlighten those who, under Him, had acquired the power to arrest and command the attention of all the nations. Thus by them still He would bring to all the nations the knowledge of the true God, and teach them that "the Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever He will." Daniel 4:17. This is the whole philosophy of the captivity and subjection of Israel and Judah to Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Grecia, and Rome.
CHPA	48	1	God conveyed to the kings and people of these mighty empires, the knowledge of Himself and of His truth for people and kings. And, as we have found over and over in these studies that the separation of religion and the State is one of the fundamental principles of the truth of God for kings and nations, this is one of the great truths taught to the kings and people of these great empires. And this instruction was written out in the Word of God for the instruction of all kings and people until the world's end.
CHPA	48	2	In the second year of his reign alone, to King Nebuchadnezzar there was shown in a dream a great image, whose head was of gold, his breast and arms of silver, his sides of brass, his legs of iron, and his feet and toes part of iron and part of clay. By the word of the Lord through Daniel this was explained to Nebuchadnezzar as signifying the course of empire from that time until the end of the world.
CHPA	48	3	This dream was given to Nebuchadnezzar because that, while upon his bed, thoughts had come into his mind as to "what should come to pass hereafter." From what came to pass afterward with him, it is evident that his thoughts upon that question were to the effect that the mighty kingdom of Babylon, which he ruled--the head of gold--would in its greatness and glory continue on and on indefinitely. To correct this view, and to show him the truth, was the purpose of the dream.
CHPA	49	1	The instruction in the dream, through the divine interpretation, was that the golden glory of his kingdom would continue but a little while, and then another would arise, inferior to his, and another, and another, and then there would be division, with all these descending in a regular scale of inferiority; and then, at last, "the God of heaven" would "set up a kingdom," and this alone would be the kingdom that should stand forever, and not be given to other people.
CHPA	49	2	But Nebuchadnezzar would not accept this view of the subject. Accordingly, he formulated his own idea in a great image, about a hundred feet tall, all of gold from head to feet. This image he set up in the plain of Dura, in the province of Babylon, to be worshiped, and called all his princes, governors, sheriffs, captains, rulers of the provinces, and people generally, to worship it.
CHPA	49	3	This was a positive setting up of his own idea against that of God. This was to declare to all people that his golden kingdom was to endure forever; that there was to be no such thing as another kingdom arising separate from his and inferior to it, and after that others, descending so low as iron mixed with miry clay. No! there should be only his golden kingdom of Babylon, and it should never be broken nor interrupted; but should stand forever.
CHPA	49	4	In a number of points this was an open challenge to the Lord. It was the assertion that Nebuchadnezzar's idea of the kingdoms of men should be accepted as the true and divine idea, as against that of God's, which had been given. It was the assertion that the embodiment of this opposing idea should be worshiped as God. As the idea and the embodiment of it was altogether Nebuchadnezzar's, this was simply the putting of Nebuchadnezzar himself in the place of God, as the ruler in the kingdom of men, the head of all religion, and the director of all worship.
CHPA	50	1	A great day was set for the dedication of Nebuchadnezzar's idea, and the inauguration of the universal worship of it. A great multitude was assembled of many peoples, nations, and languages of his wide realm. When all were assembled, a herald proclaimed: "To you it is commanded, O people, nations, and languages, That at what time ye hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, dulcimer, and all kinds of music, ye fall down and worship the golden image that Nebuchadnezzar the king hath set up: and whose falleth not down and worshippeth shall the same hour be cast into the midst of a burning fiery furnace."
CHPA	50	2	In the great assembly were three young Jews--Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego. And when all the others fell down and worshiped, these stood bolt upright, paying no attention to the law that had just then been proclaimed, nor to the image. They were at once reported and accused to the king. Then the king "in his rage and fury" commanded them to be brought before him. It was done. He asked them if it was true and of purpose that they had not worshiped. He then repeated his decree and the dreadful penalty. But they answered: "O Nebuchadnezzar, we are not careful to answer thee in this matter. If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and He will deliver us out of thine hands, O king. But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up."
CHPA	51	1	The furnace was heated seven times hotter than usual, and they were bound and cast into it. But suddenly the king rose up in astonishment from his throne and cried to his counselors, "Did not we cast three men bound into the midst of the fire? They answered and said unto the king, True, O king." But he exclaimed, "Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God."
CHPA	51	2	Then the king called them forth, and said in the presence of all: "Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, who hath sent His angel, and delivered His servants that trusted in Him, and have changed the king's word, and yielded their bodies, that they might not serve nor worship any god, except their own God."
CHPA	51	3	God had commanded all nations to serve King Nebuchadnezzar, and that whatsoever nation would not serve him, that nation the Lord would punish. Yet here He wrought a wondrous miracle to deliver the men who had openly and directly refused to obey a plain and direct command of the king. How could this consistently be?--Easily enough. This command, this law, of the king was wrong. He was demanding a service which he had no right to require. In making him king of the nations, the Lord had not made him king in the religion of the nations. In making him the head of all the nations. God had not made him the head of religion.
CHPA	52	1	But being an idolater, and having grown up amid idolatrous systems, Nebuchadnezzar did not know this. With idolaters, religion always has been, and still is, a part of the government. In heathen systems, religion and the governments are always united; while in the true system, the genuine Christian system, they are always separate.
CHPA	52	2	And this was the lesson which God there taught to Nebuchadnezzar. In a way in which it was impossible not to understand, the Lord showed to that king that he had nothing whatever to do with the religion, nor with the directing of the worship, of the people. The Lord had brought all nations into subjection to King Nebuchadnezzar as to their bodily service; but now, by an unmistakable evidence, this same Lord showed to King Nebuchadnezzar that He had given him no power nor jurisdiction whatever in their souls' service.
CHPA	52	3	The Lord thus showed to King Nebuchadnezzar that, while in all things between nation and nation, or man and man, all people, nations, and languages had been given to him to serve him, and he had been made ruler over them all; yet in things between men and God, the king was plainly and forcibly given to understand that he had nothing whatever to do. The God of heaven there taught to that king, and through him to all kings, rulers, and people forever, that in all matters of religion and worship, in the presence of the rights of conscience of the individual, the word of the king must change; the decree of the ruler is naught.
CHPA	53	1	And this was written for our admonition upon whom the ends of the world are come. This is important instruction and present truth to-day. For throughout the whole English-speaking world to-day King Nebuchadnezzar's example of arrogance is being followed--and that even by those who profess to know God and to be guided by the Bible. Nebuchadnezzar's offense was in setting up his own idea and forming it into a decree and then enforcing it as the law. And throughout these nations to-day, there are people who profess to know God and to be guided by the Bible, who have set up their own or some other one's altogether human idea of the Sabbath against God's idea of the Sabbath-Sunday against the Sabbath of the Lord--and have secured the framing of it into a decree, and are having it enforced as the law. But it is all wrong, just as Nebuchadnezzar's assumption was wrong. And every one who will be faithful to God must say, We will not serve thy gods nor worship the image of the Sabbath which thou hast set up. And in the presence of the rights of conscience of the individual to-day, the word of the ruler must change; such laws are simply naught.
CHPA	54	1	Nebuchadnezzar learned his lesson. And this truth was spread to all the nations and languages in that day; and it must be spread to all in this day. Will all who to-day are following his wrong course, learn this lesson and correct their ways, as did he?
------------------------Chapter 9. The True Principle Taught to Medo-persia
CHPA	55	1	The night in which Babylon fell Daniel had been appointed by King Belshazzar "the third ruler in the kingdom," because of his interpretation of the terrible handwriting on the wall. The reason that the highest honor that could be bestowed on him was that of third ruler was that Belshazzar was only associate king with his father. This gave two kings, and so a first and second ruler; and another could not be higher than third ruler.
CHPA	55	2	Thus it was with Daniel; and when that same night Babylon fell, Belshazzar was slain, and his father was a prisoner, and no longer king; this left Daniel the chief official, with whom the conquerors could communicate in rearranging the affairs of the Babylonian State. Because of this, and more particularly "because an excellent spirit was in him," the king of conquering Media and Persia thought to set him over "the whole realm." Thus "this Daniel was preferred above the presidents and princes."
CHPA	55	3	When all the other presidents, princes, governors, and captains saw that Daniel, a captive Jew, was preferred before themselves, who were high and mighty Medes and Persians, they were much dissatisfied.
CHPA	56	1	And when they discovered that he was likely to be yet further promoted, they determined to break him down utterly. Therefore they formed a conspiracy, and diligently "sought to find occasion against Daniel concerning the kingdom."
CHPA	56	2	But with all their diligence, and with all their suspicions and prejudiced care, "they could find none occasion nor fault; forasmuch as he was faithful, neither was there any error or fault found in him." There was, however, one last resource, which, by a trick, they might employ. They knew that he feared God. They knew that his service to the Lord was actuated by such firm principle that, in rendering that service, he would not dodge, nor compromise, nor swerve a hair's breadth, upon any issue that might be raised.
CHPA	57	3	"Then said these men, We shall not find any occasion against this Daniel, except we find it against him concerning the law of his God." But even in this there was nothing upon which they might "find" an "occasion." In order to find it they must create it; and create it they did. Pretending to be great lovers of their king and country, and to have much and sincere concern for the honor of the king and the preservation of the State, "they assembled together to the king," and proposed "to establish a royal statute, and to make a firm decree," that whosoever should ask any petition of any god or man for thirty days, save of King Darius, should be cast into the den of lions. They presented the case in such a plausible way, and with such evident care for the public good, that Darius was completely hoodwinked, and "signed the writing and the decree." Thus the invention of the conspirators became "the law of the land."
CHPA	57	1	Daniel knew that the writing was signed. He knew that it was now the law--the law of the Medes and Persians too, which could not be altered. Yet, knowing this, "he went into his house" and "kneeled upon his knees three times a day, and prayed, and gave thanks before his God, as he did aforetime." He knew perfectly that no law of the Medes and Persians, nor of any other earthly power, could ever, of right, have anything to say or do with any man's service to God. He went on just as aforetime, because, practically, and in principle, all things were just as aforetime. So far as concerned the conduct of the man who feared God, any law on that subject was no more than no law at all on that subject.
CHPA	57	2	In the Medes and Persians a new set of men had come upon the world's stage; the power of empire had passed into new hands. And these new rulers, as well as Nebuchadnezzar, must be taught the truth of the separation of religion and the State. And in order that they should have opportunity to learn this, Daniel, who was the possessor and representative of this great truth, must stand, unswervingly, to the principle. And so he did.
CHPA	57	3	"Then these men assembled, and found Daniel praying and making supplication before his God."
CHPA	58	1	They expected to find him praying that was exactly what they "assembled" for. And Daniel was not afraid that they would find him doing so. They immediately hurried away to the king, and asked him, "Hast thou not signed a decree, that every man that shall ask a petition of any god or man within thirty days, save of thee, O king, shall be cast into the den of lions? The king answered and said. The thing is true, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which altereth not. Then answered they and said before the king, That Daniel, which is of the children of the captivity of Judah, regardeth not thee, O king, nor the decree that thou hast signed, but maketh his petition three times a day."
CHPA	58	2	Then the king suddenly awoke to the fact that he had been duped. And "he was sore displeased with himself, and set his heart on Daniel to deliver him; and he labored till the going down of the sun to deliver him." But it was all of no avail; the conspirators were persistent to frustrate every effort which the king could make. And they had a ready and conclusive argument against everything that might be proposed. That argument was "the law:" "Know, O king, that the law of the Medes and Persians is, That no decree nor statute which the king establisheth may be changed." There was no remedy; the law must be enforced. Accordingly, though most reluctantly, "the king commanded, and they brought Daniel, and cast him into the den of lions."
CHPA	58	3	The king passed the night in fasting and sleeplessness, and very early in the morning went in haste to the den of lions, and "cried with a lamentable voice, ...O Daniel, servant of the living God, is thy God, whom thou servest continually, able to deliver thee from the lions?" To the infinite delight of the king, Daniel answered: "O king, live forever. My God hath sent His angel, and hath shut the lions' mouths, that they have not hurt me; forasmuch as before Him INNOCENCY was found in me; and also before thee, O king, have I done no hurt."
CHPA	59	1	That is divine testimony, published to all the world, that innocence before God is found in the man who disregards any human law that interferes with his service to God. It is also divine testimony that the man who disregards such laws, in so doing does "no hurt" to the king, to the State, nor to society.
CHPA	59	2	Thus God taught to the rulers of the Medo-Persian Empire the separation of religion and the State; that with men's relationship to God, rulers and States can have nothing whatever to do. And it was written for the instruction of all rulers and States unto the world's end.
CHPA	59	3	In these two experiences recorded in the book of Daniel--the one of Nebuchadnezzar and the worship of his great golden image, the other of the conspirators against Daniel's service to God--all people are taught in the most impressive way, that the God of heaven forbids any ruler to require His subjects to conform to His ideas in religion, and forbids all people to frame any law on any subject touching men's relation to God. In these two experiences the God of heaven, in the strongest possible way, teaches all people, and particularly His own people, that in the presence of the rights of conscience, in the presence of men's relationship to God, and in all matters of religion, the word and authority of every king or ruler must give way; that all laws framed, which touch in any manner men's relationship to God, which touch any matter of religious observance, are simply naught--are no more than no law at all on such subject. In it all, the God of heaven also teaches to all that He vindicates and declares innocent all who refuse obedience to such decrees of kings and rulers, all who utterly disregard all such laws; and also certifies to all kings, rulers, and people that those who do disregard all such laws do "no hurt" to either king, ruler, or people.
CHPA	60	1	And these lessons need to be perseveringly taught everywhere to-day. In almost every country in the world, and especially in the English-speaking countries, the schemes and inventions of men in matters religious, and particularly as to the observance of Sunday, are crowded into the law and so forced upon all the people. These men profess to be jealous guardians of religious liberty and the rights of conscience. They "do not believe in enforcing religion upon anybody." Yet all the time they are steadily working to get religious dogmas and institutions recognized and fixed in the law, and then demand obedience to the law, and throw upon the dissenter the odium of "lawlessness, and disrespect for constituted authority," while they pose as the champions of "law and order," the "conservators of the State, and the stay of society;" exactly as did the conspirators against Daniel.
CHPA	61	1	Sunday, not only according to their own showing, but by every other fair showing that can be made, is a religious institution, a church affair, only. This they all know. And yet, in almost every land, those people are working constantly to get this church institution fixed, and more firmly fixed, in the law, with penalties attached that are more worthy of barbarism than of civilization; and then, when anybody objects to the enforcement of such laws, they all cry out: "It is not a question of religion at all; religion hasn't anything to do with it; it is simply a question of regard for law. The law! The law! It is the law of the land! We are not asking any religious observance by anybody; all that we ask is respect for the law!" But the lessons in the book of Daniel teach to all people that no religious or ecclesiastical institution or rite has any right to any place in the law. And that when against right it is put into the law, it gains no force whatever from that, and is to receive no respect nor recognition whatever.
CHPA	61	2	And thus by the word and work of God in the book of Daniel, there is taught to all kings and all people unto the end of the world, the total separation of religion and the State.
------------------------Chapter 10. Christ the Example
CHPA	62	1	Jesus Christ came into the world to bring to men the true knowledge of God; for "God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself." 2 Corinthians 5:19. He came to reveal to men the kingdom of God,--to enunciate its principles, to manifest its spirit, to reveal its character. Of it He said: "My kingdom is not of this world." John 18:36. "Except a man be born again, he can not see the kingdom of God." John 3:3. And His apostles declared, "The kingdom of God is ...righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost." Romans 14:17.
CHPA	62	2	"My kingdom is not of this world." Every kingdom, every State, every government of men, is altogether of this world and of this world alone. How then can anybody be of any earthly kingdom or State and of the kingdom of God at the same time? Those who are of the church are of the kingdom of God, because the church is the church of God, and not of this world--it is composed of those who are "chosen out of the world." Those who are of the State are of this world, because the State is altogether and only of this world.
CHPA	62	3	And, indeed, were not "all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them" offered to Jesus for His very own? Why did He not take them and rule over them and convert them and thus save them--He could not, because to have taken them would have been to recognize "the god of this world," by whom they were offered. Luke 4:5-8. And so is ever, the kingdom of this world is offered ever only by Satan; and all who are Christ's will refuse it, as did our Example, and as did Moses, His chosen forerunner runner and type.
CHPA	63	1	Christ was and is the embodiment of the church and of all Christianity. Therefore, and thus, in the Word of Christ, in the very principles of the cause of Christ, there is taught the separation of Church--of Christianity--and State as complete and as wide as in the separation between the kingdom of God and the kingdoms of this world; and that is as complete and as wide as is the separation between God and this world.
CHPA	63	2	Accordingly, Christ says in another place, "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's." Matthew 22:21. In that time the head of the Roman Empire, the personification of the world's power, was Caesar. And in that Roman world-system it was claimed that whatsoever was Caesar's was God's; because to all the people of that world-system Caesar was God. He was set before the people as God; the people were required to worship him as God; incense was offered to his image as to God. In that system the State was divine, and Caesar was the State. Therefore that system was essentially a union of religion and the State.
CHPA	64	1	In view of this, when Jesus said, "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's," He denied to Caesar, and so to the State, every attribute, or even claim, of divinity. He showed that another than Caesar is God. Thus He entirely separated Caesar and God. He entirely separated between the things which are due to Caesar and those which are due to God. The things that are due to Caesar are not to be rendered to God. The things due to God are not to be rendered to Caesar. These are two distinct realms, two distinct personages, and two distinct fields of duty. Therefore, in these words Jesus taught as plainly as it is possible to do, the complete separation of religion and the State; that no State can ever rightly require anything that is due to God; and that when it is required by the State, it is not to be rendered.
CHPA	64	2	Again: Jesus is the Example whom God has set to be the Guide to every person in this world in every step that can be taken in the right way. Any step taken by anybody in a way in which the Lord Jesus did not go is taken in the wrong way. He hath left us "an example, that ye should follow His steps." 1 Peter 2:21. Whosoever saith that he "abideth in Him ought himself also so to walk, even as He walked." I John 2:6. And Jesus never, in any manner nor to any degree, took any part in political matters nor in any affairs of the State. Jesus was then, and is forever, the embodiment of true religion. Therefore, in His whole life's conduct of absolute separation from everything political, from all affairs of the State, there is taught to all the world, and especially to all believers in Him, the complete separation of the religion of Christ, and of all who hold it, from everything political and from all affairs of the State.
CHPA	65	1	So faithfully did He hold to that principle that when a man asked Him only, "Speak to my brother, that he divide the inheritance with me," He refused, with the words, "Man, who made Me a judge or a divider over you?" and then said to them all, "Take heed and beware of covetousness; for a man's life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth." Luke 12:13-15. Oh, if only all who have professed to be His followers had held aloof from all affairs of politics and the State, how vastly different would have been the history of the Christian era! What a blessing it would have been to the world! What floods of misery and woe mankind would have been spared!
CHPA	65	2	And why was it that Jesus thus persistently kept aloof from all affairs of politics and the State? Was it because all things political, judicial, and governmental were conducted with such perfect propriety, and with such evident justice, that there was no place for anything better, no room for improvement such as even He might suggest?--Not by any means. Never was there more political corruption, greater perversion of justice, and essential all-pervasive evil of administration, than at that time. Why, then, did not Jesus call for "municipal reform"? Why did He not organize a "Law and Order League"? Why did He not disguise Himself and make tours of the dives and the gambling-dens, and entrap victims into violation of the law? And why did He not employ other spies to do the same, in order to get against the representatives of the law evidence of maladministration by which to arraign them and to compel them to enforce the law, and thus reform the city, regenerate society, and save the State, and so establish the kingdom of God? Why? The people were ready to do anything of that kind that might be suggested. They were ready to cooperate with Him in any such work of "reform." Indeed, the people were so forward and so earnest in the matter that they would have actually taken Him by force and made Him King, had He not withdrawn Himself from them. John 6:15. Why, then, did He refuse?
CHPA	66	1	The answer to all this is, Because He was Christ, the Saviour of the world, and had come to help men, not to oppress them; had come to save men, not to destroy them. "The government under which Jesus lived was corrupt and oppressive; on every hand were crying abuses--extortion, intolerance, and grinding cruelty. Yet the Saviour attempted no civil reforms. He attacked no national abuses, nor condemned the national enemies. He did not interfere with the authority or administration of those in power. He who was our Example kept aloof from earthly governments--not because He was indifferent to the woes of men, but because the remedy did not lie in merely human and external measures. To be efficient, the cure must reach men individually and must regenerate the heart.
CHPA	67	1	"Not by the decisions of courts, or councils, or legislative assemblies, not by the patronage of worldly great men, is the kingdom of Christ established; but by the implanting of Christ's nature in humanity through the work of the Holy Spirit. 'As many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name; which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.' Here is the only power that can work the uplifting of mankind. And the human agency for the accomplishment of this work is the teaching and practising of the Word of God."--Desire of Ages, chap. 55, par. 12.
CHPA	67	2	Now Christ is the true Example set by God for every soul in this world to follow. The conduct of Christ is Christianity. Conformity to that Example in the conduct of the individual believer--this and this alone is Christianity in the world. The conduct of Christ, the Example, was totally separate in all things from politics and the affairs of the State. Christianity, therefore, is the total separation of the believer in Christ from politics and all the affairs of the State, the total separation of religion and the State in the individual believer.
CHPA	68	1	Accordingly, Jesus said to His disciples forever, "Ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world." John 15:19. And to His Father He said of His disciples forever, "They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world." John 17:16. Every Christian in this world, then, must be in the world as Christ was in the world. "As He is, so are we in this world." I John 4:17. "It is enough for the disciple that he be as his Master." Matthew 10:25. The Master was always, and in all things, and by fixed design, completely separated from all affairs of politics and the State. And it is forever enough "that the disciple be as his Master."
CHPA	68	2	The following passage from a sermon by the late Thomas Hewlings Stockton presents an infinity of truth, and is worthy to stand forever in letters ablaze with eternal glory:--
CHPA	68	3	"There was one sacrifice too great for Christ to make. He was willing to leave the throne of the universe for the manager of Bethlehem; willing to grow up as the son of a poor carpenter; willing to be called the friend of publicans and sinners; willing to be watched with jealous eyes, and slandered by lying tongues, and hated by murderous hearts, and betrayed by friendly hands, and denied by pledged lips, and rejected by apostate priests and a deluded populace and cowardly princes; willing to be sentenced to the cross, and to carry the cross, and be nailed to the cross, and bleed and groan and thirst and die on the cross. But he was not willing to wear an earthly crown or robe, or wield an earthly scepter, or exercise earthly rule. That would have been too great a sacrifice. He did, indeed, endure the crown of thorns and the cast-off purple and the reed, and the cry, 'Hail, King of the Jews!' But this was merely because he preferred the mockery to the reality; so pouring infinite contempt on the one, not only by rejecting it in the beginning of his ministry, but also by accepting the other at its close."
CHPA	69	1	This is the Christianity of Jesus Christ, as respects the great question of religion and the State. And, as in all the instruction from God from the beginning of creation down, it calls always for the complete separation of religion and the State in all things and in all people, in order that the Christian may enjoy infinitely higher things.
------------------------Chapter 11. "The Powers That Be"
CHPA	70	1	In the thirteenth and fourteenth chapters of Romans is one of the strongest of the many strong treatises that there are in the Bible upon the total separation of religion and the State--the separation between that which is due to God and that which is due to Caesar.
CHPA	70	2	First is a recognition of the right of the State to be, and to require subjection and tribute: "Let every soul be subject to the higher powers." "The powers that be are ordained of God." "For this cause pay ye tribute also." "Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor."
CHPA	70	3	Next is marked the sphere of men's relation to the State: "Owe no man anything, but to love one another; for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."
CHPA	70	4	Now everybody knows, and Paul knew as well as anybody ever knew, that there are other commandments--other commandments of the very law from which he quoted these. There is the commandment: "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image; ...thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them; for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me; and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love Me, and keep My commandments. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain." "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord they God; in it thou shalt not do any work; ...for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it."
CHPA	71	1	With these commandments standing as a part, and, indeed, the first part, of the very law which he was citing, why did he leave these entirely out and say, "If there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself"? Why?--For the simple reason that he was writing of men's relationship and responsibility to the powers that be, to the State; and he was laying down the principle that when men have recognized the right of the State to be, have paid the required tribute, and have fulfilled all obligations to their neighbors, there is nothing more for them to render to the State; there is no other commandment in that sphere, and therefore no other duty to be performed toward the powers that be.
CHPA	72	1	This is made certain by the next verse: "Love worketh no ill to his neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law:" which shows conclusively that it is only the relation of man with man--of man to his neighbor--that is considered in the passage under consideration. The passage is simply an enlargement, an exposition, indeed, of the principle announced by Jesus, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." When men have recognized the authority of the State, have paid their tribute, and work no ill to their fellow-men, the only relationship or obligation after that is to God. The only commandments outside of that sphere are those which mark men's duty towards God.
CHPA	72	2	Thus the Scripture distinctly sets the limit of the jurisdiction or the requirements of the State, at recognition of right to be, tribute, and the relationship of man to man in working no ill to his neighbor. Beyond this the State has no right to go. Outside of this there is nothing for any man to render to the powers that be.
CHPA	72	3	But the Word of the Lord does not stop here; it positively prohibits the powers that be from touching the relationship or obligation of men to God.
CHPA	73	1	"Every one of us shall give account of himself to God." Romans 14:12. And that the emphasis is upon the word "himself" and not upon the word "account," is certain from the context in the whole chapter. It is not that "every one of us shall give account of himself to God," nor is it "every one of us shall give account of himself to God." That is all true enough; but that is not the thought expressed in the text.
CHPA	73	2	The one thought particularly expressed is that "every one of us shall give account of himself to God." And thus, by the Word of God, all powers that be, all men, and all combinations of men, are positively prohibited from touching, in any way, any man's relationship to God. That rests with man alone; and for his responsibility there, he is to give account himself to God.
CHPA	73	3	Again: "One man esteemeth one day above another; another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day to the Lord he doth not regard it." Romans 14:5, 6. The matter of the observance of a day, the duty to esteem one day above another, is not comprehended in that part of the law which relates to neighbors; nor is it comprised in the duties designated as marking the sphere of the powers that be. It is in that part of the law which, by the words "if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself," is definitely excluded from all cognizance of the powers that be.
CHPA	74	1	The observance of a day, the duty to esteem one day above another, is due solely to God. For "he that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord," not to men. It is comprehended in that part of the law which details man's relationship to God alone, and concerning which to God alone every one is to give account himself. Therefore, the powers that be, all men, and all combinations of men, are definitely commanded by the Lord to let every man alone in the matter of the observance of a day. On that subject all are commanded to "let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." And this because that is an obligation due solely to God, and "every one of us shall give account of himself to God."
CHPA	74	2	How different are the ways of professed Christians to-day from the Christianity of the New Testament! The vast mass of professed Christians to-day, in hunting for another commandment in the sphere of the powers that be, would inevitably write it thus: If there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt do no work on the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday.
CHPA	74	3	But the Christianity of the New Testament, in defining the sphere of the powers that be, says, "If there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself;" and then, as to the observance of a day, commands the powers that be, and all men, and all combinations of men: "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day to the Lord he doth not regard it." And "every one of us shall give account of himself to God." "Who art thou that judgest another man's servant?"
CHPA	75	1	The day to be esteemed above others is the Sabbath of the Lord. "Render therefore ...to God the things that are God's." And any man who does not esteem that day above others, who does not regard it unto the Lord, but esteems every day alike, is responsible to God alone and must render account of it himself to God, and not to man. While the thing that he does is wrong, it is a kind of wrong for which he is responsible to God, and not to the powers that be.
CHPA	75	2	All this also conclusively shows that any movement on the part of the powers that be, or of men or combinations of men through the powers that be, to require the observance of a day or to cause men to esteem one day above another, is a plain joining together of what is God's and what is Caesar's, is a positive union of religion and the State. It is written, "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." And by the same token it can be authoritatively written, What God hath put asunder, let no man, nor any combination of men, join together.
CHPA	75	3	Again: This treatise in Romans 13 and 14, on the separation of religion and the State, the separation of what is due to God from what is due to the powers that be, closes with the mighty sentence, "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin."
CHPA	76	1	Whatsoever is of the Word of God is of faith; for faith comes by the Word of God; and "without faith it is impossible to please Him."
CHPA	76	2	Religion is due solely to God; it is "the duty we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it."
CHPA	76	3	Therefore, for the powers that be, or any men by the powers that be, to require anything that is due to God, is only to subvert faith and require men to sin.
CHPA	76	4	For the powers that be, or any men through the powers that be, to require of any man anything that is due to God, is, in the very act, to unite religion and the State. And as thus to require of men anything that is due to God, is to subvert faith and to require men to sin, it is certain that any connection whatever between religion and the State is sin. And, therefore, the greatest example of it that has ever been in the world is aptly and justly designated "the man of sin." 2 Thessalonians 2:3, 4.
CHPA	76	5	And since to "love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself"--the keeping of the first two of all the commandments--is complete separation from sin, this brings us again to the truth with which we began,--that the first two of all the commandments, and the keeping of them, are the basis and the surety of the universal and eternal truth of the separation of religion and the State.
------------------------Chapter 12. Christian Patriotism
CHPA	77	1	What is Christian patriotism in itself?
CHPA	77	2	Patriotism itself is love of country. And the country the love of which is patriotism, is the country of one's birth, or of one's adoption by naturalization.
CHPA	77	3	Christian patriotism, then, being Christian love of country, can be nothing else than the Christian's love of the country of his Christian birth.
CHPA	77	4	But the Christian birth is the new birth; it is the being "born again," which is being "born from above." And this "above," the place from which the Christian is born, is heaven.
CHPA	77	5	Heaven, then, is the Christian's country. And even so saith the Scripture: "If ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." Galatians 3:29. And to Abraham it was said, "Get thee out of thy country, ...into the land that I will show thee." "He ...obeyed," and thenceforth he and all his "confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country. And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned. But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly; wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God; for He hath prepared for them a city." Hebrews 11:13-16.
CHPA	78	1	Patriotism, then, being love of one's country, and the "heavenly country" being the Christian's country, Christian patriotism is nothing else than love of the heavenly country.
CHPA	78	2	True patriotism is the love of one's country above all other countries: so much so that the true patriot willingly lays down his life for his country. Christian patriotism, then, is the love of the heavenly country above all other countries: so much so that the true Christian will willingly lay down his life for that country.
CHPA	78	3	True patriotism is "the spirit that, originating in love of country, prompts to obedience to its laws; to the support and defense of its existence, rights, and institutions; and to the promotion of its welfare." The Christian's country being only the heavenly country, Christian patriotism is nothing else than the spirit that prompts to obedience to its laws; to the support and defense of its existence, rights, and institutions; and to the promotion of its welfare.
CHPA	78	4	The spirit that, as to the Christian, originates in the love of the Christian's country, is none other than the Holy Spirit. For without being born again, there can be no Christian; and there being no Christian, there can be no love of the Christian's country--no Christian patriotism. Being born again is to be born of the Spirit. Therefore without the Holy Spirit's creating the new creature and the new life, there can be no Christian patriotism.
CHPA	79	1	Are you a Christian patriot? Do you love the Christian's country above all other countries? Have you the spirit that prompts to obedience to the laws of that country, above all other laws; that supports and defends its existence, rights, and institutions above and against those of all other countries?
CHPA	79	2	But may not Christian patriotism, this support and defense of the rights and institutions of the Christian's country, involve fighting?--It not only may, but it certainly does. Read: "Fight the good fight of faith." "The weapons of our warfare are not carnal," yet they are "mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds; casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ." 2 Corinthians 10:4, 5.
CHPA	79	3	"Wherefore take unto you the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; and your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God; praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints." Ephesians 6:13-18.
CHPA	79	4	Are you a Christian patriot?
------------------------Chapter 13. Christian Naturalization
CHPA	80	1	Patriotism is not only love of the country of one's birth, but also love of the country of one's naturalization.
CHPA	80	2	Christian patriotism, therefore, is not only love of the country of one's Christian birth, but also of one's Christian naturalization.
CHPA	80	3	Naturalization is that procedure through which persons born in another country--aliens, foreigners--become citizens of a certain country of their choice.
CHPA	80	4	Is there, then, anything in Christian experience that corresponds to naturalization? Is there such a thing as Christian naturalization? Read Ephesians 2:11: "Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; that at that time ye were without Christ, being ALIENS from the commonwealth of Israel, and STRANGERS from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world."
CHPA	80	5	Aliens become citizens of a government by naturalization. And when in the act of being naturalized they take the oath of allegiance to the new government, the new sovereign, here are the specifications--copied from a gentleman's certificate of naturalization. You and I were aliens. We have become naturalized into the commonwealth of Israel, the kingdom of God. And now what is involved? Read:--
CHPA	81	1	"This is to certify, etc., that J--B--'on being admitted to citizenship by this court, took the oath to support the Constitution of the United States of America, and that he then did absolutely and forever renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to every foreign prince, potentate, State, or sovereignty whatsoever, and particularly to the emperor of Germany,' etc., etc."
CHPA	81	2	If he had been a British subject, it would have read, "and particularly to the queen of Great Britain and empress of India."
CHPA	81	3	How much did he have to renounce?--"All allegiance and fidelity to every foreign prince, potentate State, or sovereignty whatsoever." And what in particular?--"And particularly to the emperor of Germany."
CHPA	81	4	And how fully? and for how long?--"Absolutely and forever renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity." Thus he is to turn his back "absolutely" upon all his former "allegiance and fidelity to every foreign prince, potentate, State, or sovereignty WHATSOEVER." That is in general. And in particular, to the one to whom he was particularly subject. That is, in earthly governments, the way aliens are naturalized.
CHPA	81	5	Now how is it with us, who "were aliens"?--"Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but
CHPA	82	1	FELLOW-CITIZENS with the saints [not fellow-citizens with sinners but "with the saints," Deuteronomy 33:2; Jude 14] and of the household of God; and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner-stone." Ephesians 2:19, 20. Thank the Lord!
CHPA	82	2	That certificate of naturalization declares that, whatsoever the man may be, he, "on being admitted to citizenship, ...did absolutely and forever renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to every foreign prince, potentate, State, or sovereignty whatsoever, and particularly to the" sovereignty to which he had formerly been particularly subject.
CHPA	82	3	In becoming a citizen of the commonwealth of Israel, a fellow-citizen with the saints, did you "absolutely and forever renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to every foreign prince, potentate, State, or sovereignty whatsoever, and particularly to the" one to which you were formerly subject, as every alien must do to become a citizen of an earthly government?
CHPA	82	4	If not, then do you count citizenship in the commonwealth of Israel, fellow-citizenship with the saints, of as much value as any alien must count citizenship in an earthly government? Do you count fellow-citizenship with the saints of as much value as an alien counts fellow-citizenship with sinners?
CHPA	82	5	In truth and in fact, is citizenship in the commonwealth of Israel, is fellow-citizenship with the saints, of as much value as is citizenship in an earthly government, as is fellow-citizenship with sinners?
CHPA	83	1	If citizenship in heaven, if citizenship in the commonwealth of Israel, if fellow-citizenship with the saints, if to be of the household of God, is indeed as valuable as is citizenship in an earthly government, then in order to be truly a citizen of the commonwealth of Israel, just as certainly as to be a citizen of an earthly government, it is required that every such one shall "absolutely and forever renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to every foreign prince, potentate, State, or sovereignty whatsoever, and particularly to the" one to whom, when an alien, he is subject, which is "the prince of this world."
CHPA	83	2	And if this is not done, what then? If all allegiance to every prince, potentate, state or sovereignty whatsoever, other than that of the commonwealth of Israel, other than that of heaven, other than that of the saints, other than that of the household of God, is not absolutely and forever renounced and abjured, then there is certainly attempted a divided allegiance.
CHPA	83	3	But will a divided allegiance answer? Will a divided allegiance be accepted? Will any earthly government accept a divided allegiance? If any alien asking to become a citizen of an earthly government should refuse to make that renunciation, full and complete as it is; if he should ask to have the renunciation divided, that he might retain and show some fidelity, only a little, to some foreign prince, potentate, State, or sovereign; would he be accepted? Everybody knows that he would not, for even a moment. How, then, can it be supposed that such reserved, such divided, allegiance could be accepted in any one asking to be a citizen of the commonwealth of Israel?
CHPA	84	1	It is not enough, however, to inquire whether a divided allegiance will be accepted. The true question is, Can there really be any such thing as a divided allegiance? And the true answer is, No; for it is written, "No man can serve two masters."
CHPA	84	2	It is therefore certain that no alien, seeking to be a citizen of the commonwealth of Israel, can ever expect to carry with him there any shadow of allegiance to anything in this world or of this world. It is written: "Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him." 1 John 2:15. Princes, potentates, States, and sovereignties are only of this world. To retain allegiance or fidelity to any of these, is to retain allegiance and fidelity to the things that are only of this world, and, so, to the world itself.
CHPA	84	3	Christian citizenship is citizenship in heaven; for "our citizenship is in heaven." Philippians 3:20. Another translation reads, "For our country [the State to which we belong, of which we by faith are citizens] is in the heavens."--Alford. Another, an interlinear, word for word, translation gives it, "For of us the commonwealth in the heavens exists."
CHPA	84	4	Christian citizenship is citizenship in the commonwealth of Israel; for we are no more "aliens from the commonwealth of Israel," "no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God." Ephesians 2:12, 13, 18, 19.
CHPA	85	1	Christian patriotism is love of the country of one's citizenship. And true citizenship is the absolute and everlasting renunciation and abjuration of all allegiance and fidelity to every other prince, potentate, State, or sovereignty whatsoever.
CHPA	85	2	Is yours a true Christian citizenship? Are you a Christian patriot?
			ADDENDA
CHPA	85	3	Paul's use of Roman citizenship, in which he was born, does not in any sense conflict with the principles of this chapter. For it is to be observed that after he became a Christian, Paul never made any use whatever of that citizenship, nor even mentioned it, except when a prisoner in the hands of the Roman power.
CHPA	85	4	So certainly is this so that he allowed himself to be three times beaten with Roman rods, once to be stoned and dragged out of the city of Lystra, and left for dead, beside many other indignities that could not lawfully be put upon a Roman citizen; and yet nowhere in it all did he so much as mention his Roman citizenship.
CHPA	85	5	But when he was in the hands of the Roman officers and authorities, and they would beat him, as at Jerusalem (Acts 22:25), he said, "Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman, and uncondemned?" Or when, held by Caesar's power at Caesar's judgment-seat, it was proposed to subject him to the judgment of the Jews, and this to please the Jews who were clamoring for his life, he said: "I stand at Caesar's judgment-seat, where I ought to be judged; ...no man may deliver me unto them. I appeal unto Caesar." Acts 25:8-11. Or when he and Silas had been unlawfully beaten and put into prison and in the stocks, and the magistrates sent word to let them go, he returned answer to them, "They have beaten us openly uncondemned, being Romans, and have cast us into prison; and now do they thrust us out privily? nay verily; but let them come themselves and fetch us out." Acts 16:35-37.
CHPA	86	1	Seeing, then, that he never made use nor any mention at all of his Roman citizenship except when he was a prisoner, and then only to insist that the authorities should proceed according to the law which bound them, and to the strict observance of which it was perfectly proper that he should hold them, it is evident that what little reference he did make to that citizenship does not conflict with the principle inculcated in his writings, as well as throughout the whole Bible, that the Christian's citizenship is heavenly and not earthly.
CHPA	86	2	Nor does the conduct of either Daniel in Babylon or Joseph in Egypt conflict with the principles here developed from the Scriptures.
CHPA	86	3	Daniel was a captive, and therefore in the condition of a slave, in Babylon. And, though placed in high position and given great responsibility, he was not in any sense a citizen of the kingdom or commonwealth of Babylon, or of Medo-Persia. His patriotism was not in any sense love of the country of Babylon, or of Medo-Persia, but only of Jerusalem, the city of God, and the Lord's holy mountain. Witness his deep anxiety to know when the time would expire and the desolations of Jerusalem be accomplished. Witness his wonderful prayer that God would cause His face to shine upon His sanctuary, and bring His people once more to their beloved Zion. Daniel 9. And witness "his windows being open in his chamber toward Jerusalem," and his prayers there "three times a day." Daniel 6:10. Witness his loyalty to the law and government of God, against those of Babylon and Medo-Persia. He was a servant of the kings of Babylon and of Medo-Persia: a highly-honored servant, it is true, yet always only a servant; and even when he was in his most exalted position, he was still referred to as "that Daniel, which is of the children of the captivity of Judah." He served the kings where he was a captive, as he and all his people were commanded by the Lord to do (Jeremiah 29); but through it all he was of those who mournfully chanted:--
			"By the rivers of Babylon,
			There we sat down, yea, we wept,
			When we remembered Zion.
			Upon the willows in the midst thereof
			We hanged up our harps.
			For there they that led us captive required of us songs,
			And they that wasted us required of us mirth, saying,
			Sing us one of the songs of Zion.
			How shall we sing the Lord's song
			In a strange land?
CHPA	87	1	If I forget thee, O Jerusalem,
			Let my right hand forget her cunning.
			Let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth,
			If I remember thee not;
CHPA	88	1	If I prefer not Jerusalem Above my chief joy." Psalm 137:1-6, R. V.
CHPA	88	2	It was in principle the same with Joseph. Originally, in Egypt, Joseph was a bought-and-sold slave. And though from prison exalted to the place next to the throne, he was ever only a servant of the king of Egypt, and was never a citizen of Egypt. His patriotism was not love of the country of Egypt, but of the country promised to his fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Witness the impressive fact that he would not allow so much as that even his bones should be buried in Egypt; and his dying and solemn admonition, accepted on oath by his brethren, which was faithfully observed and fulfilled a hundred and forty-four years afterward: "I die; and God will surely visit you, and bring you out of this land unto the land which He sware to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob. And Joseph took an oath of the children of Israel, saying, God will surely visit you, and ye shall carry up my bones from hence." Genesis 50:24, 25; Exodus 13:19; Joshua 24:32.
CHPA	88	3	Thus Daniel and Joseph both being originally slaves in the respective countries of their captivity, their standing and relationships, even in the exalted places to which in the providence of God they were brought, were far different from what these would have been had they been citizens of the respective countries where they were. And what they both would have done had the providence of God brought them through such changes as would have given them the standing and relationships of citizens indeed of the respective countries where they were,--what then they both would have done, we know perfectly from what was actually done by Moses, the great exemplar of their era, and the prototype of the greater Exemplar of our era and of all eras. Moses was in very deed a citizen of Egypt. He was of the royal family, and indisputable heir to the throne. The responsibilities, with the honors, of Egyptian citizenship were upon him, in the fullest sense of the word. But he absolutely and forever renounced and abjured that citizenship, for naturalization in the commonwealth of Israel, for fellow-citizenship with the saints. He left it all, to go with "the people of God." "The reproach of Christ," and even "affliction with the people of God," were to him of far more worth than were all the honors and treasures that attached to Egyptian citizenship.
CHPA	89	1	This being what Moses, the great exemplar of that era, did, and Daniel and Joseph being of the same spirit and character, we know by it precisely what they would have done had they in their respective places been citizens instead of slaves. But, being only servants of the kings where they were, they, like all God-fearing men, were respectful, obedient, and faithful to their "masters according to the flesh."
------------------------Chapter 14. The Land of our Fathers
CHPA	90	1	Patriotism is the love of one's country--the country of one's birth--because it is the land of his fathers.
CHPA	90	2	Christian patriotism, then, is the love of the country of the Christian's birth, because it is the land of his Christian fathers.
CHPA	90	3	The country of the Christian's birth is the heavenly country, because the Christian is born only "from above." The heavenly country, then, is the land of the Christian's fathers.
CHPA	90	4	People are Christians only because they are Christ's people. "And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." Galatians 3:29. And the country of our father Abraham was "an heavenly" country only.
CHPA	90	5	Abraham was once a Gentile, was of the nations; but he was born again, was born from above. He was once an alien; but he was naturalized into the kingdom of God, and became a fellow-citizen with the saints.
CHPA	90	6	In becoming naturalized into the kingdom of God, on being admitted into the heavenly citizenship, Abraham was required to get out of his country. Genesis 12:1. This requirement he at once accepted, and he "then did absolutely and forever renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to every foreign prince, potentate, State, or sovereignty whatsoever." He obeyed and went out, "not knowing whither he went," only knowing that he went with God, which was enough for him; and so he became the "father of all them that believe." Romans 4:11.
CHPA	91	1	When God called Abram out of that country, He also called him into another country, a better, even a heavenly.
CHPA	91	2	Ever after that day, Abraham looked to that country. That is Abraham's country. Wherever he was in this world, he was "in a strange country;" and in this strange country he dwelt "in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise; for he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God." And "these all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country. And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned. But now they desire a better country, that is, AN HEAVENLY; wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God; for He hath prepared for them a city." Hebrews 11:9-16.
CHPA	91	3	We "are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus." "And if ye be Christ's, then are ye
CHPA	92	1	Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." As Abraham is the father of all them that believe, and as that heavenly country is Abraham's country, then that heavenly country is the Christian's country. As Christian patriotism is love of the Christian's country, the country of the Christian's fathers; and as that country alone is the Christian's country, is the country of the Christian's fathers; so Christian patriotism is love of the country of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and CHRIST,--the heavenly country, "the world" of the new earth, the country which God gave in faithful promise to our father.
CHPA	92	2	Are you, now, a true Christian patriot? Is that truly your country? Do you love that country above all other countries that can ever be named or thought of?
CHPA	92	3	And what a country! The wilderness like Eden, and the desert as the garden of the Lord: with only joy and gladness found therein, thanksgiving and the voice of melody. Isaiah 51:3. A country where the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of seven days; and where even then the moon shall be confounded and the sun ashamed in the presence of the glorious Lord who reigns in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem and before His ancients gloriously. Isaiah 30:26; 24:23. A country whose capital city is built all of gold and precious stones and pearls, every several gate of one pearl; a city that has no need of the sun nor the moon to shine in it, because the glory of God lightens it and the Lamb is the light thereof; and the nations of them that are saved shall walk in the light of it, and the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day; for there shall be no night there. Revelation 21:10-25. A country in which the inhabitants shall never say, I am sick; for the people that dwell therein shall be forgiven their iniquity. Isaiah 33:24. A country where the people shall all be righteous (Isaiah 60:21); and where the wilderness and the solitary place shall be glad for them, and the desert shall rejoice and blossom as the rose; where the eyes of the blind are opened, and the ears of the deaf unstopped; where the lame man shall leap as a hart, and the tongue of the dumb sing; where in the wilderness, waters break out, and streams in the desert; where the ransomed of the Lord shall come to Zion with songs and everlasting joy upon their heads; and where they shall obtain joy and gladness and sorrow and sighing shall flee away." Isaiah 35:1-10. A country so quiet and so secure that the people can dwell safely in the wilderness, and sleep in the woods; where the people and the very places round about shall be a blessing; and where there shall be showers of blessing. Ezekiel 34:25, 26. A country where the very land itself shall rejoice even with joy and singing; where for very joy the mountains and the hills shall break forth into singing, and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands. Isaiah 55:12. A country in which the tabernacle of God shall be with men, and "He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself shall be with them, and be their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain; for the former things are passed away." Revelation 21:3, 4. A country where "we shall ever feel the freshness of the morning, and shall ever be far from its close."
CHPA	94	1	That is the Christian's country. That is the country of our Christian fathers--of Abraham, our father; of Jesus Christ, the last Adam, and so "the everlasting Father;" and of God, the universal Father, "our Father which art in heaven." Christian patriotism is love of that country.
CHPA	94	2	Who would not be a Christian patriot?
------------------------Chapter 15. Through the Christian Era
CHPA	95	1	The book of Revelation in prophetic symbol portrays the fatal consequences, and all history since the book of Revelation was written gives the terrible facts, of the disregard of these principles of divine truth.
CHPA	95	2	There is seen Death, on a pale horse, and Hell following with him, riding forth to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth, souls who were faithful to the Word of God and the testimony which they held. Chap. 6:8-11.
CHPA	95	3	There is seen a great city, "spiritually called Sodom and Egypt," where again "our Lord was crucified." Chap. 11:8.
CHPA	95	4	There is seen a great red dragon persecuting to the death "the woman which brought forth the man child" who "was caught up unto God, and to His throne;" and persecuting "the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ." Chap. 12:13-17.
CHPA	95	5	There is seen a great and dreadful beast in alliance with the dragon, "speaking great things and blasphemies;" opening "his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme His name, and His tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven;" making "war with the saints;" exercising his baleful power "over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations," and demanding of them the worship that is due to God only. Chap. 13:1-7.
CHPA	96	1	There is seen an "image of the beast" in alliance with the dragon and the beast, exercising "all the power of the first beast;" deceiving them that dwell on the earth by means of miracles which he had power to do; causing "all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads; and that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name;" and causing "that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed." Chap. 13:11-17.
CHPA	96	2	There is seen a "great whore" "with whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication," sitting "upon a scarlet-colored beast, full of names of blasphemy," the woman "arrayed in purple and scarlet color, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication," upon her forehead a name "written, Mystery, Babylon the Great, the Mother of Harlots and Abominations of the Earth," and she herself "drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus." Chap. 17:1-6.
CHPA	96	3	Yet over all--death and hell, dragon beast and false prophet, lewd woman and harlot daughters--the saints of God obtain the everlasting victory.
CHPA	97	1	That victory is gained "by the word of God and the testimony which they held," "by the blood of the Lamb and the word of their testimony," by "the everlasting gospel."
CHPA	97	2	Their faithfulness is manifested in keeping the commandments of God and holding the testimony of Jesus Christ (chap. 12:17), by keeping the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus (chap. 14:12).
CHPA	97	3	Therefore upon them is pronounced the divine blessing, and to them there is given the eternal reward: "Blessed are they that do His commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city." Chap. 22:14. And from the eternal throne goes forth the royal command, "Open ye the gates, that the righteous nation which keepeth the truth may enter in." Isaiah 26:2.
CHPA	97	4	"And I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire; and them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, and over the number of his name, stand on the sea of glass, having the harps of God. And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvelous are Thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are Thy ways, thou King of saints. Who shall not fear Thee, O Lord, and glorify Thy name? for Thou only art holy; for all nations shall come and worship before Thee; for Thy judgments are made manifest." Chap. 15:2-4.
CHPA	97	5	"And I saw thrones, and they that sat upon them; and judgment was given unto them; and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshiped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years."
CHPA	98	1	"And I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. And I John saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself shall be with them, and be their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain; for the former things are passed away."
CHPA	98	2	"And there shall be no more curse; but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and His servants shall serve Him; and they shall see His face; and His name shall be in their foreheads. And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light; and
CHPA	98	3	"They shall reign forever and ever."
CHPA	98	4	Thus is vindicated the loyalty of men to Christian principle; and this is the reward of Christian patriotism.
------------------------Chapter 16. Christian Loyalty
CHPA	99	1	Everything that the Lord has ever done for mankind since the sin of Adam, has been done solely to bring man back into harmony with His law.
CHPA	99	2	The establishment of ordinances; the giving of His law; the sending of His prophets; the sending of His Son, "that Prophet" greater than all; the gift of His Holy Spirit; and the gifts of the Spirit--all, everything, that has been given, established, or employed by the Lord, has been to bring men to obedience to His law.
CHPA	99	3	In bringing men to His law He is bringing them to Himself; for it is written: Thou "testifiedst against them, that Thou mightest bring them again unto Thy law," and "testified against them to turn them to Thee." Nehemiah 9:29, 26. Read carefully the whole chapter, and see the object of all that He did. Bringing men to His law is only turning them to Himself; because "God is love," and this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments."
CHPA	99	4	No higher attainment than the love of God can ever be reached by any soul in the wide universe. And since it is the love of God, and only the love of God, "that we keep His commandments," it is the very certainty of truth that no higher attainment than the keeping of the commandments of God can ever be reached by any soul in the wide universe.
CHPA	100	1	Jesus said, "I have kept My Father's commandments, and abide in His love," and "I and My Father are one." There can not possibly be any higher nor any better attainment than oneness with God: than likeness to Christ, who is one with God. And as He kept the Father's commandments and abode in His love, and abode in His love by keeping His commandments, so there is no higher nor better thing that could possibly be attainable than the keeping of the commandments of God.
CHPA	100	2	The greatest gift of God to men is the gift of His only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ. Yet with this wondrous gift to men, even in Christ nothing avails on the part of men "but faith which worketh by love." Faith is the gift of God, and, working by love, works only by the love of God. And "this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments." Therefore it is certain that the one great object of the very gift of Christ, and of faith in Him, is to bring men to the keeping of the commandments of God, to faithful obedience to His law.
CHPA	100	3	The greatest gift God can bestow on men through Jesus Christ, the only means of this gift to men, is His Holy Spirit. Yet in this gift all that He does, all that He can do, is to cause men to know the love of God: for "the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us." Romans 5:5.
CHPA	101	1	And since it is "the love of God, that we keep His commandments," and "love is the fulfilling of the law," it is perfectly plain that the one purpose of this greatest gift of God through Christ is the keeping of the commandments of God, faithful allegiance to His law.
CHPA	101	2	All the working of the Spirit of God, through all the diversities of operations, is to bring souls unto charity, the bond of perfectness, which is perfect love, the love of God. And "this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments." Therefore all the working of the Spirit of God, through His many gifts and operations, is solely to bring men to the keeping of the commandments of God.
CHPA	101	3	By all this therefore it is certain that the keeping of the commandments of God is the greatest blessing, the highest honor, and the richest gift that even God can bestow upon any soul. All other blessings honors, and gifts are subordinate to this; they are given only to be conducive to this one thing; and they are to be used only as means of attaining this.
CHPA	101	4	For any person to use any of the gifts of God for any other purpose than to make himself a true keeper of the commandments of God, is for that person to miss the will of God, and to frustrate the object of the very gift which he would use. To be willing to use the Word of God, to use God's gift of His dear Son, to use the gift of the Holy Spirit, or any of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, with any other aim than the perfect keeping of the commandments of God, is to miss the will of God, and to pervert the purpose of that Word, or that gift. That one aim, and that alone, is true Christianity.
CHPA	102	1	This is what Christian patriotism means. So to honor the law of God is what it means to be a true citizen of the commonwealth of Israel. This is what means loyalty to the government of God, and allegiance to the constitution the supreme law of the Most High.
CHPA	102	2	Now are you a Christian patriot? Is the keeping of the commandments of God your one single aim? Are all the gifts and blessings of God counted by you as only contributory to this one single object? These questions are important. This whole subject, as here presented, is of vital importance to every soul; for the loyalty of every soul to God, to His government, to His law, is to be tested to the uttermost in this time, when "the hour of His judgment is come," and when, of all who shall stand in the judgment and be saved, it is declared from heaven, "Here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus." Revelation 14:6-12.
CHPA	102	3	Here are the commandments of God, His holy law:
CHPA	102	4	"I am the lord thy god, which have brought thee out of the land of egypt, and out of the house of bondage.
CHPA	102	5	"Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
CHPA	102	6	"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven
CHPA	103	1	Image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them; for 1 the lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
CHPA	103	2	"Thou shalt not take the name of the lord thy god in vain; for the lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
CHPA	103	3	"Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the sabbath of the lord thy god; in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter; thy man servant, nor thy maid servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; for in six days the lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore the lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
CHPA	103	4	"Honor thy father and thy mother; that thy days may be long upon the land which the lord thy god giveth thee.
CHPA	103	5	"Thou shalt not kill.
CHPA	104	1	"Thou shalt not commit adultery.
CHPA	104	2	"Thou shalt not steal.
CHPA	104	3	"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
CHPA	104	4	"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his man servant, nor his maid servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor's."
CHPA	104	5	These commandments are summed up in the following two; because "on these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets":--
CHPA	104	6	"Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord; and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength."
CHPA	104	7	"Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."
CHPA	104	8	This alone is Christian patriotism; and Christian patriotism is, in every individual who possesses it, the total separation of religion and the State.

------------------------The Consecrated Way to Christian Perfection
CWCP	3	1	Introduction
CWCP	9	1	Chapter 1--"Such an High Priest"
CWCP	13	1	Chapter 2--Christ as God
CWCP	17	1	Chapter 3--Christ as man
CWCP	21	1	Chapter 4--He Took Part of the Same
CWCP	27	1	Chapter 5--Made Under the Law
CWCP	32	1	Chapter 6--Made of a Woman
CWCP	40	1	Chapter 7--The Law of Heredity
CWCP	45	1	Chapter 8--In All Things Like
CWCP	52	1	Chapter 9--Further Qualifications of our High Priest
CWCP	57	1	Chapter 10--The Sum
CWCP	62	1	Chapter 11--That I May Dwell Among Them
CWCP	76	1	Chapter 12--Perfection
CWCP	86	1	Chapter 13--The Transgression and the Abomination of Desolation
CWCP	104	1	Chapter 14--The Time of Finishing the Mystery of God
CWCP	113	1	Chapter 15--The Cleansing of the Sanctuary
CWCP	120	1	Chapter 16--The Times of Refreshing
CWCP	126	1	Chapter 17--Conclusion

------------------------Introduction
CWCP	3	1	In the manifestation of Christ the Saviour it is revealed that He must appear in the three offices of prophet, priest, and king.
CWCP	3	2	Of Him as prophet it was written in the days of Moses: "I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put My words in His mouth; and He shall speak unto them all that I shall command Him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto My words which He shall speak in My name, I will require it of him." Deuteronomy 18:18, 19. And this thought was continued in the succeeding scriptures until His coming.
CWCP	3	3	Of Him as priest it was written in the days of David: "Yet have I set ['anointed,' margin] My King upon My holy hill of Zion." Psalm 2:6. And this thought, likewise, was continued in all the scriptures afterward unto His coming, after His coming, and unto the end of the Book.
CWCP	3	4	Thus the Scriptures abundantly present Him in the three offices of prophet, priest, and king.
CWCP	4	1	This threefold truth is generally recognized by all who have acquaintance with the Scriptures, but above this there is the truth which seems to be not so well known---that He is not all three of these at the same time. The three offices are successive. He is prophet first, then after that He is priest, and after that He is king.
CWCP	4	2	He was "that Prophet" when He came into the world, as that "Teacher come from God," the Word made flesh and dwelling among us, "full of grace and truth." Acts 3:19-23. But He was not then a priest, nor would He be a priest if He were even yet on earth, for it is written, "If He were on earth, He should not be a priest." Hebrews 8:4. But, having finished His work in His prophetic office on earth, and having ascended to heaven at the right hand of the throne of God, He is now and there our "great High Priest" who "ever liveth to make intercession for us," as it is written: "He shall be a priest upon His [Father's] throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both." Zechariah 6:12, 13.
CWCP	4	3	As He was not that Priest when He was on earth as that Prophet, so now He is not that King when He is in heaven as that Priest. True, He is king in the sense and in the fact that He is upon His Father's throne, and thus He is the kingly priest and the priestly king after the order of Melchizedek, who, though priest of the Most High God, was also King of Salem, which is King of peace. Hebrews 7:1, 2. But this is not the kingly office and throne that is referred to and that is contemplated in the prophecy and the promise of His specific office as king.
CWCP	5	1	The kingly office of the promise and the prophecy is that He shall be King upon "the throne of His father David," in perpetuation of the kingdom of God upon this earth. This kingly office is the restoration and the perpetuation, in Him, of the diadem, the crown, and the throne of David, which was discontinued when, because of the profanity and wickedness of the king and the people of Judah and Israel, they were taken captive to Babylon, when it was declared: "And thou, profane wicked prince of Israel, whose day is come, when iniquity shall have an end, Thus saith the Lord God; Remove the diadem, and take off the crown; this shall not be the same: exalt him that is low, and abase him that is high. I will overturn, overturn, overturn, it: and it shall be no more, until He come whose right it is; and I will give it Him." Ezekiel 21:25-27.
CWCP	5	2	Thus and at that time the throne, the diadem, and the crown of the kingdom of David was discontinued "until He come whose right it is," when it will be given Him. And He whose right it is, is only Christ, "the Son of David." And this "coming" was not His first coming when He came in His humiliation, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; but it is His second coming, when He comes in His glory as "King of kings and Lord of lords," when His kingdom shall break in pieces and consume all the kingdoms of earth and shall occupy the whole earth and shall stand forever.
CWCP	5	3	It is true that when He was born into the world, a babe in Bethlehem, He was born King and was then and has been ever since King by right. But it is equally true that this kingly office, diadem, crown, and throne of the prophecy and promise, He did not then take and has not yet taken and will not take until He comes again. Then it will be that He will take to Himself His great power upon this earth, and will reign fully and truly in all the splendor of His kingly office and glory. For in the Scripture it is portrayed that after "the judgment was set, and the books were opened," one like the Son of man came to the Ancient of days, "and there was given Him dominion and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve Him: His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His kingdom that which shall not be destroyed." Daniel 7:13, 14. Then it is that He shall indeed take "the throne of His father David: and He shall reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of His kingdom there shall be no end." Luke 1:32, 33.
CWCP	6	1	Thus it is plain that in the contemplation of the scripture, in the contemplation of the promise and the prophecy, as to His three offices of prophet, priest, and king, these offices are successive, and not all nor even any two of them at the same time. He came first as "that Prophet;" He is now that Priest, and will be that King when He comes again. He finished His work as "that Prophet" before He became that Priest; and He finishes His work as that Priest before He will become that King.
CWCP	6	2	And as He was, and as He is, and as He is to be, so our consideration of Him must be.
CWCP	6	3	That is to say: When He was in the world as that Prophet, that is what the people were then to consider Him; and, as concerning that time, that is what we are now to consider Him. But they at that time could not consider Him as that Priest, nor, as concerning Him in that time, can we consider Him as that Priest; for when He was on earth, He was not a priest.
CWCP	7	1	But when that time was past, He became Priest. He is now Priest. He is now just as truly Priest as, when He was on earth, He was that Prophet. And in His office and work of priest we are now to consider Him just as truly, just as thoroughly, and just as constantly that Priest, as when He was on earth; they and we must consider Him as that Prophet.
CWCP	7	2	And when He comes again in His glory and in the majesty of His kingdom, and upon the throne of His father David, then we shall consider Him as that King, which He will then indeed be. But not until then can we truly consider Him in His kingly office, as He in that kingship and kingly office will be.
CWCP	7	3	In His kingly office we can now truly contemplate Him as only that which He is yet to be. In His prophetic office we can now contemplate Him only as that which He has been. But in His priesthood we must now consider Him as that which He now is, for only that is what He now is. That is the office in which alone He is now manifested, and that is the office in which alone we can now actually consider Him in His own person and procedure.
CWCP	7	4	Not only are His three offices of prophet, priest, and king successive, but they are successive for a purpose. And they are successive for a purpose in the exact order of the succession as given--prophet, priest, and king. His office as prophet was preparatory and essential to His office as priest; and His offices of prophet and priest, in order, are preparatory to His office as king.
CWCP	8	1	And to us the consideration of Him in these offices in their order is essential.
CWCP	8	2	We must consider Him in His office as prophet, not only in order that we may be taught by Him who spake as never man spake, but also that we shall be able properly to consider Him in His office as priest.
CWCP	8	3	And we must consider Him in His office as priest, not only that we may have the infinite benefit of His priesthood, but also that we shall be prepared for what we are to be. For it is written: "They shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years." Revelation 20:6.
CWCP	8	4	And having considered Him in His office of prophet as preparatory to our properly considering Him in His office as priest, it is essential that we consider Him in His office as priest in order that we shall be able to consider Him in His office as king; that is, in order that we shall be with Him there and reign with Him there. For even of us it is written: "The saints of the Most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom forever, even forever and ever," and "they shall reign forever and ever." Daniel 7:18; Revelation 22:5.
CWCP	8	5	His priesthood being the present office and work of Christ, this having been His office and work ever since His ascension to heaven, Christ in His priesthood is the all-important study for all Christians, as well as for all other people.
------------------------Chapter 1--"Such an High Priest"
CWCP	9	1	"Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an High Priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; a minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man."
CWCP	9	2	This is the summing up of the evidence of the high priesthood of Christ presented in the first seven chapters of Hebrews. The "sum" thus presented is not particularly that we have an High Priest but that "we have such an High Priest." "Such" signifies "of that kind; of a like kind or degree,"--"the same as previously mentioned or specified; not another or different."
CWCP	9	3	That is to say: In the preceding part (the first seven chapters of the Epistle to the Hebrews) there have been specified certain things concerning Christ as High Priest, certain qualifications by which He became High Priest, or certain things which are becoming to Him as an High Priest, which are summed up in this text: "Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an High Priest."
CWCP	9	4	It is necessary, therefore, to an understanding of this scripture that the previous portion of this epistle shall be reviewed to see what is the true weight and import of this word, "such an High Priest." The whole of the seventh chapter is devoted to the discussion of this priesthood. The sixth chapter closes with the thought of this priesthood. The fifth chapter is almost wholly devoted to the same thought. The fourth chapter closes with it, and the fourth chapter is but a continuation of the third chapter, which begins with an exhortation to "consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;" and this as the conclusion from what had already been presented. The second chapter closes with the thought of His being "a merciful and faithful High Priest" and this also as the conclusion from what has preceded in the first and second chapters, for though they are two chapters the subject is but one.
CWCP	10	1	This sketch shows plainly that in the first seven chapters of Hebrews the one great thought over all is the priesthood of Christ and that the truths presented, whatever the thought or the form may be, are all simply the presentation in different ways of the great truth of this priesthood, all of which is finally summed up in the words: "We have such an High Priest."
CWCP	10	2	Therefore, in discovering the true weight and import of this expression, "such an High Priest," it is necessary to begin with the very first words of the book of Hebrews and follow the thought straight through to the summing up, bearing constantly in mind that the one transcendent thought in all that is presented is "such an High Priest" and that in all that is said the one great purpose is to show to mankind that we have "such an High Priest." However rich and full may be the truths in themselves, concerning Christ, which are contained in the successive statements, it must be constantly borne in mind that these truths--however rich, however full--are all expressed with the one great aim of showing that we have "such an High Priest." And in studying these truths as they are presented in the epistle, they must be held as subordinate and tributary to the great truth over all that is the "sum,"--"we have such an High Priest."
CWCP	11	1	In the second chapter of Hebrews, as the conclusion of the argument there presented, it is written: "Wherefore in all things it behooved Him to be made like unto His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God." In this it is declared that Christ's condescension, His likeness to mankind, His being made flesh and dwelling amongst men, was necessary to His becoming "a merciful and faithful High Priest." But in order to know the measure of His condescension and what is the real meaning of His place in the flesh as the Son of man and man, it is necessary to know what was first the measure of His exaltation as the Son of God and God, and this is the subject of the first chapter.
CWCP	11	2	The condescension of Christ, the position of Christ, and the nature of Christ as He was in the flesh in the world are given in the second chapter of Hebrews more fully than in any other one place in the Scriptures. But this is in the second chapter. The first chapter precedes it. Therefore the truth and the thought presented in the first chapter are essentially precedent to the second chapter. The first chapter must be fully understood in order to be able to follow the thought and understand the truth in the second chapter.
CWCP	12	1	In the first chapter of Hebrews, the exaltation, the position, and the nature of Christ as He was in heaven before He came to the world are more fully given than in any other single portion of the Scriptures. Therefore it is certain that an understanding of the position and nature of Christ as He was in heaven is essential to a proper understanding of His position and nature as He was on earth. And since it behooved Him to be what He was on earth, in order that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest, it is essential to know what He was in heaven, for this is essential precedent to what He was on earth and is therefore an essential part of the evidence that is summed up in the expression, "We have such an High Priest."
------------------------Chapter 2--Christ as God
CWCP	13	1	What, then, is the thought concerning Christ in the first chapter of Hebrews?
CWCP	13	2	First of all there is introduced "God"--God the Father--as the speaker to men, who "in time past spake unto the fathers by the prophets" and who "hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son."
CWCP	13	3	Thus is introduced Christ the Son of God. Then of Him and the Father it is written: "Whom He [the Father] hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also He [the Father] made the worlds." Thus, as preliminary to His introduction and our consideration of Him as High Priest, Christ the Son of God is introduced as being with God as Creator and as being the active, vivifying Word in the creation--"by whom also He [God] made the worlds."
CWCP	13	4	Next, of the Son of God Himself we read: "Who being the brightness of His [God's] glory, and the express image of His [God's] person ["the very impress of His substance," margin R.V.], and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high."
CWCP	13	5	This tells us that in heaven the nature of Christ was the nature of God, that He in His person, in His substance, is the very impress, the very character, of the substance of God. That is to say that in heaven as He was before He came to the world the nature of Christ was in very substance the nature of God.
CWCP	14	1	Therefore it is further written of Him that He was "made so much better than the angels, as He hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they." This more excellent name is the name "God," which, in the eighth verse, is given by the Father to the Son: "Unto the Son He [God] saith, Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever."
CWCP	14	2	Thus, He is "so much" better than the angels as God is better than the angels. And it is because of this that He has that more excellent name--the name expressing only what He is in His very nature.
CWCP	14	3	And this name "He hath by inheritance." It is not a name that was bestowed but a name that is inherited.
CWCP	14	4	Now it lies in the nature of things, as an everlasting truth, that the only name any person can possibly inherit is his father's name. This name, then, of Christ's, which is more excellent than that of the angels, is the name of His Father, and His Father's name is God. The Son's name, therefore, which He has by inheritance, is God. And this name, which is more excellent than that of the angels, is His because he is "so much better than the angels." That name being God, He is "so much better than the angels" as God is better than the angels.
CWCP	14	5	Next, His position and nature, as better than that of the angels, is dwelt upon: "For unto which of the angels said He [the Father] at any time, Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to Him a Father, and He shall be to Me a Son?" This holds the thought of the more excellent name spoken of in the previous verse. For He, being the Son of God--God being His Father, thus hath "by inheritance" the name of His Father, which is God and which is so much more excellent than the name of the angels as God is better than they.
CWCP	15	1	This is dwelt upon yet further: "And again, when He bringeth in the first begotten into the world, He saith, and let all the angels of God worship Him." Thus He is so much better than the angels that He is worshiped by the angels: and this according to the will of God, because He is, in His nature, God.
CWCP	15	2	This thought of the mighty contrast between Christ and the angels is dwelt upon yet further: "Of the angels He saith, Who maketh His angels spirits, and His ministers a flame of fire. But unto the Son He saith, Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever ["from eternity to eternity," German translation]."
CWCP	15	3	And again, "A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even Thy God, hath anointed Thee with the oil of gladness above Thy fellows."
CWCP	15	4	And yet again, the Father, in speaking to the Son, says: "Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of Thine hands: they shall perish; but Thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment; and as a vesture shalt Thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but Thou are the same, and Thy years shall not fail."
CWCP	15	5	Note the contrasts here and in them read the nature of Christ. The heavens shall perish, but He remains. The heavens shall wax old, but His years shall not fail. The heavens shall be changed, but He is the same. This shows that He is God, of the nature of God.
CWCP	16	1	Yet more of this contrast between Christ and the angels: "To which of the angels said He at any time, Sit on My right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool? Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?"
CWCP	16	2	Thus, in the first chapter of Hebrews Christ is revealed higher than the angels, as God; and as much higher than the angels as is God, because He is God.
CWCP	16	3	In the first chapter of Hebrews Christ is revealed as God, of the name of God, because He is of the nature of God. And so entirely is His nature of the nature of God that it is the very impress of the substance of God.
CWCP	16	4	This is Christ the Saviour, Spirit of Spirit, substance of substance, of God.
CWCP	16	5	And this it is essential to know in the first chapter of Hebrews, in order to know what is His nature revealed in the second chapter of Hebrews as man.
------------------------Chapter 3--Christ as man
CWCP	17	1	Christ's likeness to God, as set forth in the first chapter of Hebrews, is only introductory to the setting forth of His likeness to men, as in the second chapter of Hebrews.
CWCP	17	2	His likeness to God, as in the first chapter of Hebrews, is the only basis of true understanding of His likeness to men, as in the second chapter of Hebrews.
CWCP	17	3	And this likeness to God, as given in the first chapter of Hebrews, is likeness--not in the sense of a mere picture or representation--but is likeness in the sense of being actually like in very nature--the very "impress of His substance," Spirit of Spirit, substance of substance, of God.
CWCP	17	4	And this is given as the preliminary to our understanding of His likeness to men. That is to say: from this we are to understand that His likeness to men is not merely in shape, in picture, or representation, but in nature, in very substance. Otherwise, the whole first chapter of Hebrews, with all its detail of information, is, in that connection, meaningless and misplaced.
CWCP	17	5	What, then, is this truth of Christ made in the likeness of men, as given in the second chapter of Hebrews?
CWCP	17	6	Bearing in mind the great thought of the first chapter and the first four verses of the second chapter,--of Christ in contrast with the angels, higher than the angels, as God,--we begin with the fifth verse of the second chapter, where begins the thought of Christ in contrast with the angels, lower than the angels, as man.
CWCP	18	1	So we read: "For unto the angels hath He not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak. But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that Thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that Thou visitest him? Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; Thou crownedst him with glory and honor, and didst set him over the works of Thy hands: Thou hast put all things in subject under his feet. For in that He put all in subject under Him, He left nothing that is not put under Him. But now we see not yet all things put under Him. But we see Jesus." Hebrews 2:5-9.
CWCP	18	2	That is to say: God has not put in subjection to the angels the world to come, but He has put it in subjection to man--yet not the man to whom it was originally put in subjection, for, though it was so, yet now we see it not so. The man lost his dominion, and instead of having all things in subjection under his feet, he himself is now in subjection to death. And he is in subjection to death only because he is in subjection to sin, for "by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." Romans 5:12. He is in subjection to death because he is in subjection to sin, for death is only the wages of sin.
CWCP	18	3	Nevertheless, it stands eternally true that not unto the angels hath He put in subjection the world to come, but unto man. And, now, Jesus Christ is THE MAN.
CWCP	19	1	For, though this dominion having been put in subjection to man and though now we see it not so, though man was given the dominion over all, and now we see that dominion lost to that particular man, yet we do "see Jesus," as man, come to regain that original dominion. We do "see Jesus" as man, come to have all things put in subjection under Him.
CWCP	19	2	That man was the first Adam; this other Man is the last Adam. That first Adam was made a little lower than the angels; this last Adam, Jesus, also we see "made a little lower than the angels."
CWCP	19	3	That first man did not remain in the position where he was made, "lower than the angels." He lost that and went still lower and became subject to sin and, in that, subject to suffering, even to the suffering of death.
CWCP	19	4	And the last Adam we see in the same place, in the same condition: "We see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death." And again: "Both He that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all OF ONE."
CWCP	19	5	He which sanctifieth is Jesus. They who are sanctified are men of all nations, kindreds, tongues, and peoples. And one man sanctified out of any nation, any kindred, any tongue, or any people, is divine demonstration that every soul of that nation, kindred, tongue, or people might have been sanctified. And Jesus, having become one of these that He might bring them to glory is proof that He is one of mankind altogether; that He, as man, and all men themselves, are "all of one: for which cause He is not ashamed to call them brethren."
CWCP	20	1	Therefore, as in heaven He was higher than the angels, as God; so on earth He was lower than the angels, as man. As when He was higher than the angels, as God, He and God were of one; so when He was on the earth, lower than the angels, as man, He and man are "of one." So that just as certainly as, on the side of God, Jesus and God are of one--of one Spirit, of one nature, of one substance; so, on the side of man, Christ and man are "of one"--of one flesh, of one nature, of one substance.
CWCP	20	2	The likeness of Christ to God is in substance as well as in form. And the likeness of Christ to man is in substance as well as in form. Otherwise, there is no meaning in the first chapter of Hebrews as introductory to the second chapter--no meaning in the antitheses between the first and second chapters, and the first chapter is out of place and empty, as a basis of introduction to the second chapter.
------------------------Chapter 4--He Took Part of the Same
CWCP	21	1	The first chapter of Hebrews reveals that Christ's likeness to God is not simply in form or representation but also in very substance, and the second chapter as clearly reveals that His likeness to men is not simply in form or in representation but also in very substance. It is likeness to men as they are in all things, exactly as they are. Wherefore, it is written: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.... And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us." John 1:1-14.
CWCP	21	2	And that this is likeness to man as he is in his fallen, sinful nature and not as he was in his original, sinless nature is made certain by the word: "We see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death." Therefore, as man is since he became subject to death, this is what we see Jesus to be, in His place as man.
CWCP	21	3	Therefore, just as certainly as we see Jesus lower than the angels, unto the suffering of death, so certainly it is by this demonstrated that, as man, Jesus took the nature of man as he is since death entered and not the nature of man as he was before he became subject to death.
CWCP	21	4	But death entered only because of sin; had not sin entered, death never could have entered. And we see Jesus made lower than the angels for the suffering of death. Therefore we see Jesus made in the nature of man, as man is since man sinned and not as man was before sin entered. For this He did that He might "taste death for every man." In becoming man that he might reach man, He must come to man where man is. Man is subject to death. Therefore Jesus must become man, as man is since he is subject to death.
CWCP	22	1	"For it became Him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings." Hebrews 2:10. Thus, in becoming man, it became Him to become such as man is. Man is subject to sufferings. Therefore it became Him to come to the man where he is--in his sufferings.
CWCP	22	2	Before man sinned he was not in any sense subject to sufferings. And for Jesus to have come in the nature of man as he was before sin entered, would have been only to come in a way and in a nature in which it would be impossible for Him to know the sufferings of man and therefore impossible to reach him to save him. But since it became Him, in bringing men unto glory, to be made perfect through sufferings, it is certain that Jesus in becoming man partook of the nature of man as he is since he became subject to suffering, even the suffering of death, which is the wages of sin.
CWCP	22	3	And so it is written: "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same." Verse 14. He, in His human nature, took the same flesh and blood that men have. All the words that could be used to make this plain and positive are here put together in a single sentence.
CWCP	23	1	The children of men are partakers of flesh and blood, and because of this He took part of the same.
CWCP	23	2	But this is not all. He also took part of the same flesh and blood as that of which the children are partakers.
CWCP	23	3	Nor is this all. He also Himself took part of the same flesh and blood as that of which the children of men are partakers.
CWCP	23	4	Nor yet is this all. He also Himself likewise took part of the same flesh and blood as that of which men are partakers.
CWCP	23	5	Thus the Spirit of inspiration so much desires that this truth shall be made so plain and emphatic as to be understood by all, that He is not content to use any fewer than all the words that could be used that just as, and just as certainly as, "the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same" flesh and blood.
CWCP	23	6	And this He did in order "that through death He might ... deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage." He took part of the same flesh and blood as we have in the bondage of sin and the fear of death, in order that He might deliver us from the bondage of sin and the fear of death.
CWCP	23	7	And so, "Both He that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren."
CWCP	24	1	This great truth of the blood-relationship, this blood-brotherhood of Christ with men is taught in the gospel in Genesis. For when God made His everlasting covenant with Abraham, the sacrifices were cut in two and He, with Abraham, passed between the pieces. Genesis 15:8-18; Jeremiah 34:18, 10; Hebrews 7:5, 9. By this act the Lord entered into "the most solemn covenant known to the Oriental" or to Mankind,--the blood covenant,--and thus became blood-brother to Abraham, "a relation which outranks every other relation in life."
CWCP	24	2	This great truth of Christ's blood-relationship to man is further taught in the gospel in Leviticus. In the gospel in Leviticus there is written the law of redemption of men and their inheritances. When any one of the children of Israel had lost his inheritance or himself had been brought into bondage, there was redemption provided. If he was able of himself to redeem himself or his inheritance, he could do it. But if he was not able of himself to redeem, then the right of redemption fell to his nearest of kin in blood-relationship. It fell not merely to one who was near of kin among his brethren but to the one who was nearest of kin who was able. Leviticus 25:24-28, 47-49; Ruth 2:20; 3:9, 12, 13; 4:1-14, with the marginal readings.
CWCP	24	3	Thus in Genesis and Leviticus there has been taught through all these ages the very truth which we find here taught in the second chapter of Hebrews--the truth that man has lost his inheritance and is himself also in bondage. And as he himself can not redeem himself nor his inheritance, the right of redemption falls to the nearest of kin who is able. And Jesus Christ is the only one in all the universe who is able.
CWCP	25	1	But to be the Redeemer he must be not only able, He must be a blood relative. And He must also be not only near of kin, but the nearest of kin and the nearest of kin by blood-relationship. Therefore, "as the children" of man--as the children of the one who lost our inheritance--"are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same"--took part of flesh and blood in very substance like ours and so became our nearest of kin. And therefore it is written that He and we "are all of one: for which cause He is not ashamed to call us brethren."
CWCP	25	2	But the Scripture does not stop even yet with the statement of this all-important truth. It says, further: "For verily He took not on Him the nature of angels; but He took on Him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behooved Him to be made like unto His brethren," whose blood-brother He became in the confirming of that everlasting covenant.
CWCP	25	3	And this He did in order that wherein "He Himself hath suffered being tempted, He is able to succor them that are tempted." For He was "touched with the feeling of our infirmities;" being "in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." Hebrews 4:15. Being made in His human nature in all things like as we are, He could be and He was tempted in all points like as we are. The only way in which He could possibly be tempted "like as we are" was to become "in all things" "like as we are."
CWCP	25	4	As in His human nature He is one of us, and as "Himself took our infirmities" (Matthew 8:17), He could be "touched with the feeling of our infirmities." Being in all things made like us, He, when tempted, felt just as we feel when we are tempted and knows all about it and so can help and save to the uttermost all who will receive Him. As in His flesh, and [as] Himself in the flesh, He was as weak as we are and of Himself could "do nothing" (John 5:30); so when He bore "our griefs and carried our sorrows" (Isaiah 53:4) and was tempted as we are, feeling as we feel, by His divine faith He conquered all by the power of God which that faith brought Him, and which in our flesh He has brought to us.
CWCP	26	1	Therefore, His name is called Emmanuel which is "God with us." Not God with Him only but God with us. God was with Him in eternity and could have been with Him even though He had not given Himself for us. But man through sin became without God, and God wanted to be again with us. Therefore Jesus became "us" that God with Him might be "God with us." And that is His name, because that is what He is. Blessed be His name.
CWCP	26	2	And this is "the faith of Jesus" and the power of it. This is our Saviour--one of God and one of man--and therefore able to save to the uttermost every soul who will come to God by Him.
------------------------Chapter 5--Made Under the Law
CWCP	27	1	"Christ Jesus, ... being in the form of God, ... emptied Himself, and took upon Him the form of a servant and was made in the likeness of men." Philippians 2:5-7, R.V. He was made in the likeness of men, as men are, just where they are.
CWCP	27	2	"The Word was made flesh." He "took part of the same" flesh and blood as that of which the children of men are partakers, as they are since man has fallen into sin. And so it is written: "When the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son, made ... under the law."
CWCP	27	3	To be under the law is to be guilty, condemned, and subject to the curse. For it is written: "We know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that ... all the world may become guilty before God." This because "all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." Romans 3:19, 23; 6:14.
CWCP	27	4	And the guilt of sin brings the curse. In Zechariah 5:1-4, the prophet beheld a "flying roll; the length thereof ... twenty cubits, and the breadth thereof ten cubits." The Lord said to him: "This is the curse that goeth forth over the face of the whole earth." And what is the cause of this curse over the face of the whole earth? This: "For every one that stealeth shall be cut off as on this side according to it; and every one that sweareth shall be cut off as on that side according to it."
CWCP	28	1	That is, this roll is the law of God, one commandment being cited from each table, showing that both tables of the law are included in the roll. Every one that stealeth--every one that transgresseth the law in the things of the second table--shall be cut off as on this side of the law according to it, and every one that sweareth--every one that transgresseth in the things of the first table of the law--shall be cut off as on that side of the law according to it.
CWCP	28	2	The heavenly recorders do not need to write out a statement of each particular sin of every man but simply to indicate on the roll that pertains to man the particular commandment that is violated in each transgression. And that such a roll of the law does go with every man wherever he goes and even abides in his house is plain from the next words: "I will bring it forth, saith the Lord of hosts, and it shall enter into the house of the thief, and into the house of him that sweareth falsely by My name: and it shall remain in the midst of his house."
CWCP	28	3	And unless a remedy shall be found, there that roll of the law will remain until the curse shall consume that man, and his house, "with the timber thereof and the stones thereof:" that is, until the curse shall devour the earth in that great day when the very elements shall melt with fervent heat. For "the strength of sin" and the curse "is the law." 1 Corinthians 15:56; Isaiah 24:5, 6; 2 Peter 3:10-12.
CWCP	28	4	But, thanks be to God, "God sent forth His son, made ... under the law, to redeem them that were under the law." Galatians 4:4, 5. By His coming He brought redemption to every soul who is under the law. But in order perfectly to bring that redemption to men under the law, He Himself must come to men, just where they are and as they are, under the law.
CWCP	29	1	And this "was made."He did, for he was "made under the law;" He was made "guilty;" He was made condemned by the law; He was "made" as guilty as any man is guilty who is under the law. He was "made" under condemnation as fully as any man is under condemnation because of his violation of the law. He was "made" under the curse as completely as any man in the world has ever been or ever can be under the curse. For it is written: "He that is hanged ["on a tree"] is accursed of God." Deuteronomy 21:23.
CWCP	29	2	The Hebrew makes this stronger still, for the literal translation is: "He that hangeth on a tree is the curse of God." And this is exactly the strength of the fact respecting Christ, for it is written that He was "made a curse." Thus, when He was made under the law, He was made all that it means to be under the law. He was made guilty; He was made condemned; He was made a curse.
CWCP	29	3	But bear in mind forever that all this He "was made." He was none of this of Himself, of native fault, but all of it he "was made." And He was made it all for us: for us who are under the law; for us who are under condemnation because of transgression of the law; for us who are under the curse because of swearing and lying and killing and stealing and committing adultery and all the other infractions of the roll of God's law that goeth with us and that remaineth in our house.
CWCP	30	1	He was made under the law to redeem them that are under the law. He was made a curse to redeem them that are under the curse because of being under the law.
CWCP	30	2	But for whomsoever it was done, and whatsoever is accomplished by the doing of it, there must never be forgotten the fact that, in order to the doing of that which was done He had to be "made" that which those already were for whom the thing was done.
CWCP	30	3	Any man, therefore, in all the world, who knows guilt, by that very thing knows also what Jesus felt for him and by this knows how close Jesus has come to him. Whosoever knows what is condemnation in that knows exactly what Jesus felt for him and so knows how thoroughly Jesus is able to sympathize with him and to redeem him. Whosoever knows the curse of sin, "the plague of his own heart," in that can know exactly what Jesus experienced for him and how entirely Jesus identified Himself, in very experience, with him.
CWCP	30	4	Bearing guilt, being under condemnation and so under the weight of the curse, Jesus, a whole lifetime in this world of guilt, condemnation, and the curse, lived the perfect life of the righteousness of God, without ever sinning at all. And whenever any man knowing guilt, condemnation, and the curse of sin, and knowing that Jesus actually felt in His experience all this just as man feels it; then, in addition, that man by believing in Jesus can know in his experience the blessedness of the perfect life of the righteousness of God in his life to redeem him from guilt, from condemnation, and from the curse; and to be manifested in his whole lifetime to keep him from ever sinning at all.
CWCP	31	1	Christ was made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law. And that blessed work is accomplished for every soul who accepts of that redemption.
CWCP	31	2	"Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us." His being made a curse is not in vain: it accomplishes all that was intended by it in behalf of every man who will receive it. For it was all done "that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith." Galatians 3:14.
CWCP	31	3	Still, whatever was intended by it and whatever is accomplished by it, there must always be borne in mind by every soul the FACT that, in His condescension, in His emptying Himself and being "made in the likeness of men" and "made flesh," He was made under the law, guilty,--under condemnation, under the curse,--as really and as entirely as is any soul that shall ever be redeemed.
CWCP	31	4	And having passed through it all, He is the author of eternal salvation and is able to save to the uttermost from deepest loss all who come unto God by Him.
------------------------Chapter 6--Made of a Woman
CWCP	32	1	By what means was Christ made flesh? Through what means was He partaker of human nature?--Exactly the same means as are all of us partakers: all of the children of men. For it is written: "As the children [of the man] are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same."
CWCP	32	2	Likewise signifies "in the like way," "thus," "in the same way." So He partook of "the same" flesh and blood that men have in the same way that men partake of it. Men partake of it by birth. So "likewise" did He. Accordingly, it is written, "Unto us a Child is born."
CWCP	32	3	Accordingly, it is further written: "God sent forth His Son, made of a woman." Galatians 4:4. He, being made of a woman in this world, in the nature of things He was made of the only kind of woman that this world knows.
CWCP	32	4	But why must He be made of a woman? why not of a man?--For the simple reason that to be made of a man would not bring Him close enough to mankind as mankind is, under sin. He was made of a woman in order that He might come, in the very uttermost, to where human nature is in its sinning.
CWCP	32	5	In order to do this, He must be made of a woman, because the woman, not the man, was first and originally in the transgression. For "Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." 1 Timothy 2:14.
CWCP	33	1	To have been made only of the descent of man would have been to come short of the full breadth of the field of sin, because the woman had sinned and sin was thus in the world before the man sinned.
CWCP	33	2	Christ was thus made of a woman in order that He might meet the great world of sin at its very fountain head of entrance into this world. To have been made otherwise than of a woman would have been to come short of this and so would have been only to miss completely the redemption of men from sin.
CWCP	33	3	It was "the Seed of the woman" that was to bruise the serpent's head; and it was only as "the seed of the woman" and "made of a woman" that He could meet the serpent on his own ground, at the very point of the entrance of sin into this world.
CWCP	33	4	It was the woman who, in this world, was originally in the transgression. It was the woman by whom sin originally entered. Therefore, in the redemption of the children of men from sin, He who would be the Redeemer must go back of the man to meet the sin that was in the world before the man sinned.
CWCP	33	5	This is why He who came to redeem was "made of a woman." By being made of a woman He could trace sin to the very fountain head of its original entry into the world by the woman. And thus, in finding sin in the world and uprooting it from the world from its original entrance into the world till the last vestige of it shall be swept from the world, in the very nature of things He must partake of human nature as it is since sin entered.
CWCP	34	1	Otherwise, there was no kind of need whatever that He should be "made of a woman." If He were not to come into closest contact with sin as it is in the world, as it is in human nature; if He were to be removed one single degree from it as it is in human nature, then He need not have been "made of a woman."
CWCP	34	2	But as He was made of a woman--not of a man; as He was made of the one by whom sin entered in its very origin into the world--and not made of the man, who entered into the sin after the sin had entered into the world; this demonstrates beyond all possibility of fair question that between Christ and sin in this world and between Christ and human nature as it is under sin in the world there is no kind of separation, even to the shadow of a single degree. He was made flesh; he was made to be sin. He was made flesh as flesh is and only as flesh is in this world and was made to be sin only as sin is.
CWCP	34	3	And this must He do to redeem lost mankind. For Him to be separated a single degree or a shadow of a single degree in any sense from the nature of those whom He came to redeem would be only to miss everything.
CWCP	34	4	Therefore, as He was made "under the law," because they are under the law whom He would redeem, and as He was made a curse, because they are under the curse whom He would redeem, and as He was made sin, because they are sinners--"sold under sin"--whom He would redeem, precisely so He must be made flesh and "the same" flesh and blood, because they are flesh and blood whom He would redeem and must be made "of a woman," because sin was in the world first by and in the woman.
CWCP	35	1	Consequently, it is true, without any sort of exception, that "in all things it behooved Him to be made like unto His brethren." Hebrews 2:17.
CWCP	35	2	If He were not of the same flesh as are those whom He came to redeem, then there is no sort of use of His being made flesh at all. More than this: Since the only flesh that there is in this wide world which He came to redeem is just the poor, sinful, lost, human flesh that all mankind have; if this is not the flesh that he was made, then He never really came to the world which needs to be redeemed. For if he came in a human nature different from that which human nature in this world actually is, then, even though He were in the world, yet for any practical purposes in reaching man and helping him, he was as far from him as if He had never come, for, in that case, in His human nature He was just as far from man and just as much of another world as if He had never come into this world at all.
CWCP	35	3	It is thoroughly understood that in His birth Christ did partake of the nature of Mary--the "woman" of whom He was "made." But the carnal mind is not willing to allow that God in His perfection of holiness could endure to come to men where they are in their sinfulness. Therefore endeavor has been made to escape the consequences of this glorious truth, which is the emptying of self, by inventing a theory that the nature of the virgin Mary was different from the nature of the rest of mankind; that her flesh was not exactly such flesh as is that of all mankind. This invention sets up that by some special means Mary was made different from the rest of human beings, especially in order that Christ might be becomingly born of her.
CWCP	36	1	This invention has culminated in what is known as the Roman Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Many Protestants, if not the vast majority of them as well as other non-Catholics, think that the Immaculate Conception refers to the conception of Jesus by the virgin Mary. But this is altogether a mistake. It refers not at all to the conception of Christ by Mary but to the conception of Mary herself by her mother.
CWCP	36	2	The official and "infallible" doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, as solemnly defined as an article of faith, by Pope Pius IX, speaking ex cathedra on the 8th of December 1854 is as follows:--
CWCP	36	3	By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ of the blessed apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instant of her conception, by a special grace and privilege of Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of mankind, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, has been revealed by God, and therefore is to be firmly and steadfastly believed by all the faithful.
CWCP	36	4	Wherefore, if any shall presume, which may God avert, to think in their heart otherwise then has been defined by us, let them know, and moreover understand, that they are condemned by their own judgment, that they have made shipwreck as regards the faith, and have fallen away from the unity of the Church.--Catholic Belief, page 214.
CWCP	37	1	This conception is defined by Catholic writers thus:--
CWCP	37	2	The ancient writing, "De Nativitate Christi," found in St. Cyprian's works says: Because (Mary) being "very different from the rest of mankind, human nature, but not sin, communicated itself to her."
CWCP	37	3	Theodore, patriarch of Jerusalem, said in the second council of Nice, that Mary "is truly the mother of God, and virgin before and after childbirth; and she was created in a condition more sublime and glorious than that of all natures, whether intellectual or corporeal."--Id., pages 216, 217.
CWCP	37	4	This plainly puts the nature of Mary entirely beyond any real likeness or relationship to mankind or human nature as it is. Having this clearly in mind, let us follow this invention in its next step. Thus it is, as given in the words of Cardinal Gibbons:--
CWCP	37	5	We affirm that the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, the Word of God, who in His divine nature is, from all eternity, begotten of the Father, consubstantial with Him, was in the fulness of time again begotten, by being born of the virgin, thus taking to himself from her maternal womb a human nature of the same substance with hers.
CWCP	37	6	As far as the sublime mystery of the incarnation can be reflected in the natural order, the blessed Virgin, under the overshadowing of the Holy Ghost, by communicating to the Second Person of the adorable Trinity, as mothers do, a true human nature of the same substance with her own, is thereby really and truly His mother.--Faith of Our Fathers, pages 198, 199.
CWCP	37	7	Now put these two things together. First, we have the nature of Mary defined as being not only "very different from the rest of mankind," but "more sublime and glorious than all natures:" thus putting her infinitely beyond any real likeness or relationship to mankind as we really are.
CWCP	38	1	Next, we have Jesus described as taking from her a human nature of the same substance as hers.
CWCP	38	2	From this theory it therefore follows as certainly as that two and two make four, that in His human nature the Lord Jesus is "very different" from the rest of mankind; indeed, His nature is not human nature at all.
CWCP	38	3	Such is the Roman Catholic doctrine concerning the human nature of Christ. The Catholic doctrine of the human nature of Christ is simply that that nature is not human nature at all, but divine: "more sublime and glorious than all natures." It is that in His human nature Christ was so far separated from mankind as to be utterly unlike that of mankind, that His was a nature in which He could have no sort of fellow-feeling with mankind.
CWCP	38	4	But such is not the faith of Jesus. The faith of Jesus is that "as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same."
CWCP	38	5	The faith of Jesus is that God sent "His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh."
CWCP	38	6	The faith of Jesus is that "in all things it behooved Him to be made like unto His brethren.
CWCP	38	7	The faith of Jesus is that He "Himself took our infirmities" and was touched "with the feeling of our infirmities," being tempted in all points like as we are. If He was not as we are, He could not possibly be tempted "like as we are." But He was "in all points tempted like as we are." Therefore He was "in all points" "like as we are."
CWCP	39	1	In the quotations of Catholic faith which in this chapter we have cited, we have presented the faith of Rome as to the human nature of Christ and of Mary. In the second chapter of Hebrews and kindred texts of Scripture there is presented--and in these studies we have endeavored to reproduce as there presented--the faith of Jesus as to the human nature of Christ.
CWCP	39	2	The faith of Rome as to the human nature of Christ and Mary and of ourselves springs from that idea of the natural mind that God is too pure and too holy to dwell with us and in us in our sinful human nature; that sinful as we are, we are too far off for Him in His purity and holiness to come to us just as we are.
CWCP	39	3	The true faith--the faith of Jesus--is that, far off from God as we are in our sinfulness, in our human nature which He took, He has come to us just where we are; that, infinitely pure and holy as He is, and sinful, degraded, and lost as we are, He in Christ by His Holy Spirit will willingly dwell with us and in us to save us, to purify us, and to make us holy.
CWCP	39	4	The faith of Rome is that we must be pure and holy in order that God shall dwell with us at all.
CWCP	39	5	The faith of Jesus is that God must dwell with us and in us in order that we shall be holy or pure at all.
------------------------Chapter 7--The Law of Heredity
CWCP	40	1	"The Word was made flesh."
CWCP	40	2	"When the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman." Galatians 4:4.
CWCP	40	3	"And the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all." Isaiah 53:6.
CWCP	40	4	We have seen that in His being made of a woman, Christ reached sin at the very fountain head of its entrance into this world and that He must be made of a woman to do this. Also there was laid upon Him the iniquity, in the actual sins, of us all.
CWCP	40	5	Thus all the sin of this world, from its origin in the world to the end of it in the world, was laid upon Him--both sin as it is in itself and sin as it is when committed by us; sin in its tendency and sin in the act: sin as it is hereditary in us, uncommitted by us; and sin as it is committed by us.
CWCP	40	6	Only thus could it be that there should be laid upon Him the iniquity of us all. Only by His subjecting Himself to the law of heredity could He reach sin in full and true measure as sin truly is. Without this there could be laid upon Him our sins which have been actually committed, with the guilt and condemnation that belong to them. But beyond this there is in each person, in many ways, the liability to sin inherited from generations back which has not yet culminated in the act of sinning but which is ever ready, when occasion offers, to blaze forth in the actual committing of sins. David's great sin is an illustration of this. Psalm 51:5; 2 Samuel 11:2.
CWCP	41	1	In delivering us from sin, it is not enough that we shall be saved from the sins that we have actually committed; we must be saved from committing other sins. And that this may be so, there must be met and subdued this hereditary liability to sin; we must become possessed of power to keep us from sinning--a power to conquer this liability, this hereditary tendency that is in us to sin.
CWCP	41	2	All our sins which we have actually committed were laid upon Him, were imputed to Him, so that His righteousness may be laid upon us, may be imputed to us. Also our liability to sin was laid upon Him, in His being made flesh, in His being born of a woman, of the same flesh and blood as we are, so that His righteousness might be actually manifested in us as our daily life.
CWCP	41	3	Thus He met sin in the flesh which He took and triumphed over it, as it is written: "God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh." And again: "He is our peace, ... having abolished in His flesh the enmity."
CWCP	41	4	And thus, just as our sins actually committed were imputed to Him that His righteousness might be imputed to us, so His meeting and conquering in the flesh the liability to sin and in that same flesh manifesting righteousness, enables us in Him, and Him in us, to meet and conquer in the flesh this same liability to sin and to manifest righteousness in the same flesh.
CWCP	42	1	And thus it is that for the sins which we have actually committed, for the sins that are past, His righteousness is imputed to us, as our sins were imputed to Him. And to keep us from sinning His righteousness is imparted to us in our flesh as our flesh, with its liability to sin, was imparted to Him. Thus He is the complete Saviour. He saves from all the sins that we have actually committed and saves equally from all the sins that we might commit dwelling apart from Him.
CWCP	42	2	If He took not the same flesh and blood that the children of men have with its liability to sin, then where could there be any philosophy or reason of any kind whatever in His genealogy as given in the Scriptures? He was descended from David; He was descended from Abraham; He was descended from Adam and, by being made of a woman, He reached even back of Adam to the beginning of sin in the world.
CWCP	42	3	In that genealogy there are Jehoiakim, who for his wickedness was "buried with the burial of an ass, drawn and cast forth beyond the gates of Jerusalem" (Jeremiah 22:19); Manasseh, who caused Judah to do "worse than the heathen;" Ahaz, who "made Judah naked, and transgressed sore against the Lord;" Rehoboam, who was born of Solomon after Solomon turned from the Lord; Solomon himself, who was born of David and Bathsheba; there are also Ruth the Moabitess and Rahab; as well as Abraham, Isaac, Jesse, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, and Josiah: the worst equally with the best. And the evil deeds of even the best are recorded equally with the good. And in this whole genealogy there is hardly one whose life is written upon at all of whom there is not some wrong act recorded.
CWCP	43	1	Now it was at the end of such a genealogy as that that "the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us." It was at the end of such a genealogy as that that He was made of a woman." It was in such a line of descent as that that God sent "His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh." And such a descent, such a genealogy, meant something to Him, as it does to every other man, under the great law that the iniquities of the fathers are visited upon the children to the third and fourth generations. It meant everything to Him in the terrible temptations in the wilderness of temptation, as well as all the way through His life in the flesh.
CWCP	43	2	Thus, both by heredity and by imputation, He was "laden with the sins of the world." And, thus laden, at this immense disadvantage He passed triumphantly over the ground where at no shadow of any disadvantage whatever, the first pair failed.
CWCP	43	3	By His death He paid the penalty of all sins actually committed, and thus can justly bestow His righteousness upon all who choose to receive it. And by condemning sin in the flesh, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, He delivers from the power of the law of heredity and so can, in righteousness, impart His divine nature and power to lift above that law, and hold above it, every soul that receives Him.
CWCP	43	4	And so it is written: "When the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons." Galatians 4:4. And "God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for [on account of] sin, condemned sin in the flesh: that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." Romans 8:3, 4. And "He is our peace, ... having abolished in His flesh the enmity, ... for to make in Himself of twain [God and man] one new man, so making peace." Ephesians 2:14, 15.
CWCP	44	1	Thus, "in all things it behooved Him to be made like unto His brethren.... For in that He Himself hath suffered being tempted, He is able to succor them that are tempted."
CWCP	44	2	Whether temptation be from within or from without, He is the perfect shield against it all; and so saves to the uttermost all who come unto God by Him.
CWCP	44	3	God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, Christ taking our nature as our nature is in its sinfulness and degeneracy, and God dwelling constantly with Him and in Him in that nature--in this God has demonstrated to all people forever that there is no soul in this world so laden with sins or so lost that God will not gladly dwell with him and in him to save him from it all and to lead him in the way of the righteousness of God.
CWCP	44	4	And so certainly is his name Emmanuel, which is, "God with us."
------------------------Chapter 8--In All Things Like
CWCP	45	1	It should be particularly noted that in the first and second chapters of Hebrews the thought and discussion concerning the person of Christ is especially as to nature and substance. In Philippians 2:5-8 there is presented the thought of Christ's relationship to God and to man, especially as to nature and form. Thus: "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus; who, being in the form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God; but emptied Himself, and took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: and being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." Philippians 2:5-8, and R.V.
CWCP	45	2	When Jesus emptied Himself He became man, and God was revealed in the Man. When Jesus emptied Himself, on the one side man appeared, and on the other side God appeared. Thus in Him God and man meet in peace and become one: "for He is our peace, who hath made both [God and man] one, ... having abolished in His flesh the enmity, ... to make in Himself of twain [God and man] one new man, so making peace." (Ephesians 2:14, 15).
CWCP	45	3	He who was in the form of God took the form of man.
CWCP	45	4	He who was equal with God became equal with man.
CWCP	46	1	He who was Creator and Lord became creature and servant.
CWCP	46	2	He who was in the likeness of God was made in the likeness of men.
CWCP	46	3	He who was God and Spirit was made man and flesh. John 1:1, 14.
CWCP	46	4	Nor is this true only as to form; it is true as to substance. For Christ was like God in the sense of being of the nature, in very substance, of God. He was made in the likeness of men in the sense of being like men in the nature and very substance of men.
CWCP	46	5	Christ was God. He became man. And when He became man, He was man as really as He was God.
CWCP	46	6	He came to man where man is to bring man to Him where He was and is.
CWCP	46	7	And in order to redeem man from what man is, He was made what man is:--
CWCP	46	8	Man is flesh. Genesis 6:3; John 3:6. "And the Word was made flesh." John 1:14; Hebrews 2:14.
CWCP	46	9	Man is under the law. Romans 3:19. Christ was "made under the law." Galatians 4:4.
CWCP	46	10	Man is under the curse. Galatians 3:10; Zechariah 5:1-4, "Christ was made a curse." Galatians 3:13.
CWCP	46	11	Man is sold under sin (Romans 7:14) and laden with iniquity. Isaiah 1:4. And "the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all." Isaiah 53:6.
CWCP	46	12	Man is "a body of sin." Romans 6:6. And God "hath made Him to be sin." 2 Corinthians 5:21.
CWCP	46	13	Thus, literally, "in all things it behooved Him to be made like unto His brethren."
CWCP	47	1	Yet it must never be forgotten, it must be borne in mind and heart constantly and forever, that in none of this as to man, the flesh, sin, and the curse was Christ ever of Himself or of His own original nature or fault. All this He "was made." "He took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men."
CWCP	47	2	And in all this Christ was "made" what, before, He was not in order that the man might be made now and forever what he is not.
CWCP	47	3	Christ was the Son of God. He became the Son of man that the sons of men might become the sons of God. Galatians 4:4; 1 John 3:1.
CWCP	47	4	Christ was Spirit. 1 Corinthians 15:45. He became flesh in order that man, who is flesh, might become spirit. John 3:6; Romans 8:8-10.
CWCP	47	5	Christ, who was altogether of the divine nature, was made partaker of human nature in order that we who are altogether of the human nature "might be partakers of the divine nature." 2 Peter 1:4.
CWCP	47	6	Christ, who knew no sin, was made to be sin, even the sinfulness of man, in order that we, who knew no righteousness, might be made righteousness, even the righteousness of God.
CWCP	47	7	And as the righteousness of God, which, in Christ, the man is made, is real righteousness, so the sin of men, which Christ was made in the flesh, was real sin.
CWCP	47	8	As certainly as our sins, when upon us, are real sins to us, so certainly, when these sins were laid upon Him, they became real sins to Him.
CWCP	47	9	As certainly as guilt attaches to these sins and to us because of them, when they are upon us so certainly this guilt attached to these same sins of ours and to Him because of them, when they were laid upon Him.
CWCP	48	1	As the sense of condemnation and discouragement of our sins was real to us when these sins of ours were upon us, so certainly this same sense of condemnation and discouragement because of the guilt of these sins was realized by Him when these sins of ours were laid upon Him.
CWCP	48	2	Thus the guilt, the condemnation, the discouragement of the knowledge of sin were His--were a fact in His conscious experience--as really as they were ever such in the life of any sinner that was ever on earth. And this awful truth brings to every sinful soul in the world the glorious truth that "the righteousness of God," and the rest, the peace, and the joy, of that righteousness, are a fact in the conscious experience of the believer in Jesus in this world, as really as they are in the life of any saint who was ever in heaven.
CWCP	48	3	He who knew the height of the righteousness of God, acquired also the knowledge of the depth of the sins of men. He knows the awfulness of the depths of the sins of men, as well as He knows the glory of the heights of the righteousness of God. And by this "His knowledge shall My righteous Servant justify many." Isaiah 53:11. By this His knowledge He is able to deliver every sinner from the lowest depths of sin and lift him to the highest height of righteousness, even the very righteousness of God.
CWCP	48	4	Made "in all things" like unto us, He was in all points like as we are. So fully was this so that He could say, even as we must say the same truth, "I can of Mine own self do nothing." John 5:30.
CWCP	49	1	Of Him this was so entirely true that, in the weakness and infirmity of the flesh,--ours which He took--He was as is the man who is without God and without Christ. For it is only without Him that men can do nothing. With Him and through Him, it is written: "I can do all things." But of those who are without Him it is written: "Without Me ye can do nothing." John 15:5.
CWCP	49	2	Therefore, when of Himself He said, "I can of Mine own self do nothing," this makes it certain forever that in the flesh,--because of our infirmities which He took; because of our sinfulness, hereditary and actual, which was laid upon Him and imparted to Him--He was of Himself in that flesh exactly as is the man who, in the infirmity of the flesh, is laden with sins, actual and hereditary, and who is without God. And standing thus weak, laden with sins and helpless as we are, in divine faith He exclaimed, "I will put My trust in Him." Hebrews 2:13.
CWCP	49	3	He came to "seek and to save that which was lost." And in saving the lost, He came to the lost where we are. He put Himself among the lost. "He was numbered with the transgressors." He was "made to be sin." And from the standpoint of the weakness and infirmity of the lost, He trusted in God, that He would deliver Him and save Him. Laden with the sins of the world; and tempted in all points like as we are, He hoped in God and trusted in God to save Him from all those sins and to keep Him from sinning. Psalm 69:1-21; 1:1-20; 22:1-22; 31:1-5.
CWCP	50	1	And this is the faith of Jesus: this is the point where the faith of Jesus reaches lost, sinful man to help him. For thus it has been demonstrated to the very fulness of perfection, that there is no man in the wide world for whom there is not hope in God, no one so lost that he can not be saved by trusting God in this faith of Jesus. And this faith of Jesus, by which in the place of the lost, He hoped in God and trusted God for salvation from sin and power to keep from sinning--this victory of His it is that has brought to every man in the world divine faith by which every man can hope in God and trust in God and can find the power of God to deliver him from sin and to keep him from sinning. That faith which He exercised and by which He obtained the victory over the world, the flesh, and the devil--that faith is His free gift to every lost man in the world. And thus "this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith;" and this is the faith of which He is the Author and Finisher.
CWCP	50	2	This is the faith of Jesus that is given to men. This is the faith of Jesus that must be received by men in order for them to be saved. This is the faith of Jesus which, now in this time of the Third Angel's Message, must be received and kept by those who will be saved from the worship of the "beast and his image," and enabled to keep the commandments of God. This is the faith of Jesus referred to in the closing words of the Third Angel's Message: "Here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus."
CWCP	51	1	And now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: "We have SUCH an High Priest." All that we have thus found in the first and second chapters of Hebrews is the essential foundation and preliminary of His high priesthood. For "in all things it behooved Him to be made like unto His brethren, that [so that, in order that] He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that He Himself hath suffered being tempted, He is able to succor them that are tempted." Hebrews 2:17, 18.
------------------------Chapter 9--Further Qualifications of our High Priest
CWCP	52	1	Such is the thought of the first two chapters of Hebrews. And upon this the third chapter opens, or rather the one great thought continues with the beautiful exhortation: "Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus; who was faithful to Him that appointed Him." Having presented Christ in the flesh, as He was made "in all things" like the children of men and our nearest of kin, we are now asked to consider Him in His faithfulness in that position.
CWCP	52	2	The first Adam was not faithful. This last Adam "was faithful to Him that appointed Him, as also Moses was faithful in all His [God's] house. For this Man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as He who hath builded the house hath more honor than the house. For every house is builded by some man, but He that built all things is God. And Moses verily was faithful in all His [God's] house as a servant for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after; but Christ [was faithful] as a Son over His own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end."
CWCP	52	3	Next is cited Israel, who came out of Egypt, who were not faithful; who failed of entering into God's rest because they believed not in Him. Then upon this is the exhortation to us to "fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into His rest, any of you should seem to come short of it. For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them; but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it. For we which have believed do enter into rest," in believing in Him who gave Himself for our sins.
CWCP	53	1	We enter into rest in the forgiveness of all our sins, through believing in Him who was faithful in every obligation and under every temptation of life. We also enter into rest and there abide, by being partaker of His faithfulness, in which and by which we also shall be faithful to Him who has appointed us. For in considering Him "the High Priest of our profession" in His faithfulness, we are ever to consider that "we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." Hebrews 4:15.
CWCP	53	2	When we "have not an high priest which can not be touched with the feeling of our infirmities," we have an High Priest who can be touched with the feeling of our infirmities. And the way in which He can and is touched with the feeling of our infirmities is that He "was in all points tempted like as we are." There is not a point in which any soul can be tempted but that He has been exactly so tempted, and has felt the temptation as truly as any human soul can feel it. But, though He was in all points tempted like as we are and felt the power of it as truly as any one can, yet in it all He was faithful and through it all He passed "without sin." And by faith in Him--in this His faithfulness--every soul can meet all temptation and pass through it without sinning.
CWCP	54	1	This is our salvation, for He was made flesh as man and in all things it behooved Him to be made like unto His brethren and to be tempted in all points like as we are "that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God." And this not only "to make reconciliation for the sins of the people," but also to "succor"--to run under, to run to the aid of, to assist and deliver from suffering--"them that are tempted." He is our merciful and faithful High Priest to succor--run under--us when we are tempted, to keep us from falling under the temptation and so to keep us from falling under sin. He "runs under" us is our temptation so we shall not fall under the temptation but shall conquer it and rise in victory over it, sinning not.
CWCP	54	2	"Seeing then that we have a great High Priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession." Hebrews 4:14. And also seeing that we have such an High Priest, "let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need."
CWCP	54	3	Further, in presenting for our consideration our High Priest in His faithfulness, it is written that "every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins, who can have compassion on the ignorant and on them that are out of the way, for that He Himself also is compassed with infirmity." Hebrews 5:1, 2.
CWCP	55	1	And this is why it is that in order that He should be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God and that He should bring many unto glory, it became Him, as the Captain of their salvation, to be "compassed with infirmity," to be tried by temptation, to be "a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief;" thus "in all things" to be made acquainted with human experience, so that He truly "can have compassion on the ignorant and on them that are not [sic. "out"] of the way." In a word, in order that He might be "a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God," it became Him to be made "perfect through sufferings."
CWCP	55	2	"And no man taketh this honor [of high priesthood] unto himself but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. So also Christ glorified not Himself to be made an High Priest; but He that said unto Him, Thou art My Son, to-day have I begotten Thee. As He saith also in another place, Thou art a Priest forever after the order of Melchizedek. Who in the days of His flesh, when He had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto Him that was able to save Him from death and was heard in that He feared; though He were a Son, yet learned He obedience by the things which He suffered; and being made perfect [being tested to perfection in all points], He became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey Him; called of God an High Priest after the order of Melchizedek." Hebrews 5:4-10.
CWCP	55	3	"And inasmuch as not without an oath He was made Priest; for those priests [of the Levitical priesthood] were made without an oath; but this with an oath by Him that said unto Him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a Priest forever after the order of Melchizedek: by so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament." Thus, above all others, by the oath of God, Jesus was made a Priest. Therefore, and "by so much" "we have such an High Priest."
CWCP	56	1	And further, "They [of the order of Aaron] truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death: but this man, because He continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood." Hebrews 7:23, 24. By the oath of God He is made a Priest forever. He is also made a Priest "after the power of an endless life." Hebrews 7:16. Therefore "He continueth ever." And because He continueth ever, He hath an "unchangeable priesthood." And because of all this, "He is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by Him, seeing He ever liveth to make intercession for them." Hebrews 7:25. And "we have such an High Priest."
CWCP	56	2	And "such an High Priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's; for this He did once, when He offered up Himself. For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son [High Priest], who is consecrated forevermore." Hebrews 7:26, 27.
------------------------Chapter 10--The Sum
CWCP	57	1	And "now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an High Priest." And what is that of which this is "the sum"?
CWCP	57	2	1. That He who was higher than the angels, as God, was made lower than the angels, as man.
CWCP	57	3	2. That He who was of the nature of God was made of the nature of man.
CWCP	57	4	3. That He who was in all things like God was made in all things like man.
CWCP	57	5	4. That as man He was tempted in all points like as men are and never sinned but was in all things faithful to Him that appointed Him.
CWCP	57	6	5. That, as man, tempted in all points like as we are, He was touched with the feeling of our infirmities and was made perfect through sufferings in order that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest; and was called of God to be an High Priest.
CWCP	57	7	6. That by the power of an endless life He was made High Priest.
CWCP	57	8	7. And that by the oath of God He was made High Priest.
CWCP	57	9	Such are the specifications of the Word of God, of which the "sum" is "We have such an High Priest."
CWCP	57	10	And yet that is only a part of "the sum." For the whole statement of "the sum" is, "We have such an High Priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; a minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man."
CWCP	58	1	On earth there was a sanctuary which man pitched and which man made. True, this sanctuary was both made and pitched under the direction of the Lord; nevertheless, it is far different from the sanctuary and the true tabernacle which the Lord Himself pitched and not man--as far different as the work of man is from the work of God.
CWCP	58	2	That "worldly sanctuary" with its ministry is more briefly described and the meaning of it is more briefly told in Hebrews 9 than would be possible otherwise to do. Therefore we quote Hebrews 9:2-12, inclusive: "For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread; which is called the sanctuary. And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the holiest of all; which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant; and over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercy-seat; of which we can not now speak particularly.
CWCP	58	3	"Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God. But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people; the Holy Ghost this [sic. "thus"] signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing; which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. But Christ being come an High Priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by His own blood He entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us."
CWCP	59	1	That sanctuary was but "a figure;" and it was but a figure "for the time then present." In it priests and high priests ministered and offered both gifts and sacrifices. But all this priesthood, ministry, gift, and sacrifice was, equally with the sanctuary, only "a figure for the time then present," for it all "could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience."
CWCP	59	2	That sanctuary and tabernacle itself was but a figure of the sanctuary and the true tabernacle which the Lord pitched, and not man.
CWCP	59	3	The high priest of that sanctuary was but a figure of Christ, who is High Priest of the sanctuary and the true tabernacle.
CWCP	59	4	The ministry of that high priest of the sanctuary on earth was but a figure of the ministry of Christ, our great High Priest, "who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; a minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man."
CWCP	60	1	The offerings of the priesthood in the ministry of the sanctuary on earth were but a figure of the offering of Christ, the true High Priest, in His ministry in the sanctuary and the true tabernacle.
CWCP	60	2	Thus Christ was the true substance and meaning of all the priesthood and service of the sanctuary on earth, and any part of it that ever passed without this as its meaning was simply meaningless. And as certainly as Christ is the true Priest of Christianity, of which the Levitical priesthood was a figure, so certainly the sanctuary of which Christ is minister is the true sanctuary of Christianity, of which the earthly sanctuary of the Levitical dispensation was a figure. And so it is written: "If He were on earth, He should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law: who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith He, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount." Hebrews 8:4, 5.
CWCP	60	3	"It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these [earthly sacrifices]; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us." And in "heaven itself," in the Christian dispensation, there was seen the throne of God and a golden altar and an angel with a golden censer offering incense with the prayers of all saints, "And the smoke of the incense, which came with the prayers of the saints, ascended up before God out of the angel's hand." Revelation 4:5; 8:2-4. Also in this same time there was seen in His temple the ark of His testament." Revelation 11:19; 15:5-8; 16:1. And further there was seen there "seven lamps of fire burning before the throne." Revelation 4:5. There, too, was seen one like the Son of man clothed in the high priestly garment. Revelation 1:13.
CWCP	61	1	There is therefore a Christian sanctuary, of which the former sanctuary was a figure, as truly as there is a Christian high priesthood of which the former high priesthood was a figure. And there is a ministry of Christ, our High Priest, in this Christian sanctuary, as truly as there was a ministry of the former priesthood in the former and earthly sanctuary. And "of the things which we have spoken, this is the sum: We have such an High Priest who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; a minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man."
------------------------Chapter 11--That I May Dwell Among Them
CWCP	62	1	When the Lord gave to Israel the original directions for the making of the sanctuary, that was to be a figure for the time then present, he said, "Let them make me a sanctuary, that I may dwell among them." Exodus 25:8.
CWCP	62	2	That He might "dwell among them" was the object of the sanctuary. This purpose of the sanctuary is more fully stated in the following: "And there I will meet with the children of Israel, and the tabernacle [margin, "Israel"] shall be sanctified by my glory. And I will sanctify the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar: I will sanctify also both Aaron and his sons, to minister to me in the priest's office. And I will dwell among the children of Israel, and will be their God. And they shall know that I am the Lord their God, that brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, that I may dwell among them: I am the Lord their God." Exodus 29:43-46; also Leviticus 26:11, 12.
CWCP	62	3	This purpose was not that He should dwell among them simply and only by the tabernacle's being set up in the midst of the camp of Israel. This is the great mistake that Israel made in the use of the tabernacle and so almost wholly lost the true purpose of the sanctuary. When the tabernacle was made and was set up in the midst of the camp of Israel, many of the children of Israel supposed that that was enough; they supposed that to be the way in which God would dwell in the midst of them.
CWCP	63	1	It is true that by the Shekinah, God did dwell in the sanctuary. But even the sanctuary with its splendid furniture, standing in the midst of the camp--this was not all of the sanctuary. In addition to the splendid building and its furniture, there were the sacrifices and offerings of the people and the sacrifices and offerings on behalf of the people. There were the priests in their continual services and there was the high priest in his holy ministry. Without these the sanctuary was for Israel practically an empty thing, even though the Lord did dwell in it.
CWCP	63	2	And what was the meaning and purpose of these things? Let us see: When any of the children of Israel had "done somewhat against any of the commandments of the Lord concerning things which should not be done," and so was "guilty," then "of his own voluntary will" he brought to the door of the tabernacle his sacrificial lamb. Before the lamb was offered in sacrifice the individual who had brought it laid his hands upon its head and confessed his sins and it was "accepted for him to make atonement for him." Then he who had brought the lamb and confessed his sins slew it. Its blood was caught in a basin. Some of the blood was sprinkled round about upon the altar of burnt offering," which was at the door of the tabernacle; some of it was put "upon the horns of the altar of sweet incense, which is in the tabernacle of the congregation;" some of it was sprinkled "seven times before the Lord before the veil of the sanctuary;" and all the rest of it was poured out "at the bottom of the altar of burnt offering, which is at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation." The lamb itself was burnt upon the altar of burnt offering. And of all this service, it is written in conclusion: "and the priest shall make an atonement for his sin that he hath committed, and it shall be forgiven him." The service was similar in case of the sin and confession of the whole congregation. Also there was a similar service, a continual service morning and evening, in behalf of the whole congregation. But whether the services were individual or general, the conclusion of it was always declared to be "The priest shall make an atonement for him [or them], and it shall be forgiven him." See Leviticus chapters 1-5.
CWCP	64	1	The course of service of the sanctuary was completed annually. And the day of the completion of the service, the tenth day of the seventh month, was especially "the day of atonement" or the cleansing of the sanctuary. On that day service was concluded in the Most Holy Place. That day was the "once every year" when "the High Priest alone" went into the "Holiest of all" or Most Holy Place. And of the high priest and his service that day it is written, "He shall make an atonement for the holy sanctuary, and he shall make an atonement for the tabernacle of the congregation, and for the altar, and he shall make an atonement for the priests, and for all the people of the congregation." Leviticus 16:2-34; Hebrews 9:2-8.
CWCP	66	1	Thus the services of the sanctuary, in the offering of the sacrifices and the ministering of the priests, and of the high priests alone, was for the making of atonement and for the forgiveness and sending away of the sins of the people. Because of the sin and guilt, because of their having "done somewhat against any of the commandments of the Lord concerning things which should not be done," atonement must be made and forgiveness obtained. Atonement is literally at-one-ment. The sin and the guilt had separated them from God. By these services they were made at-one with God. Forgive is literally give-for. To forgive sin is to give for sin. Forgiveness of sin comes alone from God. What does God give, what has He given, for sin? He gave Christ, and Christ "gave himself for our sins." Galatians 1:4; Ephesians 2:12-16; Romans 5:8-11.
CWCP	67	1	Therefore when an individual or the whole congregation of Israel had sinned and desired forgiveness the whole problem and plan of forgiveness, of atonement, of salvation, was worked out before their faces. The sacrifice which was brought was in faith of the sacrifice which God had already made in giving His Son for sin. In this faith sinners were accepted of God, and Christ was received of them for their sin. Thus they were made at one with God, and thus God would dwell in the midst of them; that is, He would dwell in each heart and abide in each life to make that heart and life "holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners." And the placing of the tabernacle in the midst of the camp of israel was an illustration, an object lesson and suggestion, of the truth that He would dwell in the midst of each individual. Ephesians 3:16-19.
CWCP	67	2	Some of that nation in every age saw in the sanctuary this great saving truth. But as a body in all ages Israel missed this thought, and stopping only with the thought of His dwelling in the tabernacle in the midst of the camp, they came short of having His own personal presence dwelling in their individual lives. Accordingly their worship became only outward and formal, rather than inward and spiritual. Therefore, their own lives continued unreformed and unholy, and so those who came out of Egypt missed the great thing which God had for them and "fell in the wilderness." Hebrews 3:17-19.
CWCP	68	1	The same mistake was made by the people after they had passed into the land of Canaan. They put their dependence on the Lord only as He dwelt in the tabernacle and would not allow that the tabernacle and its ministry should be the means of His dwelling in themselves through faith. Consequently their lives only increased in wickedness. Therefore God allowed the tabernacle to be destroyed and the ark of God to be taken captive by the heathen (Jeremiah 7:12; 1 Samuel 4:10-22) in order that the people might learn to see and find and worship God individually and so find Him to dwell with them individually.
CWCP	68	2	After the absence of the tabernacle and its service from among Israel for about a hundred years, it was restored by David and was merged in the grand temple that was built by Solomon. But again its true purpose was gradually lost sight of. Formalism with its attending wickedness more and more increased until in Israel the Lord was compelled to cry out: "I hate, I despise your feast days, and I will not smell in your solemn assemblies. Though ye offer Me burnt offerings and your meat offerings, I will not accept them: neither will I regard the peace offerings of your fat beasts. Take thou away from me the noise of thy songs; for I will not hear the melody of thy vials. But let judgment run down as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream." Amos 5:21-24.
CWCP	69	1	Also in Judah, by Isaiah, He was compelled to make a like plea: "Hear the word of the Lord, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah. To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto Me? saith the Lord: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats. When ye come to appear before Me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread My courts? Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto Me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I can not away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting. Your new moons and your appointed feasts My soul hateth: they are a trouble unto Me; I am weary to bear them. And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide Mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood. Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before Mine eyes; cease to do evil; learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool." Isaiah 1:10-18.
CWCP	69	2	Yet His pleas were not regarded. Israel was therefore carried captive and her land was left desolate because of their wickedness; and the like fate hung over Judah. And still this danger to Judah was from the same great cause that the Lord had been striving always to teach the nation and which they had not yet learned: the holding of the temple and God's presence in that temple as the great end, instead of holding that as only the means to the true end which was that by means of the temple and its ministry in accomplishing forgiveness and atonement, He who dwelt in the temple would dwell in themselves. And so again the Lord pleaded with His people by Jeremiah that He might save them from this mistake and have them see and receive the great truth of the real meaning and purpose of the temple and its service.
CWCP	70	1	Thus He said: "Behold, ye trust in lying words, that can not profit. Will ye steal, murder, and commit adultery, and swear falsely, and burn incense unto Baal, and walk after other gods whom ye know not; and come and stand before Me in this house which is called by My name, and say, We are delivered to do all these abominations? Is this house, which is called by My name, become a den of robbers in your eyes? Behold, even I have seen it, saith the Lord.
CWCP	70	2	"But go ye now unto My place which was in Shiloh, where I set My name at the first, and see what I did to it for the wickedness of My people Israel. And now, because ye have done all these works, saith the Lord, and I spake unto you, rising up early and speaking, but ye heard not; and I called you, but ye answered not; therefore will I do unto this house, which is called by My name, wherein ye trust, and unto the place which I gave to you and to your fathers, as I have done to Shiloh. And I will cast you out of My sight, as I have cast out all your brethren, even the whole seed of Ephraim. Therefore pray not thou for this people, neither lift up cry nor prayer for them, neither make intercession to Me: for I will not hear thee.... Oh that My head were waters, and Mine eyes a fountain of tears, that I might weep day and night for the slain of the daughter of My people! Oh that I had in the wilderness a lodging place of wayfaring men; that I might leave My people, and go from them! for they be all adulterers, an assembly of treacherous men. And they bend their tongues like their bow for lies: but they are not valiant for the truth upon the earth; for they proceed from evil to evil, and they know not Me. Jeremiah 7:8-16; 9:1, 3.
CWCP	71	1	What were specifically the "lying words" in which these people trusted? Here they are: "Trust ye not in lying words, saying, The temple of the Lord, The temple of the Lord, The temple of the Lord, are these." Jeremiah 7:4. Thus it is made perfectly plain that the people though going through the forms of worship and of the temple service, went through all this merely as forms, missing entirely the purpose of the temple and its services, which was solely that God might reform and make holy the lives of the people by His dwelling in them individually. And missing all this, the wickedness of their own hearts only more and more made itself manifest. For this reason all their sacrifices, worship, and prayers, were only mockery and noise, so long as their hearts and lives were unreformed and unholy.
CWCP	71	2	Therefore the word "came to Jeremiah from the Lord, saying, Stand in the gate of the Lord's house, and proclaim there this word, and say, Hear the word of the Lord, all ye of Judah, that enter in at these gates to worship the Lord. Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, Amend your ways and your doings, and I will cause you to dwell in this place. Trust ye not in lying words, saying, The temple of the Lord, The temple of the Lord, The temple of the Lord, are these. For if ye thoroughly amend your ways and your doings; if ye thoroughly execute judgment between a man and his neighbor; if ye oppress not the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow, and shed not innocent blood in this place, neither walk after other gods to your hurt: then will I cause you to dwell in this place, in the land that I gave to your fathers, forever and ever." Jeremiah 7:1-7.
CWCP	72	1	Instead of allowing God's great purpose of the temple and its services to be met in themselves, the people utterly perverted that purpose. Instead of allowing the temple and its services which God in His mercy had planted among them, to teach them how that He in truth would dwell among them by dwelling in their hearts and making holy their lives, they excluded all this true purpose of the temple and its services and perverted it all to the utterly false purpose of sanctioning grossest wickedness and cloaking deepest, darkest unholiness.
CWCP	72	2	For such a system there was no remedy but destruction. Accordingly the city was besieged and captured by the heathen. The temple, their "holy and beautiful house" was destroyed. And with the city and the temple a heap of burnt and blackened ruins, the people were carried captive to Babylon, where in their sorrow and the deep sense of their great loss they sought and found and worshiped the Lord in a way that so reformed their lives that if they had done it when the temple stood, it would have stood forever. Psalm 137:1-6.
CWCP	73	1	God brought them back from Babylon a humbled and reformed people. His holy temple was rebuilt and its services were restored. The people again dwelt in their city and their land. But apostasy again ensued. The same course was again repeated until, when Jesus, the great center of the temple and its services came to His own, the same old condition of things again prevailed. Matthew 21:12, 13; 23:13-32. In their hearts they could persecute and pursue Him to the death and yet outwardly be so holy (?) that they could not cross the threshold of Pilate's judgment hall "lest they should be defiled"! John 18:28.
CWCP	73	2	And the Lord's appeal to the people was still the same as of old--that they should find in their own personal lives the meaning of the temple and its services and so be saved from the fate which had overtaken their nation through all its history, because of this same great mistake which they were repeating. Accordingly, one day in the temple Jesus said to the multitude there present, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? But He spake of the temple of His body." John 2:19-21. When Jesus in the temple spoke thus to that people, referring to "the temple of His body" he was still endeavoring, as through all their history, to get them to perceive that the great purpose of the temple and its services always was that by means of the ministry and service there conducted, God would dwell and walk in themselves as He dwelt in the temple, making holy His dwelling-place in themselves, as His dwelling in the temple made that place holy so that their bodies should be truly temples of the living God, because of God's dwelling in them and walking in them. 2 Corinthians 6:16; 1 Corinthians 3:16, 17; Leviticus 26:11, 12; 2 Samuel 7:6, 7.
CWCP	74	1	And still they would not see this truth. They would not be reformed. They would not have the purpose of the sanctuary met in themselves, that God should dwell in them. They rejected Him who came personally to show to them this true purpose and the true Way. Therefore again there was no remedy but destruction. Again their city was taken by the heathen. Again the temple, their "holy and beautiful house," was burned with fire. Again they were taken captive and were forever scattered, to be only "wanderers among the nations." Hosea 9:17.
CWCP	74	2	Again let it be emphasized that the earthly sanctuary, the earthly temple, with its ministry and services, was as such only a figure of the true, which with its ministry and services was then in heaven. When the thought of the sanctuary was first presented to Moses for Israel it was stated by the Lord to him, "See ... that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount." Hebrews 8:5; Exodus 25:40; 25:30; 27:8. The sanctuary on the earth was therefore a figure of the true, in the sense of its being a pattern of the true. The ministry and services in the earthly were "figures of the true" in the sense of being "the patterns" of the true--"the patterns of things in the heavens." Hebrews 9:23, 24.
CWCP	75	1	The true sanctuary of which this was a figure, the original of which this was a pattern, was then in existence. But in the darkness and confusion of Egypt, Israel had lost the true idea of this, as they had also of many other things which were plain to Abraham and Isaac and Jacob; and by this object-lesson God would give to them the knowledge of the true. It was therefore not a figure in the sense of being a type of something to come that did not yet exist, but a figure in the sense of being an object-lesson and visible representation of that which then existed but was invisible, to train them up to such an experience in faith and true spirituality that they should see the invisible.
CWCP	75	2	And by all this God was revealing to them and to all people forever that it is by the priesthood, ministry, and service of Christ in the true sanctuary or temple which is in heaven, that He dwells amongst men. He was revealing that in this faith of Jesus, forgiveness of sins and atonement is ministered to men so that God dwells in them and walks in them, He being their God and they His people, and thus they be separated from all the people that are upon the face of the earth--separated unto God as His own true sons and daughters to be built up unto perfection in the knowledge of God. Exodus 33:15, 16; 2 Corinthians 6:16-18; 7:1.
------------------------Chapter 12--Perfection
CWCP	76	1	The great thought and purpose of the true sanctuary, its priesthood, and ministry, is that God shall dwell in the hearts of the people. What now is the great thought and purpose of His dwelling in the hearts of the people? The answer is, Perfection. The moral and spiritual perfection of the worshiper.
CWCP	76	2	Let us consider this: At the close of the fifth chapter of Hebrews, immediately following the statement that Christ, "being made perfect, He became the Author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey Him; called of God an High Priest after the order of Melchizedek," it is written: "Therefore," that is, because of this, for this reason, "leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection." Hebrews 6:1.
CWCP	77	3	Next it is shown that perfection is attained only through the Melchizedek priesthood. And it is shown that this was always so and that the Levitical priesthood was only temporary and typical of the Melchizedek priesthood. Following this, in discussing the Levitical priesthood, it is written: "If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, ... what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be called after the order of Aaron?" Hebrews 7:11. And again, in the same connection, "For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did [or "but it was the bringing in of a better hope," margin]; by the which we draw nigh unto God." Verse 19.
CWCP	77	1	By these scriptures it is perfectly plain that the perfection of the worshiper is that which is offered and which is attained in the priesthood and ministry of Christ.
CWCP	77	2	Nor yet are these all the words on this thought. For, as already quoted in the description of the sanctuary and its service, it is said that it "was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience." That none of this could make him that did the service perfect is its great lack. Therefore that the priesthood and ministry of Christ in the true sanctuary can and does make perfect him who enters by faith into the service is the great thought and the goal of all.
CWCP	77	3	That earthly service "could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience." "But Christ being come an High Priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by His own blood He entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us." Hebrews 9:12, 12. This sanctuary, priesthood, sacrifice, and ministry of Christ's does make perfect in eternal redemption every one who by faith enters into the service and so receives that which that service is established to give.
CWCP	77	4	Further, "For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh; how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?" The blood of bulls and of goats and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean in the Levitical service and the worldly sanctuary did sanctify to the purifying of the flesh: for so the word concerning it continually declares. And that being so, "how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God," sanctify to the purifying of the spirit and "purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God."
CWCP	78	1	What are dead works? Death itself is the consequence of sin. Dead works therefore are works that have sin in them. Then the purging of the conscience from dead works is the so entirely cleansing of the soul from sin, by the blood of Christ, through the eternal Spirit, that in the life and works of the believer in Jesus sin shall have no place; the works shall be only works of faith, and the life shall be only the life of faith, and so be only the true and pure "service of the living God."
CWCP	78	2	Again it is written: "The law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? Because that the worshipers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins." Hebrews 10:1-4.
CWCP	79	1	This again shows that though perfection was the aim in all the ministry that was performed under the law, yet perfection was not attained by any of those performances. They were all simply figures for the time then present of the ministry and priesthood by which perfection is attained; that is the ministry and priesthood of Christ. Those sacrifices could not make the comers thereunto perfect. The true sacrifice and the true ministry in "the sanctuary and the true tabernacle" do make the comers thereunto perfect, and this perfection consists in the worshipers having "no more conscience of sins."
CWCP	79	2	But since it is "not possible" for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins, it was not possible, though those sacrifices were offered year by year continually, so to purge the worshipers that they should have no more conscience of sins. The blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean could and did sanctify to the purifying of the flesh, but of the flesh only. And even this was "but a figure for the time then present" of "the blood of Christ," which so much more purges the worshipers that they have no more conscience of sins.
CWCP	79	3	"Wherefore when He cometh into the world, He saith, Sacrifice and offering Thou wouldst not, but a body hast Thou prepared Me: in burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I come ... to do Thy will, O God. Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin Thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; then said He, Lo, I come to do Thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that He may establish the second." Hebrews 10:5-9.
CWCP	80	1	Here are mentioned two things: "the first," and "the second." What are these two things? Which is "the first," and which "the second"? The two things mentioned are sacrifice, offering, burnt offerings, and offering for sin--all as one--and the will of God. Sacrifice, offering, burnt offerings, and offering for sin--all as one--are "the first," and "the will of God" is "the second." "He taketh away the first that He may establish the second." That is, He "taketh away sacrifice, offering, burnt offerings, and offering for sin, that He may establish the will of God. And the will of God is "even your sanctification" and your perfection. 1 Thessalonians 4:3; Matthew 5:48; Ephesians 4:8, 12, 13; Hebrews 13:20, 21. But this could never be accomplished by those sacrifices, offerings, burnt offerings, and offering for sin which were offered by the Levitical priesthood--they could not make the comers thereunto perfect. They could not so purge the worshipers that they should have no more conscience of sin. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sin.
CWCP	80	2	Therefore, since the will of God is the sanctification and the perfection of the worshipers; since the will of God is that His worshipers shall be so cleansed that they shall have no more conscience of sin; and since the service and the offerings in that earthly sanctuary could not do this, He took it all away that He may establish the will of God. "By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."
CWCP	81	1	The will of God is "even your sanctification." Sanctification is the true keeping of all the commandments of God. In other words, this is to say that the will of God concerning man is that His will shall be perfectly fulfilled in man. His will is expressed in His law of ten commandments, which is "the whole duty of man." This law is perfect, and perfection of character is the perfect expression of this law in the life of the worshiper of God. By this law is the knowledge of sin. And all have sinned and have come short of the glory of God--have come short of this perfection of character.
CWCP	81	2	The sacrifices and the service in the earthly sanctuary could not take away the sins of men and so could not bring them to this perfection. But the sacrifice and the ministry of the true High Priest in the sanctuary and the true tabernacle do accomplish this. This does take away utterly every sin. And the worshiper is so truly purged that he has no more conscience of sins. By the sacrifice, the offering, and the service of Himself, Christ took away the sacrifices and the offerings and the service which could never take away sins, and by His perfect doing of the perfect will of God He established the will of God. "By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." Hebrews 10:10.
CWCP	81	3	In that former earthly sanctuary and service, "every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins." But in the service in the sanctuary and the true tabernacle, "this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down on the right hand of God; from henceforth expecting till His enemies be made His footstool. For by one offering He hath perfected forever them that are sanctified." Hebrews 10:11-14.
CWCP	82	1	Thus perfection in every respect is attained through the priesthood, the sacrifice, and the service of this our great High Priest at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens in His ministry in the sanctuary and the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man. "Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that He had said before, this is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; and their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin." Hebrews 10:15-18.
CWCP	82	2	And this is the "new and living way" which Christ, through the flesh, "hath consecrated for us"--for all mankind--and by which every soul may enter into the holiest of all--the holiest of all places, the holiest of all experiences, the holiest of all relationships the holiest of all living. This new and living way He "hath consecrated for us through the flesh;" that is, He, coming in the flesh, identifying Himself with mankind in the flesh, has, for us who are in this flesh, consecrated a way from where we are to where He now is, at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens in the holiest of all.
CWCP	83	1	In His coming in the flesh--having been made in all things like unto us and having been tempted in all points like as we are--He has identified Himself with every human soul just where that soul is. And from the place where every human soul is, He has consecrated for that soul a new and living way through all the vicissitudes and experiences of a whole lifetime, and even through death and the tomb, into the holiest of all at the right hand of God for evermore.
CWCP	83	2	O that consecrated way! Consecrated by His temptations and sufferings, by His prayers and tears, by His holy living and sacrificial dying, by His triumphant resurrection and glorious ascension, and by His triumphal entry into the holiest of all, at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens!
CWCP	83	3	And this "way" He has consecrated for us. He, having become one of us, has made this way our way; it belongs to us. He has endowed every soul with divine right to walk in this consecrated way, and by His having done it Himself in the flesh--in our flesh--He has made it possible, yea, He has given actual assurance, that every human soul can walk in that way, in all that that way is and by it enter fully and freely into the holiest of all.
CWCP	83	4	He, as one of us, in our human nature, weak as we, laden with the sins of the world, in our sinful flesh, in this world, a whole lifetime, lived a life "holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners," and "was made" and ascended "higher than the heavens." And by this He has made and consecrated a way by which, in Him, every believer can in this world and for a whole lifetime, live a life holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners and as a consequence be made with Him higher than the heavens.
CWCP	84	1	Perfection, perfection of character, is the Christian goal--perfection attained in human flesh in this world. Christ attained it in human flesh in this world and thus made and consecrated a way by which, in Him, every believer can attain it. He, having attained it, has become our great High Priest, by His priestly ministry in the true sanctuary to enable us to attain.
CWCP	84	2	Perfection is the Christian's goal, and the High Priesthood and ministry of Christ in the true sanctuary is the only way by which any soul can attain this true goal in this world. "Thy way, O God, is in the sanctuary." Psalm 77:13.
CWCP	84	3	"Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, which He hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, His flesh; and having an High Priest over the house of God; let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water." And "Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; for He is faithful that promised."
CWCP	84	4	"For ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest, and the sound of a trumpet, and the voice of words; which voice they that heard entreated that the word should not be spoken to them any more.... But ye are come unto Mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the first-born, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, and to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel."
CWCP	85	1	O, then, "see that ye refuse not Him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused Him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from Him that speaketh from heaven." Hebrews 12:18-25.
------------------------Chapter 13--The Transgression and the Abomination of Desolation
CWCP	86	1	Such is the sacrifice, the priesthood, and the ministry, of Christ in His ministry in the sanctuary and the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man. Such is the statement in the book of Hebrews of the truth, the merit, and the efficacy of the sacrifice, the priesthood, the sanctuary, and the ministry of Christ.
CWCP	86	2	But it is not alone in the book of Hebrews that this great truth is found. For though it is not so directly stated nor so fully discussed in any other place as it is in the book of Hebrews, it is recognized throughout the whole of the New Testament as truly as the sanctuary and ministry of the Levitical priesthood is recognized throughout the Old Testament, though it be not so directly stated nor so fully discussed in any other place as in Exodus and Leviticus.
CWCP	86	3	In the last book of the New Testament, in the very first chapter, there is seen "one like unto the Son of Man," clothed in the raiment of the high priest. Also in the midst of the throne and of the cherubim and of the elders there was seen "a Lamb as it had been slain." There also was seen a golden altar, and one with a golden censer offering incense, which, with the prayers of the saints, ascended up before God. There was seen the seven lamps of fire burning before the throne. There was seen the temple of God in heaven--"the temple of the tabernacle of the testimony." There it is promised and declared that they who have part in the first resurrection and upon whom the second death hath no power "shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years" in that priesthood. And when the first heaven and the first earth shall have passed away and there shall be found no place for them, and the new heaven and the new earth shall have been brought in, with the holy city descending out of heaven from God, the tabernacle of God being with men, He dwelling with them, they His people and God Himself with them and their God; when He shall have wiped away all tears from their eyes and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow nor crying, neither any more pain, and the former things shall have passed away; then, and not until then, is it declared of the city of God: "I saw no temple therein."
CWCP	87	1	Thus it is just as certain that there is a priesthood, a priestly ministry, and a sanctuary, in this dispensation as that there was in the old; yes, even more truly, for though there was a sanctuary, a priesthood, and a ministry in the old dispensation, it was all only a figure for the time then present--a figure of this which now is the true and which is in heaven.
CWCP	87	2	This true priesthood, ministry, and sanctuary of Christ in heaven is too plain in the New Testament to be by any possibility denied. Yet, in the face of all this, it is a thing that is hardly ever thought of; it is a thing almost unknown and even hardly believed in the Christian world today.
CWCP	87	3	Why is this and how could it ever be? There is a cause. The Scripture tells it and facts demonstrate it.
CWCP	88	1	In the book of Daniel, seventh chapter, there was seen by the prophet in vision the four winds of heaven striving upon the great sea, "and four great beasts came up from the sea, diverse one from another. The first was like a lion, and had eagle's wings;" which symbolized the world-kingdom of Babylon. The second was like a bear, which raised itself up on one side, and had three ribs in the mouth of it; which symbolized the united world-kingdom of Media and Persia. The third was like a leopard, which had four heads and four wings of a fowl which symbolized the world-dominion of Alexander the Great and Grecia. The fourth beast was "dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns." This great beast symbolized the world-empire of Rome, diverse from all that were before it; because it was not originally a kingdom or monarchy, but a republic. The ten horns symbolized the ten kingdoms that were planted in the territory of Western Rome when that empire was annihilated.
CWCP	88	2	Then says the prophet: "I considered the horns [he ten horns], and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things." The prophet beheld and considered this little horn clear through until "the judgment was set, and the books were opened." And when this judgment was set and the books were opened, he says: "I beheld then [at that time] because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake: I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame."
CWCP	89	1	Note the remarkable change in expression in this latter statement. The prophet beheld the little horn from the time of its rise clear through to the time when "the judgment was set, and the books were opened." At that time he beheld the little horn; and just now, particularly "because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake." And he continued to behold that same thing--that same little horn--until the end and till its destruction. But when its destruction comes, the word that describes it is not that the little horn was broken or destroyed but that the "beast was slain and his body destroyed and given to the burning flame."
CWCP	89	2	This shows that the little horn is but another phase of the original fourth, or dreadful and terrible, beast that the little horn is but the continuation of the dreadful and terrible beast, in its very disposition, spirit and aims, only under a variant form. And as the fourth world power, the dreadful and terrible beast in its original form was Rome; so the little horn in its workings is but the continuation of Rome--of the spirit and working of Rome, under this form.
CWCP	89	3	The explanation of this, given in the same chapter, confirms that which has been stated. For of this little horn it is said that it is to be "diverse from the first;" that he "shall speak great words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and think to change times and laws" of the Most High. It is also said that the "same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them; until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the Most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom." All these things are true, and this is the description of latter Rome throughout.
CWCP	90	1	And all this is confirmed by latter Rome herself. For Leo the Great was pope A.D. 440 to A.D. 461, in the very time when the former Rome was in its very last days, when it was falling rapidly to ruin. And Leo the Great declared in a sermon that the former Rome was but the promise of the latter Rome; that the glories of the former were to be reproduced in Catholic Rome; that Romulus and Remus were but the forerunners of Peter and Paul; that the successors of Romulus therefore were the precursors of the successors of Peter; and that, as the former Rome had ruled the world, so the latter Rome, by the see of the holy blessed Peter as head of the world, would dominate the earth. This conception of Leo's was never lost from the Papacy. And when, only fifteen years afterward, the Roman Empire had, as such, perished, and only the Papacy survived the ruin and firmly held place and power in Rome, this conception of Leo's was only the more strongly and with the more certitude held and asserted.
CWCP	90	2	That conception was also intentionally and systematically developed. The Scriptures were industriously studied and ingeniously perverted to maintain it. By a perverse application of the Levitical system of the Old Testament, the authority and eternity of the Roman priesthood had already been established. 1
CWCP	91	1	And now, by perverse deductions "from the New Testament, the authority and eternity of Rome herself was established."
CWCP	91	2	Taking the ground that she is the only true continuation of original Rome, upon that the Papacy took the ground that wherever the New Testament cites or refers to the authority of original Rome, she is now meant, because she is the only true continuation of original Rome. Accordingly, where the New Testament enjoins submission to "the powers that be," or obedience to "governors," it means the Papacy, because the only power and the only governors that then were, were Roman, and the papal power was the true continuation of the Roman.
CWCP	91	3	"Every passage was seized on where submission to the powers that be is enjoined, every instance cited where obedience had actually been rendered to the imperial officials; special emphasis being laid on the sanction which Christ Himself had given to Roman dominion by pacifying the world through Augustus, by being born at the time of the taxing, by paying tribute to Caesar, by saying to Pilate, 'Thou couldst have no power at all against Me except it were given thee from above'"--Bryce. And since Christ had recognized the authority of Pilate, who was but the representative of Rome, who should dare to disregard the authority of the Papacy, the true continuation of that authority, to which even the Lord from heaven had submitted.
CWCP	92	1	And it was only the logical culmination of this assumption when Pope Boniface VIII presented himself in the sight of the multitude, clothed in a cuirass, with a helmet on his head and a sword in his hand held aloft, and proclaimed: "There is no other Caesar, nor king, nor emperor than I, the Sovereign Pontiff and Successor of the Apostles;" and, when further he declared, ex cathedra: "We therefore assert, define, and pronounce that it is necessary to salvation to believe that every human being is subject to the Pontiff of Rome."
CWCP	92	2	This is proof enough that the little horn of the seventh chapter of Daniel is Papal Rome and that it is in spirit and purpose intentionally the continuation of original Rome.
CWCP	92	3	Now, in the eighth chapter of Daniel, this subject is taken up again. First, there is seen by the prophet in vision a ram with two horns which were high, but one higher than the other, corresponding to the bear lifting itself up on one side higher than the other. This is declared plainly by the angel to mean "the kings of Media and Persia." Next the prophet saw "an he goat" coming from the west on the face of the whole earth, touching not the ground, and he had a notable horn between his eyes. He overthrew the ram, brake his two horns, cast him down to the ground, and stamped upon him, and there was none that could deliver the ram out of his hand. This is declared by the angel to mean "the king of Grecia: and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king." The he-goat waxed very great, and when he was strong, the notable horn was broken and in place of it there came up four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven. This is declared by the angel to mean that "four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not in his [Alexander's] power."
CWCP	94	1	Out of one of these divisions of the empire of Alexander, the prophet next saw that there "came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land." The directions named show that this power rose and waxed exceeding great from the west. This is explained by the angel to mean, "in the latter time of their kingdom [the four divisions of Grecia], when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up." "And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them." "And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power: and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practice, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people. And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes ["He magnified himself even to the prince of the host." Verse 11]; but he shall be broken without hand."
CWCP	95	1	These specifications show that the little horn of the eighth chapter of Daniel represents Rome from the time of its rise, at the destruction of the Grecian Empire, to the end of the world, when it is "broken without hand" by that stone "cut out of the mountain without hands," which then breaks in pieces and consumes all earthly kingdoms. Daniel 2:34, 35, 44, 45.
CWCP	95	2	We have seen that in the seventh chapter of Daniel the little horn, though as such representing only the latter phase of Rome, yet does really represent Rome in both its phases--Rome from beginning to end, because when the time comes that the "little horn" is to be broken and destroyed, it is indeed "the beast" that is "slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame." Thus the thought with which the story of the little horn closes in Daniel 7 is continued in Daniel 8 with reference to the same power. In Daniel 8 the expression "little horn" covers the whole of Rome in both its phases, just as is shown in the closing expressions concerning the "little horn" in Daniel 7; as is shown also by the expressions "the abomination of desolation" and "the transgression of desolation," being applied to Rome in both its phases (Daniel 9:26, 27; Matthew 24:15; Daniel 11:31; 12:11; 8:11, 13); and as is confirmed by the teaching and history of latter Rome itself. It is all one, except only that all that is stated of the former Rome is true and intensified in the latter Rome.
CWCP	96	1	And now let us consider further the scripture expressions in Daniel 8 concerning this little horn power. In verses 11, 25, of this little horn power it is said: "He shall magnify himself in his heart." "He magnified himself even to [or against] the prince of the host;" and "he shall also stand up against [or reign in opposition to] the Prince of princes." This is explained in 2 Thessalonians, second chapter, where the apostle, in correcting wrong impressions which the Thessalonians had received concerning the immediate coming of the Lord, says: "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?" 2 Thessalonians 2:3-5.
CWCP	96	2	Plainly this scripture describes the same power that is represented by the little horn in Daniel 8. But there are other considerations which more fully show it. He says that when he was at Thessalonica with the brethren he had told them these very things which now he writes. In Acts 17:1-3, is the record concerning Paul when he was yet with the Thessalonians, as follows: "Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews: and Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three Sabbath days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures." And in this reasoning with them out of the Scriptures, he told them about this falling away which should come, in which would be the revealing of the man of sin, the mystery of iniquity, the son of perdition, who would oppose himself to God and would exalt himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, even putting himself in the place of God and passing himself off for God.
CWCP	97	1	In reasoning with the people out of the Scriptures, where in the Scriptures did Paul find the revelation from which he could tell to the Thessalonians all this? It was in this eighth chapter of Daniel where the apostle found it, and from this it was that he told it to them while he was there. For in the eighth chapter of Daniel are the very expressions which he uses in 2 Thessalonians, of which he says, "Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?" This fixes the time to be after the apostles' days, when Rome magnified itself "even to the Prince of the host" and "against the Prince of princes;" and connects it directly with the falling away, or apostasy, which developed the Papacy, or Rome, in its latter and ultimate phase.
CWCP	98	1	Now let us read verses 11 and 12 of Daniel 8 and it will be plainly seen that here is exactly the place where Paul found the scripture from which he taught the Thessalonians concerning the "man of sin" and the "mystery of iniquity:" "Yea, he magnified himself even to the Prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down. And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practiced and prospered."
CWCP	98	2	This plainly points out that which took away the priesthood, the ministry, and the sanctuary of God and of Christianity.
CWCP	98	3	Let us read it again. "Yea, he [the little horn--the man of sin] magnified himself even to the Prince of the host ["against the Prince of princes"--Christ], and by him [the man of sin] the daily sacrifice [the continual service, the ministry, and the priesthood of Christ] was taken away, and the place of His sanctuary [the sanctuary of the prince of the host, of the Prince of princes--Christ] was cast down. And an host was given him [the man of sin] against the daily sacrifice [against the continual service, of the ministry of Christ, the Prince of the host] by reason of transgression cast down the truth to the ground; and it practiced, and prospered."
CWCP	98	4	It was "by reason of transgression," that is, by reason of sin, that this power gained "the host" that was used to cast down the truth to the ground, to shut away from the church and the world Christ's priesthood, His ministry, and His sanctuary; and to cast it all down to the ground and tread it underfoot. It was by reason of transgression that this was accomplished. Transgression is sin, and this is the consideration and the revelation upon which the apostle in 2 Thessalonians defines this power as the "man of sin" and the "mystery of iniquity."
CWCP	99	1	In Daniel 8:11-13; 11:31; and 12:11, it will be noticed that the word "sacrifice" is in every case supplied. And it is wholly supplied, for in its place in the original there is no word at all. In the original the only word that stands in this place is the word tamid, that is here translated "daily." And in these places the expression "daily" does not refer to the daily sacrifice any more than it refers to the whole daily ministry or continual service of the sanctuary, of which the sacrifice was only a part. The word tamid in itself signifies "continuous or continual," "constant," "stable," "sure," "constantly," "evermore." Only such words as these express the thought of the original word, which, in the text under consideration, is translated "daily." In Numbers 28 and 29 alone, the word is used seventeen times, referring to the continual service in the sanctuary.
CWCP	100	2	And it is this continual service of Christ, the true High Priest, "who continueth ever," and "who is consecrated forevermore" in "an unchangeable priesthood"--it is this continual service of our great High Priest, which the man of sin, the Papacy, has taken away. It is the sanctuary and the true tabernacle in which this true High Priest exercises His continual ministry that has been cast down by "the transgression of desolation." It is this ministry and this sanctuary that the "man of sin" has taken away from the church and shut away from the world and has cast down to the ground and stamped upon and in place of which it has set up itself "the abomination that maketh desolate." What the former Rome did physically to the visible or earthly sanctuary, which was "the figure of the true" (Daniel 9:26, 27; Matthew 24:15), that the latter Rome has done spiritually to the invisible or heavenly sanctuary that is in itself the true." Daniel 11:31; 12:11; 8:11, 13.
CWCP	100	1	In the footnote quotation on page 91 [see below] it is shown that in the apostasy, the bishops, presbyters, deacons, and the eucharist were made to succeed the high priest, priests, Levites and sacrifices of the Levitical system. Now by every evidence of the Scriptures, it is certain that, in the order of God it was Christ and His ministry and sanctuary in heaven and this alone, that in truth was the object of the Levitical system and that is truly the Christian succession to that system. Therefore when in and by the apostasy the system of bishops as high priests, presbyters as priests, deacons as Levites, and the Supper as a sacrifice was insinuated as the Christian succession to the Levitical system, this of itself was nothing else than to put this false system of the apostasy in the place of the true, completely to shut out the true, and finally, to cast it down to the ground and stamp upon it.
CWCP	100	2	And this is how it is that this great Christian truth of the true priesthood, ministry, and sanctuary of Christ is not known to the Christian world today. The "man of sin" has taken it away and cast it down to the ground and stamped upon it. The "mystery of iniquity" has hid this great truth from the church and the world during all these ages in which the man of sin has held place in the world and has passed itself off as God and its iniquitous host as the church of God.
CWCP	101	1	And yet, even the "man of sin," the "mystery of iniquity," itself bears witness to the necessity of such a service in the church in behalf of sins. For though the "man of sin," the "mystery of iniquity," has taken away the true priesthood, ministry, and sanctuary of Christ and has cast these down to the ground to be stamped upon and has completely hid them from the eyes of the Christian world, yet she did not utterly throw away the idea. No, she threw away the true and cast down the true to the ground but, retaining the idea in the place of the true, she built up in her own realm an utterly false structure.
CWCP	101	2	In the place of Christ, the true and divine High Priest of God's own appointment in heaven, she has substituted a human, sinful, and sinning priesthood on earth. In the place of the continual, heavenly ministry of Christ in His true priesthood upon His true sacrifice, she has substituted only an interval ministry of a human, earthly, sinful, and sinning priesthood in the once-a-day "daily sacrifice of the mass." And in the place of the sanctuary and the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched and not man, she has substituted her own meeting-places of wood and stone, to which she applies the term "sanctuary." Thus, instead of the one continual High Priest, the one continual ministry, and the one continual sanctuary in heaven, which God has ordained and which is the only true, she has devised out of her own heart and substituted for the only true, many high priests, many ministries, many sacrifices, and many sanctuaries, on earth, which in every possible relation are only human and utterly false.
CWCP	102	1	And it can never take away sin. No earthly priesthood, no earthly ministry, no earthly sacrifice or service in any earthly sanctuary can ever take away sin. In the book of Hebrews we have seen that even the priesthood, the ministry, the sacrifice, and the service in the earthly sanctuary--the very service which the Lord Himself ordained on earth--never took away sin. The inspired record is that they never did take away sin, and that they never could take away sin.
CWCP	102	2	It is only the priesthood and the ministry of Christ that can ever take away sin. And this is a priesthood and a ministry in heaven and of a sanctuary that is in heaven. For when Christ was on earth he was not a priest and if He had remained on earth until this hour, He would not yet be a priest, as it stands written, "If he were on earth, He should not be a priest." Hebrews 8:4. Thus, by plain word and abundant illustration, God has demonstrated that no earthly priesthood, sacrifice, or ministry can ever take away sin.
CWCP	102	3	If any such could take away sin, then why could not that which God Himself ordained on earth take away sin? If any such could take away sin, then why change the priesthood and the ministry from earth to heaven? Therefore, by the plain word of the Lord, it is plain that the priesthood, the ministry, the sacrifice, and the sanctuary which the Papacy has set up and operates on earth can never take away sin, but, instead, only perpetuates sin, is a fraud, an imposture, and the very "transgression" and "abomination of desolation" is the most holy place.
CWCP	103	1	And that this conclusion and statement as to what the papal system really is is not extravagant nor far-fetched, is confirmed by the words of Cardinal Baronius, the standard annalist of the papacy. Writing of the tenth century, he says: "In this century the abomination of desolation was seen in the temple of the Lord; and in the See of St. Peter, reverenced by angels, were placed the most wicked of men; not pontiffs, but monsters." And the council of Rheims in 991 declared the papacy to be "the man of sin, the mystery of iniquity."
------------------------Chapter 14--The Time of Finishing the Mystery of God
CWCP	104	1	But that imposture is not to last forever; thank the Lord! This great truth of the priesthood, ministry, and sanctuary of Christianity is not to be hid forever from the eyes of the church and the world. The mystery of iniquity arose and so hid from the world the mystery of God that all the world followed it wondering. Revelation 13:3, 4. But the day comes when the mystery of iniquity shall be exposed, and the mystery of God in its own truth and purity shall shine forth once more, never more to be hid, but to accomplish its great purpose and be completely finished. For it is written that "in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as He hath declared to His servants the prophets." Revelation 10:7.
CWCP	104	2	In the days of Christ and His apostles, the mystery of God was revealed in a fulness never before known and was preached "to all nations for the obedience of faith." Romans 16:25, 26. From the beginning of the world unto that time this mystery had "been hid in God," had "been hid from ages and from generations," but was then "made manifest to His saints" to whom "God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory: whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus." Colossians 1:26-29; Ephesians 3:3, 5, 9.
CWCP	105	1	But even at that same time, in the very days of the apostles, the "mystery of iniquity" did "already work." And it continued to work until it gained world-power and supremacy and even power over the saints, the times, and the law of the Most High--standing up against the Prince of princes, magnifying itself even to the Prince of the host, putting itself in the place of worship of God, and passing itself off for God. And thus, again, but not this time in God, the mystery of God was "hid from ages and from generations." But now, again, in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, even now, the mystery of God which hath again been hid from ages and generations, is made manifest to His saints to whom now "God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory: whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus."
CWCP	105	2	And this, as we have already quoted, is itself according "as He hath declared to His servants the prophets." It is not alone the prophet of Patmos who declared that in this time, even now in our day, "the mystery of God should be finished." For when the angel of God made this proclamation in the vision of the prophet of Patmos, he had already, and long before, declared the same thing to His servants the prophets. And this proclamation on Patmos was only the declaration of the angels that that which God had long before declared to His servants the prophets should now surely be accomplished and that with no more delay. The full proclamation of the angel is this: "And the angel which I saw stand upon the sea and upon the earth lifted up his hand to heaven, and sware by Him that liveth forever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time ["delay," R.V.] no longer: but in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as He hath declared to His servants the prophets." Revelation 10:5-7.
CWCP	106	1	The one prophet to whom this thing was more fully and more plainly declared than to any other was the prophet Daniel. For not only did Daniel see the rise of this little horn and see it magnify itself "even to the Prince of the host," and "stand up against the Prince of princes," and cast down to the ground His truth and His sanctuary and stamp upon them, but he also, and in the same vision, saw the truth and the sanctuary of Christ delivered from this little horn power, rescued from its blasphemous stamping, lifted up from the earth and exalted to the heaven where it belongs. And it was in this part of the transactions in the vision that the heavenly ones seemed to be most interested; for, says Daniel: "Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint ["the Wonderful Numberer"] which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice [the continual service], and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden underfoot? And He ["the Wonderful Numberer"] said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed." Daniel 8:13, 14.
CWCP	107	1	Then the angel Gabriel was commanded to make Daniel understand the vision. He began to do so, but when in the explanation he had reached the point concerning the many days of this vision, the astonishing and terrible things revealed in the vision overcame the prophet, and says he: "I Daniel fainted, and was sick certain days; afterward I rose up, and did the king's business; and I was astonished at the vision, but none understood it." Daniel 8:27. So far as the explanation had proceeded, it was easily understood: for it was plainly spoken that the ram represented the kings of Media and Persia; and the rough goat the king of Grecia; and, in view of the explanation that had already been made in the second and seventh chapters of Daniel, the description of the next great power after Grecia was easily understood so far as the angel could then go with the explanation. But in the very midst of the explanation of the most important part of it, Daniel fainted, and so the most material and essential part of the explanation was missed, and "none understood it."
CWCP	107	2	However, the prophet sought diligently for an understanding of the vision. And after the destruction of Babylon, in the first year of the king of the Medes and Persians the angel Gabriel came to Daniel again and said: "O Daniel, I am now come forth to give thee skill and understanding." Daniel 9:1, 22. And it was understanding in this particular vision which he was explaining when Daniel fainted that he now came to give. Accordingly he directs Daniel's attention first of all to that vision, for he said: "At the beginning of thy supplications the commandment came forth, and I am come to shew thee; for thou art greatly beloved: therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision." Verse 23. Having thus directed the prophet's attention to the vision, the angel begins immediately to discuss the time mentioned in the vision--the very part of the vision which, because of Daniel's fainting, had been left unexplained. Thus he says: "Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city." Verse 24.
CWCP	108	1	The word "determined" signifies "limited," "restricted within bounds," "to mark off and fix the bounds." In explaining the vision at the first, the angel had come to the point of the time--the "many days," the "two thousand and three hundred days" of the vision. Now, he tells Daniel to consider the vision; he begins immediately to speak concerning these days and to explain the events of them. "Seventy weeks," or four hundred and ninety of these days are limited and restricted to the Jews and Jerusalem, and this also marks the limitation of the Jews and Jerusalem as God's special people and city. For these are prophetic days, in which each day is a year: the seventy weeks, or the four hundred and ninety days, thus making four hundred and ninety years of the two thousand and three hundred days which are two thousand and three hundred years. The beginning of the four hundred and ninety years is thus also the beginning of the two thousand and three hundred years.
CWCP	108	2	The story of the "seventy weeks," or four hundred and ninety years, is given by the angel as follows: "Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. And He shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week He shall cause the sacrifices and oblation to cease," and "upon the wing of abominations shall come one that maketh desolate, ["and upon the battlements shall be the idols of the desolator."--A.V. margin] even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolator." Daniel 9:25-27; 9:27, R.V.; 9:27, margin.
CWCP	109	1	The commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem here referred to went forth in the year 457 B. C. and is recorded in the seventh chapter of Ezra. The decree was issued from Babylon and was addressed, first, to Ezra, empowering him to leave Babylon and to take with him such people and materials as were supplied for the work of restoring Jerusalem and the worship of God therein, and secondly "to all the treasurers which are beyond the river" Euphrates, directing them to supply whatever was required by Ezra for the carrying on of the work. It was the fifth month of the year when Ezra reached Jerusalem, so that about half the year 457 B. C. was gone, which would give about the year 456-1/2 as the time of the beginning of the four hundred and ninety years and the two thousand and three hundred years.
CWCP	110	1	From that time four hundred and eighty-three years were to reach "to the Messiah the Prince," which would reach twenty-six and one-half years into the Christian era or into the year A. D. 27, which is the very year of Christ's appearance as the Messiah in His public ministry, when He was baptized in Jordan and anointed with the Holy Ghost. Mark 7:9-11; Matthew 3:13-17. After this He, the Messiah, was to "confirm the covenant" "for one week"--the remaining week of the seventy. But in the midst of that week He would "cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease" by the sacrifice of Himself on the cross. In the midst of the week would be at the end of three and a half of the seven years from the fall of A. D. 27. This gives the date the spring of A.D. 31, the very time when the Saviour was crucified, and thus by the sacrifice of Himself--the only sacrifice for sins--forever caused the sacrifice and the oblation to cease. Then the veil of the earthly temple "was rent in twain from the top to the bottom," showing that the service of God there was ended and the earthly house was desolate.
CWCP	110	2	There was yet the last half of the seventieth week remaining as the limit of the time of special favor to the Jews and Jerusalem. This half of the week, beginning in the spring of A.D. 31, extended to the fall of A.D. 34. In that time "they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen ["went everywhere preaching the word"] traveled as far as Phenice and Cyprus and Antioch preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only." Acts 11:19; 8:4. But when this time was expired and the Jews had confirmed themselves in the rejection of the Messiah and His gospel, then was their decision accepted and under the leadership of both Peter and Paul the door of faith was opened fully to the Gentiles, to whom pertains the remaining portion of the two thousand and three hundred years.
CWCP	111	1	After the four hundred and ninety years of the limitation upon the Jews and Jerusalem, there yet remained one thousand eight hundred and ten years to the Gentiles. This period, beginning, as we have found, in the fall of A.D. 34, reaches inevitably to the fall of A.D. 1844 and marks that date as the expiration of the two thousand and three hundred years. And at that time, upon the word of the "Wonderful Numberer" in Daniel 8:14, "then shall the sanctuary be cleansed." In 1844 also was the very time of "the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound" and when "the mystery of God should be finished, as He hath declared to His servants the prophets."
CWCP	112	1	At that time there would be broken up the horror of great darkness by which the mystery of iniquity had hid from ages and generations the mystery of God. At that time the sanctuary and the true tabernacle and the truth of it would be lifted up from the ground where the man of sin had cast them down and stamped upon them and would be exalted to the heaven where they belong and whence they will shine forth in such light as that the earth shall be lightened with the glory. At that time the transcendent truth of the priesthood and ministry of Christ would be rescued from the oblivion to which the abomination and transgression of desolation had consigned it and would once more and forever stand in its true and heavenly place in the faith of the church, accomplishing in every true believer that perfection which is the eternal purpose of God which He purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord.
------------------------Chapter 15--The Cleansing of the Sanctuary
CWCP	113	1	The cleansing of the sanctuary and the finishing of the mystery of God are identical as to time and are also so closely related as to be practically identical in character and event.
CWCP	113	2	In the "figure of the true" in the sanctuary service made visible, the round of service was completed annually, and the cleansing of the sanctuary was the finishing of that figurative and annual service. And this cleansing of the sanctuary was the taking out of and away from the sanctuary all "the uncleanness of the children of Israel" "because of their transgression in all their sins," which, by the ministry of the priesthood in the sanctuary, had been brought into the sanctuary during the service of the year.
CWCP	113	3	The finishing of this work of the sanctuary and for the sanctuary was, likewise, the finishing of the work for the people. For in that day of the cleansing of the sanctuary, which was the Day of Atonement, whosoever of the people did not by searching of heart, confession, and putting away of sin take part in the service of the cleansing of the sanctuary was cut off forever. Thus the cleansing of the sanctuary extended to the people and included the people as truly as it did the sanctuary itself. And whosoever of the people was not included in the cleansing of the sanctuary and was not himself cleansed, equally with the sanctuary, from all iniquity and transgression and sin was cut off forever. Leviticus 16:15-19, 29-34; 23:27-32.
CWCP	114	1	And this was all "a figure for the time then present." That sanctuary, sacrifice, priesthood, and ministry was a figure of the true, which is the sanctuary, sacrifice, priesthood, and ministry of Christ. And that cleansing of the sanctuary was a figure of the true, which is the cleansing of the sanctuary and the true tabernacle which the Lord pitched and not man, from all the uncleanness of the believers in Jesus because of all their transgression in all their sins. And the time of this cleansing of the true is declared in the words of the Wonderful Numberer to be "unto two thousand and three hundred days, then shall the sanctuary be cleansed," which is the sanctuary of Christ in A.D. 1844.
CWCP	114	2	And, indeed, the sanctuary of which Christ is the High Priest is the only one that could possibly be cleansed in 1844, because it is the only one that there is. The sanctuary that was a figure for the time then present was destroyed by the army of the Romans who came and destroyed that city (Daniel 9:26) and that sanctuary and even its place was to be desolate "even until the consummation." Therefore the only sanctuary that could possibly be cleansed at the time referred to by the Wonderful Numberer, at the end of the two thousand and three hundred days, was alone the sanctuary of Christ--the sanctuary of which Christ is High Priest and Minister; the sanctuary and the true tabernacle of which Christ, at the right hand of God, is true Priest and Minister; the sanctuary and true tabernacle "which the Lord pitched and not man."
CWCP	114	3	What this cleansing means is plainly declared in the very scripture which we are now studying--Daniel 9:24-28. For the angel of God, in telling to Daniel the truth concerning the two thousand and three hundred days, tells also the great object of the Lord in this time as it relates to both the Jews and the Gentiles. The seventy weeks or four hundred and ninety years of the limitation upon the Jews and Jerusalem is definitely declared to be "to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy." Daniel 9:24.
CWCP	115	1	That is the true purpose of God in the sanctuary and its service in all time: whether in the figure or in the true, whether for Jews or for Gentiles, whether on earth or in heaven. Seventy weeks or four hundred and ninety years, was the limitation set for the Jews to have this accomplished for and in themselves. To accomplish this, to that people, of all people, Christ Himself came in person to show to them the Way and to lead them in this Way. But they would not have it. Instead of seeing in Him the gracious One who would finish transgression and make an end of sins, and make reconciliation for iniquity, and bring in everlasting righteousness to every soul, they saw in Him only "Beelzebub the prince of the devils"; only One instead of whom they would readily choose a murderer; only One who as King they would openly repudiate and choose a Roman Caesar as their only king; only One whom they counted as fit only to be crucified out of the world. For such a people as that and in such a people as that, could He finish transgression and make an end of sins and make reconciliation for iniquity and bring in everlasting righteousness?--Impossible. Impossible by their own persistent rebellion. Instead of His being allowed by them to do such a gracious and wonderful work for them, from the depths of divine pity and sorrow He was compelled to say to them: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate." "The kingdom of God shall be taken from you and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof." Matthew 23:37, 38; 21:43.
CWCP	116	1	The nation to whom the kingdom of God was given, upon its rejection by the Jews, was the Gentiles. And that which was to be done for the Jews in the four hundred and ninety years which were limited to them, but which they would not at all allow to be done for them--that is the identical thing to be done for the Gentiles, to whom the kingdom of God is given, in the eighteen hundred and ten years allotted to them. And that work is "to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy." This can be done alone in the finishing of the mystery of God in the cleansing of the true Christian sanctuary. And this is done in the cleansing of the true sanctuary, only in the finishing of transgression and making an end of sins in the perfecting of the believers in Jesus, on the one hand, and on the other hand in the finishing of transgression and making an end of sins in the destruction of the wicked and the cleansing of the universe from all taint of sin that has ever been upon it.
CWCP	117	1	The finishing of the mystery of God is the ending of the work of the gospel. And the ending of the work of the gospel is, first, the taking away of all vestige of sin and the bringing in of everlasting righteousness--Christ fully formed--within each believer, God alone manifest in the flesh of each believer in Jesus, and, secondly, on the other hand, the work of the gospel being finished means only the destruction of all who then shall not have received the gospel (2 Thessalonians 1:7-10), for it is not the way of the Lord to continue men in life when the only possible use they will make of life is to heap up more misery for themselves.
CWCP	117	2	Again, in the service of the earthly sanctuary, we have seen that when the work of the gospel in the annual course was finished in behalf of those who had taken part in it, then all those who had taken no part in it were cut off. "Which was a figure for the time then present" and which plainly teaches that in the service of the true sanctuary when the work of the gospel shall have been finished for all those who have a part in it, then all those who do not have a part in it will be cut off. Thus, in both respects, the finishing of the mystery of God is the final ending of sin.
CWCP	117	3	The service in the earthly sanctuary shows also that in order for the sanctuary to be cleansed and the course of the gospel service there to be finished, it must first be finished in the people who have a part in the service. That is to say: In the sanctuary itself, transgression could not be finished, an end of sins and reconciliation for iniquity could not be made, and everlasting righteousness could not be brought it, until all this had been accomplished in each person who had a part in the service of the sanctuary. The sanctuary itself could not be cleansed until each of the worshipers had been cleansed. The sanctuary itself could not be cleansed so long as, by the confessions of the people and the intercessions of the priests, there was pouring into the sanctuary a stream of iniquities, transgression, and sins. The cleansing of the sanctuary, as to the sanctuary itself, was the taking out of and away from the sanctuary all the transgression of the people which, by the service of the priests, had been taken into the sanctuary during the service of the year. And this stream must be stopped at its fountain in the hearts and lives of the worshipers, before the sanctuary itself could possibly be cleansed.
CWCP	118	1	Therefore the very first work in the cleansing of the sanctuary was the cleansing of the people. That which was preliminary and essential to the cleansing of the sanctuary itself, to the finishing of the transgression and bringing in everlasting righteousness, there, was the finishing of transgression, and the making an end of sins, and making reconciliation for iniquity, and bringing in everlasting righteousness in the heart and life of each one of the people themselves. When the stream that flowed into the sanctuary was thus stopped at its source, then, and then alone, could the sanctuary itself be cleansed from the sins and transgression which, from the people, by the intercession of the priests, had flowed into the sanctuary.
CWCP	119	1	And all that "was a figure for the time then present"--a "figure of the true." Therefore by this we are plainly taught that the service of our great High Priest in the cleansing of the true sanctuary must be preceded by the cleansing of each one of the believers, the cleansing of each one who has a part in that service of the true High Priest in the true sanctuary. It is plain that transgression must be finished, an end of sins and reconciliation for all iniquity must be made, and everlasting righteousness must be brought in, in the heart's experience of every believer in Jesus, before the cleansing of the true sanctuary can be accomplished.
CWCP	119	2	And this is the very object of the true priesthood in the true sanctuary. The sacrifices, the priesthood, and the ministry in the sanctuary which was but a figure for the time then present, could not really take away sin, could not make the comers thereunto perfect, whereas the sacrifice, the priesthood, and the ministry of Christ in the true sanctuary does take away sins forever, does make the comers thereunto perfect, does perfect "forever them that are sanctified."
------------------------Chapter 16--The Times of Refreshing
CWCP	120	1	And now, in this time of the consummation of the hope of all the ages, in this time when the true sanctuary is truly to be cleansed, in this time when the work of the gospel is to be completed and the mystery of God indeed finished--now is the time of all the times that ever were in the world, when the believers in Jesus--the blessed objects of His glorious priesthood and wondrous intercessions in the true sanctuary--shall be partakers of the full measure of His heavenly grace and shall have in their lives transgression finished, an end of sins and reconciliation for iniquity made forevermore, and, in the perfection of truth, everlasting righteousness brought in.
CWCP	120	2	This is precisely and alone the purpose of the priesthood and ministry of Christ in the true sanctuary. Is not that priesthood sufficient? Is not His ministry effectual to accomplish its purpose?--Most assuredly. Only by that means can it be possible for this thing ever to be accomplished. No soul can ever himself finish transgression or make an end of sins or make reconciliation for iniquity or bring in everlasting righteousness in his own life. For that ever to be done, it must be done alone by the priesthood and ministry of Him who gave Himself and who was given that He might accomplish this very thing for every soul and present every soul "holy and unblameable and unreprovable" in the sight of God.
CWCP	121	1	Every one whose heart is inclined to truth and right desires that this thing shall be done. Only the priesthood and ministry of Christ can do it. Now is the time of the complete and effectual doing of it for evermore. Then let us believe in Him who is doing this, and trust Him in the doing of it, that He does it completely and forevermore.
CWCP	121	2	This is the time and this is the work of which it is written, that "there should be delay no longer." And why should there be delay any longer? When the priesthood of our great High Priest is efficient, and when His sacrifice and ministry are all sufficient in that which is promised and in that for which every believer hopes, then why should there be delay any longer in the finishing of transgression, the making an end of sin, the making of reconciliation for iniquity and the bringing in of everlasting righteousness to each believing soul? Then let us trust Him to do that which He has given Himself to do and which He alone can possibly do. Let us trust Him in this and receive in its fullness all that belongs to every soul who believes in and implicitly trusts the Apostle and High Priest of our profession--Christ Jesus.
CWCP	121	3	We have seen that the little horn--the man of sin, the mystery of iniquity--has put his own earthly, human, and sinful priesthood, ministry, and sanctuary in the place of the heavenly and holy priesthood, ministry, and sanctuary. In this priesthood and service of the mystery of iniquity, the sinner confesses his sins to the priest and goes on sinning. Indeed, in that priesthood and ministry there is no power to do anything else than to go on sinning, even after they have confessed their sins. But, sad as the question may be, is it not too true that those who are not of the mystery of iniquity but who really believe in Jesus and in His priesthood and ministry--is it not too true that even these also confess their sins and then go on sinning?
CWCP	122	1	But is this fair to our great High Priest, to His sacrifice, and to His blessed ministry? Is it fair that we should thus put Him, His sacrifice, and His ministry practically upon a level with that of the "abomination of desolation" and to say that in Him and in His ministry there is no more power or virtue than there is in that of the "mystery of iniquity"? May the Lord forever save His church and people this day with no more delay from thus bringing down so low our great High Priest, His awful sacrifice, and His glorious ministry.
CWCP	122	2	Let our trust in our great High Priest be true, and let it be truly implicit. By protestants there is often remark made of the blind unwisdom of Catholics in their so fully trusting to the priest. And, with respect to any earthly priesthood, the thought is correct. And yet implicit trust of the priest is eternally right, but it must be trust of the right Priest. Such trust in a false priesthood is most ruinous, but the principle of implicit trust in the Priest is eternally right. And Jesus Christ is the right Priest. Therefore every one who believes in Jesus Christ, in the sacrifice which He has made, in the priesthood and ministry which He exercises in the true sanctuary must not only confess his sins, but he must then forever implicitly trust that true High Priest in His ministry in the true sanctuary to finish transgression, to make an end of sins, to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness in his heart and life.
CWCP	123	1	Everlasting righteousness, remember. Not a righteousness for today and sin tomorrow and righteousness again and sin again. That is not everlasting righteousness. Everlasting righteousness is righteousness that is brought in and stays everlastingly in the life of him who has believed and confessed and who still further believes and receives this everlasting righteousness in the place of all sin and all sinning. This alone is everlasting righteousness; this alone is eternal redemption from sin. And this unspeakable blessing is the gracious gift of God by the heavenly ministry which He has established in our behalf in the priesthood and ministry of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary.
CWCP	123	2	Accordingly, today, just now, "while it is called today," as never before, the word of God to all people is "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come ["that there may come seasons of refreshing," R.V.] from the presence of the Lord; and He shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: whom the heaven must receive until the time of restitution of all things." Acts 3:19-21.
CWCP	123	3	The time of the coming of the Lord and the restitution of all things is indeed at the very doors. And when Jesus comes, it is to take His people unto Himself. It is to present to Himself His glorious church, "not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing," but that is "holy and without blemish." It is to see Himself perfectly reflected in all His saints.
CWCP	124	1	And before He comes thus, His people must be in that condition. Before He comes we must have been brought to that state of perfection in the complete image of Jesus. Ephesians 4:7, 8, 11-13. And this state of perfection, this developing in each believer the complete image of Jesus--this is the finishing of the mystery of God, which is Christ in you the hope of glory. This consummation is accomplished in the cleansing of the sanctuary, which is the finishing of the mystery of God, which is the final finishing of transgression, the making of a complete end of sins, the making of reconciliation for iniquity, the bringing in of everlasting righteousness, the sealing up of the vision and prophecy and the anointing of the most Holy.
CWCP	124	2	The present time being the time when the coming of Jesus and the restitution of all things is at the very doors and this final perfecting of the saints having necessarily to precede the coming of the Lord and the restitution of all things, we know by every evidence that now we are in the times of refreshing--the time of the latter rain. And as certainly as that is so, we are also in the time of the utter blotting out of all sins that have ever been against us. And the blotting out of sins is exactly this thing of the cleansing of the sanctuary; it is the finishing of all transgression in our lives; it is the making an end of all sins in our character; it is the bringing in of the very righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ, to abide alone everlastingly.
CWCP	124	3	This blotting out of sins must precede the receiving of the refreshing of the latter rain. For it is only upon those who have the blessing of Abraham that the promise of the Spirit comes, and it is only those who are redeemed from sin upon whom the blessing of Abraham comes. Galatians 3:13, 14. Therefore now as never before we are to repent and be converted that our sins may be blotted out, that an utter end shall be made of them forever in our lives and everlasting righteousness brought in. And this, in order that the fulness of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit shall be ours in this time of the refreshing of the latter rain. And all this must be done in order that the harvest-ripening message of the gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world with that power from on high by which the earth shall be lightened with its glory.
------------------------Chapter 17--Conclusion
CWCP	126	1	Christ the Lord, the Son of God, came down from heaven and was made flesh and dwelt among men as the Son of man. This is an eternal fixture in the Christian faith.
CWCP	126	2	He died on the cross of Calvary for our offenses. This is an eternal fixture in the Christian faith.
CWCP	126	3	He arose from the dead for our justification. This is an eternal fixture in the Christian faith.
CWCP	126	4	He ascended to heaven as our Advocate and as such sitteth on the right hand of the throne of God. This is an eternal fixture in the Christian faith.
CWCP	126	5	He is a priest upon His Father's throne--a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek. This is an eternal fixture in the Christian faith.
CWCP	126	6	At the right hand of God, upon the throne of God, as priest upon His throne, Christ is a "minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle which the Lord pitched and not man." This is an eternal fixture in the Christian faith.
CWCP	126	7	And he will come again in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory to take His people unto Himself, to present to Himself His glorious church, and to judge the world. This is an eternal fixture in the Christian faith.
CWCP	126	8	That Christ lived in the flesh, died on the cross, rose from the dead, ascended to heaven, and sits on the right hand of the throne of God in heaven must be an eternal fixture in the faith of every Christian, in order for that faith to be true and full.
CWCP	127	1	That this same Jesus is a priest at the right hand of God on that throne must be an eternal fixture in the faith of every Christian in order for that faith to be true and full.
CWCP	127	2	That Christ the Son of God, as priest at the right hand of God upon His throne, is there a "minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle which the Lord pitched and not man" must be an eternal fixture in the faith of every Christian, in order for that faith to be true and full.
CWCP	127	3	And this true faith in Christ the Son of God as that true priest, in that true ministry, of that true sanctuary, at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; that His priesthood and ministry finishes transgression and makes an end of sins and makes reconciliation for iniquity and brings in everlasting righteousness--this true faith will make every comer thereunto perfect. It will prepare him for the seal of God and for the final anointing of the Most Holy.
CWCP	127	4	By this true faith every soul who is of this true faith can certainly know that in him and in his life transgression is finished and an end of sins made, that reconciliation is made for all the iniquity of his life, and that everlasting righteousness is brought in to reign in his life for evermore. This he can know with perfect certainty, for the Word of God says so, and true faith cometh by hearing the Word of God.
CWCP	128	1	All who are of this true faith can know all this just as truly as they can know that Christ is at the right hand of the throne of God. They can know it just as truly as they can know that He is Priest upon that throne. They can know it just as truly as they can know that He is there a "minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle which the Lord pitched and not man." and all this can be known just as truly as any statement of the Word of God can be known, for the Word of God plainly states it all.
CWCP	128	2	Therefore in this time let every believer in Jesus rise up in the strength of this true faith, implicitly trusting the merit of our great High Priest in His holy ministry and intercession for us.
CWCP	128	3	In the confidence of this true faith, let every believer in Jesus take a long breath of restfulness forever, in thankfulness to God that this thing is accomplished, that transgression is finished in your life, that you are done with the wicked thing forever, that an end of sins is made in your life and that you are free from it forever, that reconciliation for iniquity is made, and that you are cleansed from it forever by the precious blood of sprinkling, and that everlasting righteousness is brought into your life to reign forevermore, to uphold you, to guide you, to save you in the fulness of that eternal redemption which, through the blood of Christ, is brought to every believer in Jesus our great High Priest and true Intercessor.
CWCP	128	4	And then in the righteousness, the peace, and the power of this true faith, let every soul who knows it spread abroad to all people and to the end of the world the glorious news of the priesthood of Christ, of the cleansing of the sanctuary, of the finishing of the mystery of God, of the times of refreshing come, and of the soon coming of the Lord "to be glorified in His saints and to be admired in all them that believe ... in that day" and to "present to Himself a glorious church not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing" but "holy and without blemish."
CWCP	129	1	"Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an High Priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; a Minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man."
CWCP	129	2	"Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, which He hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, His flesh; and having an High Priest over the house of God; let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water." And "Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; for He is faithful that promised."

------------------------Ecclesiastical Empire
ECE	1	1	Chapter 1 - An Ecclesiastical World-power
ECE	8	1	Chapter 2 - The Visigoths in the Middle Ages
ECE	13	1	Chapter 3 - The Suevi in the Middle Ages
ECE	19	1	Chapter 4 - The Franks in the Middle Ages
ECE	37	1	Chapter 5 - The Alemanni in the Middle Ages
ECE	51	1	Chapter 6 - The Burgundians in the Middle Ages
ECE	57	1	Chapter 7 - The Angles and Saxons in the Middle Ages
ECE	95	1	Chapter 8 - Pagan Philosophy the Strength of the Papacy
ECE	118	1	Chapter 9 - Theological Controversy--Council of Ephesus
ECE	140	1	Chapter 10 - Theological Controversy--Second Council of Ephesus
ECE	155	1	Chapter 11 - Theological Controversy--Council of Chalcedon
ECE	184	1	Chapter 12 - The Papal Temporal Power Established
ECE	209	1	Chapter 13 - Restoration of the Western Empire
ECE	254	1	Chapter 14 - The papacy and the Barbarians
ECE	272	1	Chapter 15 - The Holy Roman Empire
ECE	336	1	Chapter 16 - The Papal Supremacy--Gregory VII to Calixtus II
ECE	396	1	Chapter 17 - The Papal Supremacy--Innocent III to Boniface VIII
ECE	423	1	Chapter 18 - The Papal Empire
ECE	456	1	Chapter 19 - That Woman Jezebel
ECE	509	1	Chapter 20 - The Anarchy of the Papacy
ECE	565	1	Chapter 21 - The Spirit of the Papacy
ECE	605	1	Chapter 22 - The Reformation--England
ECE	630	1	Chapter 23 - The Reformation--Bohemia
ECE	708	1	Chapter 24 - The Reformation--Germany
ECE	772	1	Chapter 25 - Protestantism--True and False
ECE	804	1	Chapter 26 - The Christian Principle Triumphant
ECE	834	1	Chapter 27 - National Apostasy
ECE	867	3	Conclusion

------------------------Chapter 1 - An Ecclesiastical World-power
ECE	1	1	The Roman Empire had perished. "Never had the existence of a nation been more completely overthrown."--Guizot. 1 New peoples in ten distinct kingdoms, in A. D. 476, occupied the territory which for five hundred years had been Roman. These are the nations which, inextricably involved with the papacy, are the subject of the mediaeval and modern history of Western Europe, that we are now to trace.
ECE	1	2	The establishment, the growth, and the reign of the papacy as a world-power, is distinctly a subject of prophecy, as really as is the fall of Rome and the planting of the Ten Kingdoms upon the ruins thereof. Indeed, the prophecy of this is an inseparable part of the prophecy of the other. To any one who will closely observe, it will plainly appear that in the three great lines of prophecy in Daniel 7, and 8, and 11, the great subject is Rome. In the Scriptures in each of these chapters far more space is given to the description of Rome than is given to Babylon, Medo-Persia, and Grecia all together. And in Daniel 11:14 when the entrance of Rome upon the scene is marked, it is definitely and significantly stated "the children of robbers shall exalt themselves to establish the vision." That is to say: Rome is the particular object of the vision; and when Rome is reached and she enters upon the scene, the vision is established.
ECE	1	3	In Daniel 7, the four great world-empires--Babylon, Medo-Persia, Grecia, and Rome--are pictured by four great beasts. The last characteristic of the fourth is that "it had ten horns." Then, says the prophet, "I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another LITTLE horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things." 2 This "little horn" the prophet beheld even till "the Judgment was set and the books were opened." And then he says, "I beheld then [at the time of the Judgment] because of the great words which the horn spake. I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame."
ECE	2	1	Note that the prophet is considering the "little horn" in its career even to the end. But when that "little horn" comes to its end, it is not said, I beheld till the horn was broken; but, "I beheld till the beast was slain." At the time of the Judgment "I beheld then because of the great words which the horn spake: I beheld even till the beast was slain." This shows beyond all question that that which is symbolized by the "little horn" is simply another phase of what is symbolized by the great and terrible beast. The "little horn" is but the continuation of the beast in a different shape: the same characteristics are there: the same spirit is there: the same thing that is the beast continues through all the time of the little horn until its destruction comes; and when the destruction of the little "horn" does come, it is"the beast" that is slain and his body destroyed and given to the burning flame.
ECE	2	2	In Daniel 8 the thought is the same, except that both phases of this power which is Rome, are symbolized in "a little horn which waxed exceeding great toward the south and toward the east and toward the pleasant land;" that "waxed great even to the host of heaven;" who magnified himself even to the Prince of the host, and by whom the daily sacrifice was taken away and the place of His sanctuary was cast down." The further sketch of Rome in its whole career, and under whatever form, from its entrance into the field of the world's affairs unto the end, is given in verses 23-25: "And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up. And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power: and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practice, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people. And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand."
ECE	2	3	When in chapter 7 the angel explained to Daniel the meaning of these things, he said: "The ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall arise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings. And he shall speak great words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of times." 3
ECE	3	1	Of the fourth great kingdom--Rome--the angel said that not only was it "diverse from all the kingdoms that were before it," but that it was "diverse from all kingdoms." Rome was diverse from all the powers that were before it, and also diverse from all kingdoms, in that it was a republic. It is true that this republic degenerated into a one man power, a terrible imperial despotism, in which it was also diverse from all that were before it, and even from all; yet, the name and form of a republic were still retained, even to its latest days.
ECE	3	2	That empire perished, and in its place stood ten powers which were called kingdoms. But, now of this other peculiar one which comes up amongst the ten, before whom three of the ten are rooted out--of this one it is written: "He shall be diverse from the first." The first was diverse from "all;" and yet this is diverse even from that one. This shows, then, that the power here referred to would be diverse from all, even to a degree beyond that one which is plainly declared to be diverse from all: that it would be of an utterly new and strange order.
ECE	3	3	Note that of this power it is written that he should "speak great words against the Most High;" that he should "wear out the saints of the Most High;" and that he should "think to change times and the law" 4 of the Most High. In the description of the same power, given in chapter 8:25, it is stated that "he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes." Throughout the book of Daniel the expression "stand up," where used in connection with kings, invariably signifies "to reign." 5 This power, then, would reign in opposition to Christ; for only He is the Prince of princes.
ECE	3	4	Further information with respect to this power, is given by Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2, where, in writing of the day of the coming of the Lord he said: "That day shall not come except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God showing himself that he is God." And that this instruction is derived directly from the passages which we have quoted from Daniel 7 and 8, is clear from the fact that Paul appeals to the Thessalonians: "Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?" When he was yet with them, and telling them these things, he "reasoned with them out of the Scriptures." The only Scriptures that they then had were the Old Testament Scriptures. And the only place in the Old Testament Scriptures where these things are mentioned which he cited, is in these chapters of the book of Daniel.
ECE	4	1	These specifications of scripture make it certain that the power referred to is an ecclesiastical one--it deals particularly with "the Most High:" it reigns in opposition to "the Prince of princes." The specifications show that it is more than simply an ecclesiastical power: it is an ecclesiastical world-power, a theocratical world-kingdom, requiring worship to itself: putting itself above all else that is worshiped, even sitting "in the temple"--the place of worship--"of God, showing himself that he is God."
ECE	4	2	All this is emphasized by the further description of the same power: "I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet-colored beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.... And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus." 6 These saints and martyrs of Jesus are in this same book symbolized by another woman--"a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars"--who "fled into the wilderness" 7 while this terrible woman on the scarlet-colored beast is doing all in her power utterly to "wear out the saints of the Most High." The condition as thus revealed, is woman against woman--Church against Church: a corrupt Church opposed to the pure Church.
ECE	4	3	The book of Revelation is the complement of the book of Daniel. The book of Daniel has for its great subject national history, with Church history incidental. The book of Revelation has for its great subject Church history, with national history incidental. Accordingly, that which is but briefly mentioned in the book of Daniel concerning this ecclesiastical kingdom which takes such a large place in the world, is quite fully treated in the book of Revelation: and treated in both its phases, that of the true Church and that of the false; that of the faithful Church, and that of the apostate.
ECE	5	1	The line of prophecy of the Seven Churches of the book of Revelation, is a series of seven letters addressed by the Lord to His own Church in the seven phases of the complete round of her experience from the first advent of Christ unto the second. In each of these seven letters not only is counsel given in the way of right, but there are pointed out the dangers and evils that beset the Church, against which she must be especially guarded, and which, in order to remain pure, she must escape.
ECE	5	2	To the Church in her first stage--the Church of Ephesus--He says: "I have somewhat against thee because thou hast left thy first love. Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works." 8 This points definitely to the falling away that is mentioned by Paul to the elders of the Church at Ephesus (Acts 20:30), and that is again mentioned and dwelt upon by him in 2 Thessalonians 2, which falling away, when continued, developed "that man of sin," "the son of perdition," "who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped"--the ecclesiastical State now under consideration. The time of this phase of the Church is by the letter itself, shown to be the days of the apostles, 9 and therefore ended about A. D. 100.
ECE	5	3	The letter to the Church in her second phase, is wholly commendatory. This shows that, while individuals had continued in the apostasy mentioned in the first letter, yet the Church herself had heeded the counsel given by the Head of the Church, and had repented and returned to "the first works." The time of this phase of the Church's experience is definitely suggested in the letter itself, by the statement that she should "have tribulation ten days." 10 This refers to the ten years of persecution in the reign of Diocletian, from A. D. 303-313; which was ended by the Edict of Milan, issued by the two emperors, Constantine and Licinius, March, A. D. 313. 11
ECE	6	1	The letter to the Church in the third phase of her experience gives the key to this particular thought which is now before us--the identification of that ecclesiastical State. In this letter Christ mentions with commendation the fact that His Church had held fast His name, and had not denied His faith, "even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr." 12 This word "Antipas" is not a person's name, but is a term characteristic of the times. It is composed of two words, anti, and pappas. "anti" signifies against, and "pappas" signifies papa, which is our English, and also the universal, word for "papa." And this word "papa" is but the repetition of the simple word "pa," and is the original of the word "pope."
ECE	6	2	Therefore, the word "Antipas"--"against 'pas' or 'papas'"--shows the growth of the papa-cy in the period immediately following A. D. 313. This was the period of Constantine and onward, in which the papa-cy itself was distinctly formed. And history records that in that time, while the other principal bishops of the Church bore the title of "patriarch," the bishop of Rome studiously avoided that particular term, as placing him on a level with other "patriarchs." He always preferred the title of "papa," or "pope" (Schaff 13): and this because "patriarch" bespeaks an oligarchical Church government--that is government by a few; whereas "pope" bespeaks a monarchial Church government--that is government by one. 14 Thus the history, and the word of the counsel of Christ, unite in marking as the characteristic of that phase of the Church's experience, the formation of the papa-cy, and the assertion of the authority of the pope.
ECE	6	3	And thus, beyond all question, the papacy is identified, and that by the very Word of God itself, as that ecclesiastical State, that church-kingdom, sketched by Daniel, in chapters 7 and 8; described by Paul, in 2 Thessalonians 2: and fully traced by John, in the Revelation. The time covered by this third letter of Christ to His Church is, by that letter itself, shown to be the time of the making of the papacy; and to the words of that letter correspond exactly the facts of the history in the period reaching from the Edict of Milan to the ruin of the empire. The "falling away," the leaving of the "first love," mentioned in the first letter, had, in this time of the third letter, culminated in the formation of the papacy.
ECE	7	1	Now this same course is traced on the side of the apostasy, in the first three steps of the line of prophecy of the Seven Seals of the book of Revelation. Under the First Seal there was seen going forth a white horse (Revelation 6:2), corresponding to the Church in her first phase--that of her original purity, her "first love." But the counsel of Christ in His first letter said that there was even then a falling away from that first love: and this is signified in the Second Seal, at the opening of which "there went out another horse that was red." 15 And, under the Third Seal "I beheld, and lo a black horse!" 16 Thus the symbols of the seals, passing in three steps from white to black, mark identically the course of the apostasy in the three steps, from the first love, in which Christ was all in all, in the first stage of the Church, to the third stage, in which, "where Satan's seat" was, and where Satan dwelt, a man was put in the place of God, in that which professed to be the Church of God, "passing himself off for God."
ECE	7	2	The immediate effect of this apostasy, which developed the papacy in the Roman Empire, was the complete ruin of the Roman Empire. And, this consequence of the apostasy, which is traced in the first three steps of the two lines of prophecy of the Seven Churches and the Seven Seals, is sketched in the first four trumpets of the line of prophecy of the Seven Trumpets. And here it is--in the Seven Trumpets--that national history enters, as an incident, in this book of Church history; as in the rise of the little horn amongst the ten, in the book of Daniel, there enters Church history, as an incident, in that book of national history. The Seven Trumpets aptly enter here, because the trumpet is the symbol of war; and it was by the universal war of the floods of barbarians from the north, that there was swept away that mass of corruption that was heaped upon the Roman Empire by its union with the apostate Church, in the making of the papacy. 17
------------------------Chapter 2 - The Visigoths in the Middle Ages
ECE	8	1	The Ecclesiastical Empire is the grand center of the history that we are now to study. Yet with this there are inseparably connected other empires, and the Ten Kingdoms of Western Europe. In the nature of the case, these will have to be considered to a greater or less extent. Therefore, in order that each of these may have its due attention, as well as that the history of the Ecclesiastical Empire itself may be followed uninterruptedly and the more intelligently, it will be best first to sketch the kingdoms of Western Europe through the Middle Ages.
ECE	8	2	The Ten Kingdoms could not continue in either undisturbed or undisturbing relations, even among themselves. As ever in human history from the day of Nimrod, the desire to enlarge dominion, the ambition for empire, was the chief characteristic, the ruling passion, among these.
ECE	8	3	The first to make their power predominant among the Ten Kingdoms was the Visigoths. It will be remembered 1 that under Wallia the Visigoths as early as A. D. 419 had gained a permanent seat in Southwestern Gaul, from the Mediterranean Sea to the Bay of Biscay, and from the River Loire to the River Rhone, with their capital at Toulouse. There the newly established kingdom "gradually acquired strength and maturity." "After the death of Wallia [A. D. 419], the Gothic scepter devolved to Theodoric, the son of the great Alaric; and his prosperous reign of more than thirty years [A. D. 419-451] over a turbulent people, may be allowed to prove that his prudence was supported by uncommon vigor, both of mind and body. Impatient of his narrow limits, Theodoric aspired to the possession of Arles, the wealthy seat of government and commerce; but" this enterprise failed.
ECE	8	4	"Theodoric, king of the Visigoths, appears to have deserved the love of his subjects, the confidence of his allies, and the esteem of mankind. His throne was surrounded by six valiant sons, who were educated with equal care in the exercises of the Barbarian camp, and in those of the Gallic schools: from the study of Roman jurisprudence they acquired the theory, at least, of law and justice." "The two daughters of the Gothic king were given in marriage to the eldest sons of the kings of the Suevi and of the Vandals, who reigned in Spain and Africa."--Gibbon. 2 This domestic alliance with the house of the king of the Vandals was fraught with far-reaching and dreadful consequences. The king of the Vandals at that time daughter-in-law had formed a conspiracy to poison him. With Genseric, his own suspicion was sufficient proof of guilt, and upon the hapless daughter of Theodoric was inflicted the horrible penalty of cutting off her nose and ears. Thus mutilated, she was sent back to the house of her father.
ECE	9	1	By this outrage Theodoric was stirred up to make war upon the king of the Vandals, in which he was widely supported by the sympathy of his neighbors. To protect himself and his dominions from this dangerous invasion Genseric by "rich gifts and pressing solicitations inflamed the ambition of Attila," who, thus persuaded, marched, A. D. 451, with an army of seven hundred thousand men in his memorable invasion of Gaul. This required that not only the forces of Theodoric, but all the power of the whole West should stand unitedly in defense of their very homes. The battle that was fought was the battle of Chalons. "The body of Theodoric, pierced with honorable wounds, was discovered under a heap of the slain: his subjects bewailed the death of their king and father; but their tears were mingled with songs and acclamations, and his funeral rites were performed in the face of a vanquished enemy. The Goths, clashing their arms, elevated on a buckler his eldest son, Torismond, to whom they justly ascribed the glory of their success; and the new king accepted the obligation of revenge as a sacred portion of his paternal inheritance."--Gibbon. 3
ECE	9	2	Torismond was murdered in A. D. 453 by his younger brother, Theodoric II, who reigned till 466. In 456 he invaded Spain in an expedition against "the Suevi who had fixed their kingdom in Gallicia," and who now "aspired to the conquest of Spain," and even threatened to attack Theodoric under the very walls of his own capital. "Such a challenge urged Theodoric to prevent the bold designs of his enemy: he passed the Pyrenees at the head of the Visigoths: the Franks and the Burgundians served under his standard.... The two armies, or rather the two nations, encountered each other on the banks of the River Urbicus, about twelve miles from Astorga; and the decisive victory of the Goths appeared for a while to have extirpated the name and kingdom of the Suevi. From the field of battle Theodoric advanced to Braga, their metropolis, which still retained the splendid vestiges of its ancient commerce and dignity."--Gibbon. 4 The king of the Suevi was captured and slain by Theodoric, who "carried his victorious arms as far as Merida," whence he returned to his capital.
ECE	10	1	In A. D. 466 Theodoric was assassinated by Euric, who reigned till 485. Immediately upon his accession he renewed the Visigothic invasion of Spain. "He passed the Pyrenees at the head of a numerous army, subdued the cities of Saragossa and Pampeluna, vanquished in battle the martial nobles of the Tarragonese province, carried his victorious arms into the heart of Lusitania, and permitted the Suevi to hold the kingdom of Gallicia under the Gothic monarchy of Spain" which he made permanent. 5
ECE	10	2	"The efforts of Euric were not less vigorous nor less successful in Gaul; and throughout the country that extends from the Pyrenees to the Rhone and the Loire, Berry and Auvergne were the only cities, or dioceses, which refused to acknowledge him as their master." "As soon as Odoacer had extinguished the Western Empire, he sought the friendship of the most powerful of the barbarians. The new sovereign of Italy resigned to Euric, king of the Visigoths [A. D. 476-485], all the Roman conquests beyond the Alps as far as the Rhine and the ocean; and the Senate might confirm this liberal gift with some ostentation of power, and without any real loss of revenue or dominion.
ECE	10	3	"The lawful pretensions of Euric were justified by ambition and success; and the Gothic nation might aspire, under his command, to the monarchy of Spain and Gaul. Arles and Marseilles surrendered to his arms; he oppressed the freedom of Auvergne; and the bishop condescended to purchase his recall from exile by a tribute of just, but reluctant praise. Sidonius waited before the gates of the palace among a crowd of ambassadors and suppliants; and their various business at the court of Bordeaux attested the power and the renown of the king of the Visigoths. The Heruli of the distant ocean, who painted their naked bodies with its cerulean color, implored his protection; and the Saxons respected the maritime provinces of a prince who was destitute of any naval force. The tall Burgundians submitted to his authority; nor did he restore the captive Franks till he had imposed on that fierce nation the terms of an unequal peace. The Vandals of Africa cultivated his useful friendship: and the Ostrogoths of Pannonia were supported by his powerful aid against the oppression of the neighboring Huns. The North (such are the lofty strains of the poet) was agitated or appeased by the nod of Euric; the great king of Persia consulted the oracle of the West; and the aged god of the Tyber was protected by the swelling genius of the Garonne." 6
ECE	11	1	The reign of Euric "was the culminating point of the Visigothic monarchy in Gaul."--Guizot. 7 He was succeeded, A. D. 485, by his son, Alaric II, at the time "a helpless infant." Though Alaric II reigned twenty-two years, he so "gave himself up to the pursuit of pleasure" that his reign "was the epoch of the decay of the Visigothic monarchy in Gaul," which indeed ended at the death of Alaric II by the hand of Clovis the Frank, in the battle of Poitiers, A. D. 507. Alaric II was succeeded by his infant son, Amalaric, who was taken into Spain. And though the Visigoths still held in Gaul "a narrow tract of seacoast from the Rhone to the Pyrenees," from this time forward their dominion was properly in Spain, to which country it was limited, and wherein its seat was permanently fixed in the reign of Theudes, who succeeded Amalaric in A. D. 531, and reigned till 548.
ECE	11	2	The kingdom of the Visigoths continued to flourish in all Spain until A. D. 711. By that time luxury had so enervated them, and their despotism and persecutions had so estranged the subject peoples, that in a single year, 711-712, Tarik, the Saracen commander, conquered the country from the Straits of Gibraltar to the Bay of Biscay, a distance of seven hundred miles. This can be easily understood from the fact that to the great and decisive battle against the invading Saracens, Roderick, the king of the Visigoths, went "sustaining on his head a diadem of pearls, incumbered with a flowing robe of gold and silken embroidery, and reclining on a litter or car of ivory, drawn by two white mules."--Gibbon. 8
ECE	12	1	The remnant of the Visigoths, "a scanty band of warriors, headed by Pelayo, probably a member of the Visigothic royal family, found refuge in the cave of Covadonga, among the inaccessible mountains of Asturias" in the extreme northwestern part of the peninsula, "Their own bravery and the difficulties of the country enabled them to hold their own; and they became the rallying point for all who preferred a life of hardship to slavish submission." 9 This little band of warriors, never subdued, continued to hold their own, and to grow in strength and success. Little by little they pushed back the Saracens, enlarging their territory, and holding all that they gained. This they steadily continued for seven hundred and eighty years, when, in A. D. 1492, the last vestige of Mohammedan power in Spain was broken, and the descendants of the original Visigoths once more possessed the whole country. The present--A. D. 1901--child-heir to the throne of Spain is Alfonso XIII; and Alfonso I was the grandson of Pelayo, the intrepid leader of that "scanty band of warriors" who in A. D. 712 "found refuge in the cave of Covadonga among the inaccessible mountains of Asturias."
ECE	12	2	The year of the final recovery of Spain from the Mohammedan power, it will be noted, was also the very year of the discovery of the West Indies by Columbus--A. D. 1492. This era of discovery and conquest opened by Columbus, and continued by Balboa, Cortes, and others, with an intricate complication of territorial accessions in Europe, suddenly at the beginning of the sixteenth century elevated Spain to the place of the leading power, and her king--Charles I--to the position of the greatest sovereign, then in the world. In fifty years, however, she had begun a decline which steadily continued till she was reduced, in 1898, to the bounds of the original kingdom of the Visigoths in the Spanish peninsula, with a few outlying islands.
------------------------Chapter 3 - The Suevi in the Middle Ages
ECE	13	1	On the original and permanent settlement of the Suevi, in the Roman Empire, they occupied "the greater portion of Southern and Western Spain; and their capital was Astorga." In the period between the departure of the Vandals into Africa, A. D. 429, and the coming of the Visigoths into Spain, A. D. 456, the Suevi were "the only barbarian power left in the peninsula."--Hodgkin. 1 Though in the great battle with Theodoric, the Visigoth, in 456, they were signally defeated and their power was much weakened, yet the distinct Suevic kingdom continued until 587, when, by the power of Leovigild the Visigoth, it became entirely subject and tributary to the Visigothic kingdom.
ECE	13	2	During the time of the occupation of the peninsula by the Mohammedan power, 711, the Suevi, until about 1250, shared the fate of the Visigoths. As little by little the brave descendants of the unconquerable Pelayo pushed back the bounds of the Mohammedan dominion, the Suevi, inhabiting the territory of what is now Portugal and Galicia, was really the first to be freed. Indeed Alfonso I, grandson of Pelayo, not only drove the Mohammedans out of Galicia, but was able to advance "with his victorious troops" as far as to the River Douro. Alfonso III, 866-910, made expeditions as far south as to Coimbra and Lisbon, though his permanent southern boundary was still the River Douro.
ECE	13	3	Ferdinand the Great, king of Leon, Castile, and Galicia, 1055-1064, and his son, in 1065, carried the boundary southward till it included the present Portuguese province of Beira. Alfonso VI, 1072-1109, compelled the cession of Lisbon and Santerem, which was practically all that part of the province of Estramadura, which lies west and north of the River Tagus. In 1086 the danger that the Mohammedans would regain these territories was so great that Alfonso VI "summoned the chivalry of Christendom to his aid. Among the knights who came to his assistance were Counts Raymond and Henry of Burgundy; ...and in 1094 he combined the fiefs of Coimbra and Oporto into one great county," called Terra Portucalensis, or County of Porto Cale; and, with the hand of his daughter Theresa, conferred it upon Henry of Burgundy, who thus became Count of Portucalensis: Porto Cale: Portugal. And that the Suevi who at the first inhabited Southern and Western Spain and Galicia, were the root of this Portugal, is clear from the fact that "ethnologically the Galicians are allied to the Portuguese, whom they resemble in dialect, in appearance, and in habits, more than any other inhabitants of the peninsula." 2
ECE	14	1	The history of Portugal as a kingdom, therefore, really begins with this gift by Alfonso VI, descended from Alfonso I, grandson of Pelayo the Visigoth, to Henry of Burgundy, in A. D. 1094. It must be remembered, however, that at that time Portugal was only a county, held in fief by Henry of Burgundy as vassal of Alfonso VI, king of Leon, Castile, and Galicia, who by reason of his great successes assumed the title of "Emperor of Spain." This grand title, however, vanished with him; and he was no sooner dead than Count Henry, his beneficiary, invaded the kingdom in a contest with four other claimants, to make himself king. He carried on this contest for five years, but failed; and died suddenly at Astorga in 1112, leaving his wife Theresa to rule the county of Portugal during the minority of his infant son, Affonso Henriques.
ECE	14	2	"Affonso Henriques, who, at the age of seventeen, assumed the government [1112-1185], was one of the heroes of the Middle Ages. He succeeded to the rule of the county of Portugal when it was still regarded as a fief of Galicia; and after nearly sixty years of incessant fighting, he bequeathed to his son a powerful little kingdom, whose independence was unquestioned, and whose fame was spread abroad throughout Christendom by the reports of the victories of its first king over the Mohammedans. The four wars of independence which Affonso Henriques waged against Alphonso VII, lasted more than twelve years, and were fought out on the Galician frontier with varying success, until the question of Portuguese independence was peaceably established and confirmed by the valor of the Portuguese knights who overcame those of Castile in the famous tournament of Valdevez, and Affonso Henriques assumed the title of King of Portugal." 3
ECE	15	1	It was not till the reign of Affonso III, 1248-1279, that the Mohammedans were finally expelled, and Portugal attained its ultimate European limits by the Portuguese conquest of all the territory west of the River Guadilquiver, and southward to the sea. Thus Portugal effected the expulsion of the Mohammedans from her dominions, two hundred and fifty years before Spain completely recovered hers. After this had been accomplished there was a long period of comparative peace, in which the kingdom and the people greatly prospered. About 1400 there was begun by the Portuguese an era of exploration and discovery, that is one of the greatest in the history of the world; that at that time led the world; and that brought to the king of Portugal "an income greater than that of any prince in Europe, so that he had no need of taxes."
ECE	15	2	This splendid era of discovery was begun by Prince Henry, son of King Joao, or John, who by his energy and success acquired the title "the Navigator." "Until his day the pathways of the human race had been the mountain, the river, and the plain, the strait, the lake, and the inland sea. It was he who conceived the thought of opening a road through the unexplored ocean--a road replete with danger, but abundant in promise. Born on March 4, 1394, Prince Henry was a younger son of King Joao of Portugal, and of Philippa of Lancaster, the grandchild of Edward III; so that he was half an Englishman. Prince Henry relinquished the pleasures of the court, and took up his abode on the inhospitable promontory of Sagres at the extreme southwestern angle of Europe." His great aim was to find the sea-path to the then only known Indies. He did not accomplish it; but he did a great thing in destroying the terror of the great ocean, and so opening the door of courage to those who should come after. His ships and men reached the islands of Madeira and Porto Santo in 1418 and 1420, which were granted to him by the king, his brother, in 1433. They doubled the Cape of Bojador in 1433. In 1435 they went a hundred and fifty miles beyond Cape Bojador. In 1443 they went twenty-five miles beyond Cape Blanco. In 1445 they reached the mouth of the River Senegal. In 1455 he passed Cape Verde and went as far as to the mouth of the River Gambia. Prince Henry, the Navigator, died Nov. 13, 1460.
ECE	16	1	The enterprise which Prince Henry, the Navigator, had so well begun, was continued after his death. In 1462 the Cape Verde Islands were discovered and colonized. In the same year an expedition under Pedro de Cintra reached a point on the Serra Leone coast, six hundred miles beyond the Gambia. In 1469 another expedition under Fernan Gomez reached the Gold Coast. In 1484 Diogo Cam reached the mouth of the Congo. In 1486 Barholomew Dias succeeded in rounding the extreme southern point of Africa, as far as to Algoa Bay. The cape he named Cabo Tormentoso,--Cape Torment,--but the king of Portugal, Joao II, cheered with the prospect that the way was now surely opened to India, named it Cape of Good Hope.
ECE	16	2	This continued series of successes had drawn to Lisbon, the Portuguese capital, adventurous strangers "from all parts of the world;" and among these there came from Genoa, in Italy, in 1470, Christopher Columbus. He entered the service of the king of Portugal, where he remained till 1484, making "several voyages to the coast of Guinea." As early as 1474 he had determined in his mind that the world is round; that therefore India should be reached by sailing westward; and that he would sail in that direction to find it. His project he made known to King Joao II, who referred him to his Committee of Council for Geographical Affairs. The committee rendered a decidedly adverse report; but the bishop of Ceuta, seeing that the king was inclined to favor Columbus's view, suggested to him that he reap the advantage of it by sending an expedition unknown to Columbus. The king adopted the suggestion, sent out his expedition which from fear soon returned. Columbus, discovering the trick that had been attempted, in just indignation quitted Lisbon in 1484; and so the glory and the wonders of the discovery of the Western Continent, the New World, was lost to Portugal.
ECE	16	3	The Portuguese, however, having passed the most southern point of Africa, followed up the attempt to reach India by sailing eastward. In July, 1497, Vasco da Gama sailed from Lisbon. November 22 he rounded the Cape of Good Hope. Christmas day, as he was sailing along, land was sighted, which, in honor of the day, he named Natal. April 7, 1498, he reached Mombas, on the east coast of Africa, near the equator; and May 20, 1498, the India problem was solved by his sighting the Malabar coast of Western India, and anchoring his ships before Calicut. March 9, 1500, another expedition left Lisbon, under the command of Pedro Alvarez Cabral, and April 22 discovered the southeast coast of Brazil, taking possession in the name of the king of Portugal. Cabral then sailed for India, arriving at Calicut in September, and continued his voyage southward as far as to Cananore, and finally to Cochin. In 1501 Joao da Nova discovered the island of Ascension, and Amerigo Vespucci discovered the Rio Plata and Paraguay. Ceylon was discovered in 1505. In 1506 Albuquerque "explored the coasts of Arabia and Persia, made the king of Ormus tributary to the king of Portugal, and sent embassies to Abyssinia." In 1510 he conquered Goa, on the Indian coast, a little north of Calicut. In 1512 the Moluccas, or Spice Islands, off the east coast of China, were discovered; and in 1517 the grand era of Portuguese discovery was fitly rounded out by the Fernam Peres de Andrade's discovery of China, and entering "into commercial relations with the governor of Canton."
ECE	17	1	These discoveries led large numbers of the Portuguese to emigrate in search of fortune; and the great wealth poured into the kingdom by the trade of the new lands, induced luxury and consequent enervation of those who remained at home: while there was also no immigration, and the soil was worked by slaves. These things of themselves weakened the kingdom; but as though to make its decline certain, in 1536 King Joao III established the Inquisition, which "quickly destroyed all that was left of the old Portuguese spirit." Because of these things at home and the tyranny and corruption of the governors in the colonies, "everything went from bad to worse." In 1578 the direct royal succession expired with King Sebastian. The kingdom fell for two years to the late king's uncle, who was old, and died the last day of January, 1580; and, in the confusion and intrigues of the several aspirants to the throne that followed, Philip II, king of Spain, was successful in seizing the kingdom and making himself also king of Portugal.
ECE	17	2	In 1640 the Portuguese revolted and were successful in casting off the yoke of Spain, in expelling the Spaniards from Portugal; and in re-establishing a kingdom of their own by crowning a king of their own choice--the duke of Braganza as King Joao IV. During "the sixty years' captivity" to Spain, however, the trade of her wide possessions, and a considerable portion of those possessions themselves, had been absorbed by other nations. From this Portugal never recovered; and has since had very little power or influence outside her proper European limits.
------------------------Chapter 4 - The Franks in the Middle Ages
ECE	19	1	It was by the Franks, under the leadership of Clovis, that the Visigothic monarchy was broken and deprived of its possessions in Gaul, which it had held for nearly a hundred years. Thus, of the Ten Kingdoms, after the Visigoths the Franks were the next in order to make their power predominant, and even supreme.
ECE	19	2	As late as "thirty years after the battle of Chalons" the tribes of the Franks who had "settled in Gaul were not yet united as one nation." "Several tribes, independent one of another, were planted between the Rhine and the Somme; there were some in the environs of Cologne, Calais, Cambrai, even beyond the Seine and as far as Le Mans, on the confines of the Britons.... The two principal Frankish tribes were those of the Salian Franks and the Ripuarian Franks, settled, the latter in the east of Belgica, on the banks of the Moselle and the Rhine; the former toward the West, between the Meuse, the ocean, and the Somme. Meroveus, whose name was perpetuated in his line, was one of the principal chieftains of the Salian Franks; and his son Childeric, who resided in Tournay, where his tomb was discovered in 1655, was the father of Clovis, who succeeded him in 481, and with whom really commenced the kingdom and history of France."--Guizot. 1
ECE	19	3	As late as A. D. 486 there was a small portion of Gaul, embracing the cities of Rheims, Troyes, Beauvais, Amiens, and the city and diocese of Soissons, which was still fairly Roman, and was ruled by Syagrius, a Roman, under the title of Patrician, or, as some give it, king of the Romans. "The first exploit of Clovis was the defeat of Syagrius," in A. D. 486, and the reduction of the country which had acknowledged his authority. By this victory all the country of Gaul north of the Moselle, clear to the Seine, was possessed by the Franks. "The Belgic cities surrendered to the king of the Franks; and his dominions were enlarged toward the east by the ample diocese of Tongres, which Clovis subdued in the tenth year of his reign."--Gibbon. 2
ECE	20	1	Until this time the Franks and the Alemanni had made almost equal progress in Gaul, and had made their conquests in that province, apparently in perfect national friendliness. But now both nations had become so powerful that it was impossible that two such fierce and warlike nations should subsist side by side without an appeal to arms for the decision of the question as to which should have the supremacy.
ECE	20	2	"From the source of the Rhine to its conflux with the Main and the Moselle, the formidable swarms of the Alemanni commanded either side of the river by the right of ancient possession, or recent victory. They had spread themselves into Gaul, over the modern provinces of Alsace and Lorraine; and their bold invasion of the kingdom of Cologne summoned the Salic prince to the defense of his Ripuarian allies. Clovis encountered the invaders of Gaul in the plain of Tolbiac [A. D. 496] about twenty-four miles from Cologne, and the two fiercest nations of Germany were mutually animated by the memory of past exploits, and the prospect of future greatness. The Franks, after an obstinate struggle, gave way; and the Alemanni, raising a shout of victory, impetuously pressed their retreat. But the battle was restored by the valor, and the conduct, and perhaps by the piety, of Clovis; and the event of the bloody day decided forever the alternative of empire or servitude. The last king of the Alemanni was slain in the field, and his people were slaughtered, or pursued, till they threw down their arms, and yielded to the mercy of the conqueror. Without discipline it was impossible for them to rally; they had contemptuously demolished the walls and fortifications which might have protected their distress; and they were followed into the heart of their forests by an enemy not less active, or intrepid, than themselves.
ECE	21	3	"The great Theodoric congratulated the victory of Clovis, whose sister Albofleda the king of Italy had lately married; but he mildly interceded with his brother in favor of the suppliants and fugitives, who had implored his protection. The Gallic territories, which were possessed by the Alemanni, became the prize of their conqueror; and the haughty nation, invincible, or rebellious, to the arms of Rome, acknowledged the sovereignty of the Merovingian kings, who graciously permitted them to enjoy their peculiar manners and institutions, under the government of official, and, at length, of hereditary dukes."--Gibbon. 3
ECE	21	1	The defeat of the Burgundians followed that of the Alemanni, A. D. 499. "The kingdom of the Burgundians, which was defined by the course of two Gallic rivers, the Saone and the Rhone, extended from the forest of Vosges to the Alps and the sea of Marseilles. The scepter was in the hands of Gundobald. That valiant and ambitious prince had reduced the number of royal candidates by the death of two brothers, one of whom was the father of Clotilda; but his imperfect prudence still permitted Godesil, the youngest of his brothers, to possess the dependent principality of Geneva.
ECE	21	2	"The allegiance of his brother was already seduced; and the obedience of Godegesil, who joined the royal standard with the troops of Geneva, more effectually promoted the success of the conspiracy. While the Franks and Burgundians contended with equal valor, his seasonable desertion decided the event of the battle; and as Gundobald was faintly supported by the disaffected Gauls, he yielded to the arms of Clovis [A. D. 500], and hastily retreated from the field, which appears to have been situate between Langres and Dijon. He distrusted the strength of Dijon, a quadrangular fortress, encompassed by two rivers, and by a wall thirty feet high, and fifteen thick, with four gates, and thirty-three towers; he abandoned to the pursuit of Clovis the important cities of Lyons and Vienna; and Gundobald still fled with precipitation, till he had reached Avignon, at the distance of two hundred and fifty miles from the field of battle. A long siege and an artful negotiation admonished the king of the Franks of the danger and difficulty of his enterprise. He imposed a tribute on the Burgundian prince, compelled him to pardon and reward his brother's treachery, and proudly returned to his own dominions, with the spoils and captives of the southern provinces.
ECE	21	3	"This splendid triumph was soon clouded by the intelligence that Gundobald had violated his recent obligations, and that the unfortunate Godegesil, who was left at Vienna with a garrison of five thousand Franks, had been besieged, surprised and massacred by his inhuman brother. Such an outrage might have exasperated the patience of the most peaceful sovereign; yet the conqueror of Gaul dissembled the injury, released the tribute, and accepted the alliance and military service of the king of Burgundy. Clovis no longer possessed those advantages which had assured the success of the preceding war, and his rival, instructed by adversity, had found new resources in the affections of his people. The Gauls or Romans applauded the mild and impartial laws of Gundobald, which almost raised them to the same level with their conquerors. The bishops were reconciled and flattered by the hopes, which he artfully suggested, of his approaching conversion; and though he eluded their accomplishment to the last moment of his life, his moderation secured the peace and suspended the ruin of the kingdom of Burgundy."--Gibbon. 4
ECE	22	1	In A. D. 507 Clovis turned his arms against the Visigoths in southwestern Gaul, who were ruled by Alaric II. "At the third hour of the day, about ten miles from Poitiers, Clovis overtook, and instantly attacked, the Gothic army, whose defeat was already prepared by terror and confusion. Yet they rallied in their extreme distress, and the martial youths, who had clamorously demanded the battle, refused to survive the ignominy of flight. The two kings encountered each other in single combat. Alaric fell by the hand of his rival; and the victorious Frank was saved, by the goodness of his cuirass, and the vigor of his horse, from the spears of two desperate Goths, who furiously rode against him to revenge the death of their sovereign. The vague expression of a mountain of the slain serves to indicate a cruel though indefinite slaughter."--Gibbon. 5 In A. D. 508 a treaty of peace was made between the two peoples. "The Visigoths were suffered to retain the possession of Septimania, a narrow tract of seacoast, from the Rhone to the Pyrenees; but the ample province of Aquitain, from those mountains to the Loire, was indissolubly united to the kingdom of France." 6
ECE	22	2	In A. D. 510, Anastasius, emperor of the Eastern Empire of Rome, sent to Clovis "at Tours a solemn embassy, bringing to him the titles and insignia of Patrician and Consul. 'Clovis,' says Gregory of Tours, put on the tunic of purple and the chlamys and the diadem; then mounting his horse he scattered with his own hand and with much bounty gold and silver amongst the people on the road which lies between the gate of the court belonging to the basilica of St. Martin and the church of the city. From that day he was called Consul and Augustus. On leaving the city of Tours he repaired to Paris, where he fixed the seat of his government.'
ECE	23	1	"Paris was certainly the political center of the dominion, the intermediate point between the early settlements of his race and himself in Gaul, and his new Gallic conquests; but he lacked some of the possessions nearest to him.... To the east, north, and southwest of Paris were settled some independent Frankish tribes, governed by chieftains with the name of kings. So soon as he had settled in Paris, it was the one fixed idea of Clovis to reduce them all to subjection. He had conquered the Burgundians and the Visigoths; it remained for him to conquer and unite together all the Franks. The barbarian showed himself in his true colors, during this new enterprise, with his violence, his craft, his cruelty, and his perfidy." By the basest treachery and by sheer murder he put out of his way the kings of these Frankish tribes; and "so Clovis remained sole king of the Franks: for all the independent chieftains had disappeared."--Guizot. 7
ECE	23	2	Clovis died, Nov. 27, 511; and his dominions were divided among his four sons--Theodoric, or Thierry I, Childebert, Clodomir, and Clotaire I. Theodoric, or Thierry I, the eldest son, had the northeastern portion, which lay on both sides of the Rhine, with his capital at Metz. Childebert, the second son, held the central part, the country around Paris, with Paris as his capital. Clodomir, the third son, received western Gaul, along the Loire; and had his capital at Orleans. Clotaire, the youngest son, ruled in the northern part of Gaul, with his capital at Soissons. The Alemanni under the governorship of dukes, belonged with the eastern partition and were tributary to Theodoric. The Burgundians were still ruled by their own kings until 532, when the last Burgundian king, Sigismond, the son of Gundobald, was removed by being buried alive in a deep well, and the Burgundians, too, ruled by dukes, "were still permitted to enjoy their national laws under the obligation of tribute and military service; and the Merovingian princes peaceably reigned over a kingdom, whose glory and greatness had been first overthrown by the arms of Clovis."--Gibbon. 8
ECE	24	1	The quadruple division of the dominions of Clovis ended in 558 by being merged in the sole rule of Clotaire I, who held the power till his death in 561, when it was again divided into four parts among his four sons--Charibert, king of Paris; Gontran, of Orleans; Sigebert, of Metz; and Chilperic, of Soissons. The Burgundians fell to the portion of Gontran, who left Orleans, and fixed his capital in their country.
ECE	24	2	"In 567 Charibert, king of Paris, died, without children, and a new partition left only three kingdoms--Austrasia, Neustria, and Burgundy. Austrasia, in the east, extended over the two banks of the Rhine, and comprised, side by side with Roman towns and districts, populations that had remained Germanic. [The Alemanni--Suabians--belonged in this division.] Neustria, in the west, was essentially Gallo-Roman, though it comprised in the north the old territory of the Salian Franks, on the borders of the Scheldt. Burgundy was the old kingdom of the Burgundians, enlarged in the north by some few counties. Paris, as having been the residence of Clovis, their common progenitor, "was kept as a sort of neutral city, which none of them could enter without the common consent of all."--Guizot. 9
ECE	24	3	In A. D. 567-570, the Lombards, who until this time had continued to dwell in Noricum and northern Panmonia, led by their King Alboin, removed to Italy. 10 "The victorious Autharis [A. D. 584-590] asserted his claim to the dominion of Italy. At the foot of the Rhaetian Alps, he subdued the resistance, and rifled the hidden treasures, of a sequestered island in the lake of Comum. At the extreme point of Calabria, he touched with his spear a column on the seashore of Rhegium, proclaiming that ancient landmark to stand the immovable boundary of his kingdom." With the exception of the possessions of the Exarchate of Ravenna, and some cities on the coast, "the remainder of Italy was possessed by the Lombards; and from Pavia, the royal seat, their kingdom was extended to the east, the north, and the west, as far as the confines of the Avars, 11 the Bavarians, and the Franks of Austrasia and Burgundy."--Gibbon. 12
ECE	25	1	"In A. D. 613 new incidents connected with family matters placed Clotaire II, son of Chilperic, and heretofore king of Soissons, in possession of the three kingdoms" of Austrasia, Neustria, and Burgundy. Clotaire II "kept them united until 628 and left them so to his son Dagobert I, who remained in possession of them until 638. At his death a new division of the Frankish dominions took place, no longer into three but two kingdoms: Austrasia being the one, and Neustria and Burgundy the other."--Guizot. 13
ECE	25	2	In tracing this history farther it is essential to note the rise of a new character in these kingdoms,--the Mayor of the Palace,--which finally developed the era of Charlemagne. The last king of the line of Clovis, who displayed or possessed any of the characteristics of a king was Dagobert I. After his death in A. D. 638, the kings dwindled into insignificance, if not idiocy, and the Mayors of the Palace assumed sole authority, yet always in the name of the "do-nothing" kings; and the struggle for supremacy was kept up between the mayors, as it had been before by the kings. Finally, in A. D. 687, Pepin of Heristal, Mayor of the Palace, of Austrasia defeated Berthar, mayor of Neustria, at the battle of Testry, and so brought the contest virtually to an end. "From that time to the end of his life, in A. D. 714, Pepin of Heristal was unquestioned master of all Franks, the kings under him being utterly insignificant." Pepin of Heristal was succeeded by his son Charles, who in A. D. 732 won the name of Martel--the Hammer--by the crushing defeat which he gave to the Saracens under Abdel-Rahman at the battle of Tours.
ECE	25	3	Charles Martel died Oct. 22, 741, and left his dominions divided between his two sons, Pepin the Short, and Carloman. Pepin had Neustria, Burgundy, Provence, and the suzerainty of Aquitaine. Carloman had Austrasia, Thuringia, and Allemannia. Each, however, with only the title of Mayor of the Palace. In 746 Carloman abdicated his power, left his dominions to Pepin, had Pope Zachary to make him a monk, and shut himself up in the monastery of Monte Casino. Thus in 747 Pepin the Short found himself sole master of all the heritage of Clovis, but still with only the title of Mayor of the Palace. At last in 751 he decided to put an end to the fiction. He sent an embassy to the pope to consult him "on the subject of the kings then existing amongst the Franks, and who bore only the name of king without enjoying a tittle of royal authority." The pope, who had been already posted on the matter, answered that "it was better to give the title of king to him who exercised the sovereign power." Accordingly the next year in March, 752, "in the presence and with the assent of the general assembly" at Soissons, Pepin was proclaimed king of the Franks, and received from the hand of St. Boniface the sacred anointing. "At the head of the Franks, as Mayor of the Palace from 741, and as king from 752, Pepin had completed in France and extended in Italy the work which his father Charles Martel had begun and carried on from 714 to 741 in State and Church. He left France reunited in one and placed at the head of Christian Europe."--Guizot. 14 He died at the monastery of St. Denis, Sept. 18, 768.
ECE	26	1	Pepin, like his father, left his dominions to two sons, Charles and Carloman; but in 771 Carloman died, leaving Charles sole king, who, by his remarkable ability, became Charles the Great--CHARLEMAGNE. "The appellation of great has often been bestowed and sometimes deserved, but CHARLEMAGNE is the only prince in whose favor the title has been indissolubly blended with the name.... The dignity of his person, the length of his reign, the prosperity of his arms, the vigor of his government, and the reverence of distant nations, distinguish him from the royal crowd; and Europe dates a new era from his restoration of the Western Empire."--Gibbon. 15
ECE	26	2	It seems almost certain that Charlemagne really aspired to the restoration of the Roman Empire. But one life was too short, and there was no second Charlemagne. Besides this, the prophetic word was written that when once Rome was divided into its ten parts, they should not be made to cleave one to another any more than could iron and clay.
ECE	26	3	Charlemagne reigned forty-six years--forty-three from the death of Carloman--thirty-three of which were spent in almost ceaseless wars. He conducted, in all, fifty-three expeditions--thirty-one against the Saxons, Frisons, Danes, Slavs, Bavarians, and the Avars in southern Germany, Bohemia, Noricum, and Pannonia; five against the Lombards, in Italy; twelve against the Saracens, in Spain, Corsica, and Sardinia; two against the Greeks; and three in Gaul itself against the Aquitanians and the Britons. Thus Saxony, Bohemia, Bavaria, Pannonia; the Lombard kingdom of Italy as far as the duchy of Beneventum; that part of Spain between the Pyrenees and the river Ebro; Burgundy, Alemannia, and all Gaul, were subject to Charlemagne.
ECE	27	1	He already wore the iron crown of Lombardy, in addition to bearing the kingship of all the Frankish dominions; and on Christmas day, 800, in the church of St. Peter, Pope Leo III placed a precious crown upon the head of this mighty king, while the great dome resounded with the acclamations of the people: "Long life and victory to Charles, the most pious Augustus, crowned by God the great and pacific emperor of the Romans." "And when in 801 an embassy arrived with curious presents from Harun-al-Rashid, the great caliph who held in the East the like position to that held by Charles in the West, men recognized it as a becoming testimony to the world-wide reputation of the Frankish monarchy." "For fourteen years, with less of fighting and more of organization, Charles the Great proved that he was worthy of his high title and revived office of emperor of the West."
ECE	27	2	But this honor, this power, and this glory were short-lived. Charlemagne died at Aix-la-Chapelle, Jan. 28, 814, and the unity of the empire which he had formed was at an end. "Like more than one great barbaric warrior, he admired the Roman Empire that had fallen,--its vastness all in one and its powerful organization under the hand of a single master. He thought he could resuscitate it, durably, through the victory of a new people and a new faith, by the hand of Franks and Christians. With this view he labored to conquer, convert, and govern. He tried to be, at one and the same time, Caesar, Augustus, and Constantine. And for a moment he appeared to have succeeded; but the appearance passed away with himself. The unity of the empire and the absolute power of the emperor were buried in his grave."--Guizot. 16
ECE	28	1	Charlemagne was succeeded by his only surviving son, Louis the Pious, or Easy, upon whom he had fixed the succession in 813, about six months before his death. Louis passed his life in a struggle with an ambitious second wife, and three undutiful sons, who by constant rebellions abused his natural gentleness and goodness. In the quarrels and jealousies of his sons he was twice deposed and twice restored; and perhaps only escaped a third deposition, by his death, June 20, 840. This set his sons free to wrangle among themselves, which they did till the fearful battle of Fontanet, June 25, 841; and the treaty of Verdun, August, 843, put an end to their mutual struggles and "to the griefs of the age." Lothair, the eldest son, retained the title of emperor; and received the Italian territory, with a long, narrow strip stretching from the Gulf of Lyons to the North Sea, bounded on the east by the Alps and the Rhine, and on the west by the Rhone, the Saone, the Meuse, and the Scheldt. Charles the Bald had all the rest of Gaul. Louis the German received Alemannia and all the rest of the German lands east of the Rhine, with the towns of Mainz, Worms, and Spires, on the western bank of that river.
ECE	28	2	This division, though counted as marking the real beginning of the history of France and Germany as separate kingdoms, continued but a short time. For the emperor Lothair died in 855, and was succeeded in his possessions to the north of Italy by Lothair II, who died in 869, when Charles the Bald seized upon his territory. But Louis the German disputed his seizure of the whole prize, and in 870 they signed the treaty of Mersen by which Louis became possessed of most of Lotharingia, or, as it was now called, Lorraine; Charles the Bald the rest of it; and Lothair's brother, Louis II, was allowed to retain the possessions of his father in Italy. Louis II died in 875, and Charles the Bald managed to secure the imperial crown, and aimed at the possession of the whole empire with it. But Louis the German, at his death in 876, had divided Germany among his three sons,--Carlman, Louis, and Charles,--the second of whom, Louis, met Charles the Bald on the field of Andernach, and gained such a victory over him as not only to put an effectual damper upon his imperial aspirations, but to force him to give up the portions of Lorraine that had been ceded to his father by the treaty of Mersen. Carlman and Louis both soon died, and the German kingdom passed to Charles surnamed "the Fat," the youngest of the three sons of Louis the German.
ECE	29	1	Charles the Fat, incompetent, indolent, and gluttonous, became, without any effort of his own, sovereign of all the dominions of Charlemagne, except Burgundy, which now became again an independent state. Alemannia--Swabia--he inherited from his father in 876; by the death of his brother Carlman, he received Bavaria, and became king of Italy, in 880; he was crowned emperor in 881; the death of his brother Louis of Saxony gave him all the rest of the Germanic possessions; and as Charles the Bald had died in 877, and had no successor who could relieve France from the scourge of the Northmen, Charles the Fat was invited to become the king of France, at the death of Carloman in 885. But instead of boldly meeting the Northmen with an army, he adopted the policy of buying off these bold savages who had plundered Cologne and Treves, and had fed their horses over the very grave and in the beautiful basilica of Charlemagne. And when they laid siege to Paris and Charles still pursued the same cowardly course, his disgusted subjects under the leadership of his nephew Arnulf, deposed him in 887, and in a week or two afterward he died. Charles the Fat was the last ruler who ever reigned over both France and Germany. After his deposition, the history of these two countries is distinct.
ECE	29	2	At the time of the deposition of Charles the Fat, France proper was already broken up into "twenty-nine provinces or fragments of provinces which had become petty states, the former governors of which, under the names of dukes, counts, marquises, and viscounts, were pretty nearly real sovereigns. Twenty-nine great fiefs, which have played a special part in French history, date back to this epoch."--Guizot. 17 This divided condition of things prevented any systematic defense of the land against the Norman invasions, which like wave after wave of a mighty tide flooded the land. After Charles the Fat had so signally failed them in their struggle against the Normans, the states of France chose from among themselves to be central ruler and king, Eudes, count of Paris. Before Charles the Fat had come to Paris with his army only to buy off the Normans, Eudes had demonstrated his ability and valor, in the defense of Paris against the terrible siege pressed by the Normans led by Rolf; and he was now, A. D. 888, rewarded with the position and title of king.
ECE	30	1	The Northmen--Nor'men, Nor'man, Normans--were people of the far north: first of Scandinavia in general, later more especially of Norway. Their invasions of France began even in the time of Charlemagne. For when Charlemagne one day "arrived by mere hap and unexpectedly in a certain town of Narbonnese Gaul, whilst he was at dinner and was as yet unrecognized by any, some corsairs of the Northmen came to ply their piracies in the very port. When their vessels were descried, they were supposed to be Jewish traders according to some, African according to others, and British in the opinions of others; but the gifted monarch, perceiving by the build and lightness of the craft, that they bore not merchandise, but foes, said to his own folks: 'These vessels be not laden with merchandise, but manned with cruel foes.' At these words all the Franks, in rivalry one with another, ran to their ships, but uselessly, for the Northmen ...feared lest all their fleet should be taken or destroyed in the port, and they avoided, by a flight of inconceivable rapidity, not only the glaives, but even the eyes, of those who were pursuing them.
ECE	30	2	"Pious Charles, however, a prey to well-grounded fear, rose up from the table, stationed himself at a window looking eastward, and there remained a long while, and his eyes were filled with tears. As none durst question him, this warlike prince explained to the grandees who were about his person, the cause of his movement and of his tears: 'Know ye, my lieges, wherefore I weep so bitterly? Of a surety I fear not lest these fellows should succeed in injuring me by their miserable piracies; but it grieveth me deeply that, whilst I live, they should have been nigh to touching at this shore; and I am a prey to violent sorrow when I foresee what evils they will heap upon my descendants and their people.'"
ECE	30	3	"The forecast and the dejection of Charles were not unreasonable. It will be found that there is special mention made, in the Chronicles of the ninth and tenth centuries, of forty-seven incursions into France, of Norwegian, Danish, Swedish, and Irish pirates, all comprised under the name of Northmen; and, doubtless, many other incursions of less gravity have left no trace in history."--Guizot. 18 It was one of the greatest of these invasions, led by Rollo, or Rolf, that resulted in the raising of Eudes, count of Paris, to the kingship in 888. When questioned by a messenger of the Franks, as to their intentions, Rollo answered: "We be Danes; and all be equally masters amongst us. We be come to drive out the inhabitants of this land, and subject it as our own country." 19
ECE	31	1	The contest between Eudes and Rollo was variable; but with the general gain in favor of the Normans. This because Rollo showed himself friendly to the people not found in arms, and treated gently those in the towns and country which he gained. Thus not only were the Franks kept from uniting solidly against the Normans, but some of the divisions were actually won to co-operation with them. In addition to this successful policy toward the people of France, Rollo held the lasting friendship of Alfred the Great, and his successor, Athelstane, of England. "He thus became, from day to day, more reputable as well as more formidable in France, insomuch that Eudes himself was obliged to have recourse, in dealing with him, to negotiations and presents." 20
ECE	31	2	The provinces of southern France had not acknowledged Eudes as king. When he had quieted the Normans, Eudes ventured an attempt to compel the southern provinces to acknowledge him as king. Then the southern lords united with the disaffected parties in the northern provinces, held at Rheims in 893 "a great assembly," and elected as rival king, Charles the Simple. He placed himself under the protection of the Emperor Arnulf, of whose house he was; and Arnulf "formally invested him with the kingdom of France, and sent soldiers to assert his claims." In 898 Eudes died, and Charles the Simple was recognized sole king of France.
ECE	31	3	By this time, Rollo with his Normans had grown to be such a power in France "that the necessity of treating with him was clear. In 911 Charles, by advice of his councilors and, amongst them, of Robert, brother of the late king Eudes, who had himself become count of Paris and duke of France, sent to the chieftain of the Northmen Franco, archbishop of Rouen, with orders to offer him the cession of a considerable portion of Neustria and the hand of his young daughter Gisele, on condition that he become a Christian and acknowledge himself the king's vassal. Rollo, by the advice of his comrades, received these overtures with a good grace; and agreed to a truce for three months, during which they might treat about peace."--Guizot. 21 At the end of the three months the Normans had concluded to accept in general the king's offer. A day was fixed for the formal settlement of the terms of the proposed arrangement. Rollo insisted on receiving much more territory than King Charles had originally offered. This, with all other matters, was made satisfactory to him and his warriors; and then came the fulfillment of their part of the compact--their baptism, and Rollo's swearing fealty as vassal of the king. Rollo and his warriors were formally baptized, Rollo receiving the name of Robert; and duly receiving in marriage the king's daughter Gisele.
ECE	32	1	Then came the swearing of fealty. This was a ceremony which, in those times, was performed "whenever there was a change either of the overlord or of the underlord. The duke, count, or whatever he was, knelt down before the overlord; and, holding his hands, swore to follow him in war, and to be true to him always. The overlord, in his turn, swore to aid him and be a true and good lord to him in return, and kissed his brow. In return, the underlord--vassal, as he was called--was to kiss the foot of his superior. This was paying homage. Kings thus paid homage and swore allegiance to the emperor; dukes or counts, to kings; lesser counts or barons, to dukes; and for the lands they owned they were bound to serve their lord in council and in war, and not to fight against him. Lands so held were called fiefs; and the whole was called the feudal system."--Yonge. 22 The ceremony passed off all smoothly enough until it came to the point where Rollo should kiss the king's foot. This Rollo omitted. The bishops told him that one "who received such a gift as the duchy of Normandy, was bound to kiss the king's foot." But Rollo bluntly answered: "Never will I bend the knee before the knees of any; and I will kiss the foot of none."
ECE	32	2	However, at the special request of the Franks, and rather than to make a breach in the compact, Rollo consented that the king's foot should be kissed; but only by one of his warriors, and so gave order to one standing by. The tall Northman, instead of kneeling and reverently performing the ceremony, simply stooped and seized the king's foot, and, standing "bolt upright," lifted it to his lips: with the result that the king, with his throne and all, was upset backward: "which caused great bursts of laughter and much disturbance amongst the throng. Then the king and all the grandees who were about him--prelates, abbots, dukes, and counts--swore, in the name of the Catholic faith, that they would protect the patrician Rollo in his life, his members, and his folk, and would guarantee to him the possession of the aforesaid land, to him and his descendants forever. After which the king, well-satisfied, returned to his domains; and Rollo departed with Duke Robert for the town of Rouen." 23
ECE	33	1	Thus arose the duchy of Normandy, whose dukes and people played such a large part in the history of the later Middle Ages. There "the history of Normandy began. Hrolf becomes Duke Robert, his people become Frenchmen. The duchy soon grew into a compact and orderly state, prosperous and vigorous; Norman towns and churches sprang up on all hands; French manners and speech soon ruled supreme; and in all the arts of peace, in building, commerce, letters, the Normans forthwith took the lead. The noble Scandinavian race, destined to influence so large a portion of the world's history, herein made worthy mark on the soil and institutions of France.
ECE	33	2	"Soon after this time the French lords, headed by Robert, duke of France, the 'king of the barons,' second son of Robert the Strong, rose against their Caroling king [A. D. 922], and shut him up in Laon, the last stronghold of his family; thence he fled into Lorraine. On the death of Robert, the barons made Rodolf of Burgundy their king, and continued the strife; and Charles, falling into the hands of Hubert of Vermandois, was held by him as a hostage till his death in 929. Rodolf then became undisturbed king till he, too, died in 936. The barons under the guidance of Hugh 'the White' or 'the Great,' son of Robert, the greatest man of his age, sent over to England for Louis the son of Charles, who had been carried thither by his mother for safety. This is that 'Louis d'Outremer'--'Louis from Over-sea'--who now became king. After showing unusual vigor in a struggle with Otho the Great of Germany, who claimed the kingship over France, he was recognized by all in 941.
ECE	34	1	"His reign could be nothing but the miserable record of a struggle against the great lords, Hugh the Great and Richard of Normandy. In this perpetual and wearisome strife he spent his latter days, and died, still a young man, in 954. He was the only man of energy among all the later Carolings. His son Lothair succeeded. His was a long and inglorious reign, ending in 986. His son Louis followed, ruling for a single year. He died childless in 987; and the only heir to the throne--if the feudal lords chose to recognize an hereditary claim--was his uncle, Charles, duke of Lorraine. The barons did not choose to be so tied. They set the Caroling prince aside, and elected Hugh, duke of France, to be king. He was afterward solemnly crowned at Rheims by Archbishop Adalberon. Thus did Hugh Capet, founder of a great dynasty, come to the throne. With him begins the true history of the kingdom of France: we have reached the epoch of the feudal monarchy." 24
ECE	34	2	"Hugh Capet, eldest son of Hugh the Great, duke of France, was but a Neustrian noble when he was elected king. The house of the Carolings was entirely set aside, its claims and rights denied, by the new force now growing up, the force of feudalism. The head of the barons should be one of themselves; he should stand clear of the imperial ideas and ambitions which had ruled the conduct of his predecessors; he should be a Frenchman in speech and birth and thought, and not a German; but above all, he must be strong enough to hold his own. And among the great lords of northern France, the representative of the house of Robert the Strong held the most central position, and united in himself most elements of strength." 25 That the king should be strong enough to hold his own, was indeed the greatest need, if there were to be any king of France at all. We have seen that at the time of the deposition of Charles the Fat, exactly a hundred years before, France was broken up into twenty-nine petty states. But at the time of the election of Hugh Capet, 987, the number of petty states had increased to fifty-five. And the temper of their rulers is aptly indicated in the reply that one of them, Adalbert, count of Pergord, once made to Hugh Capet himself after he had been made king. In a tone of superiority, Hugh had asked: "Who made thee count?" Quick as a flash, Adalbert darted back the words: "Who made thee king?"
ECE	35	1	"It was a confederation of petty sovereigns, of petty despots, unequal amongst themselves, and having, one toward another, certain duties and rights; but invested in their own domains, over their personal and direct subjects, with arbitrary and absolute power. This is the essential element of the feudal system: therein it differs from every other aristocracy, every other form of government. There has been no scarcity, in this world, of aristocracies and despotisms. There have been peoples arbitrarily governed, nay, absolutely possessed, by a single man, by a college of priests, by a body of patricians. But none of these despotic governments was like the feudal system....
ECE	35	2	"Liberty, equality, and tranquillity were all alike wanting, from the tenth to the thirteenth century, to the inhabitants of each lord's domains: their sovereign was at their very doors, and none of them was hidden from him or beyond the reach of his mighty arm. Of all tyrannies, the worst is that which can thus keep account of its subjects; and which sees from its seat, the limits of its empire. The caprices of the human will then show themselves in all their intolerable extravagance and, moreover, with irresistible promptness. It is then, too, that inequality of conditions makes itself more rudely felt: riches, might, independence, every advantage and every right present themselves every instant to the gaze of misery, weakness, and servitude. The inhabitants of fiefs could not find consolation in the bosom of tranquillity: incessantly mixed up in the quarrels of their lord, a prey to his neighbors' devastations, they led a life still more precarious and still more restless than that of the lords themselves, and they had to put up at one and the same time with the presence of war, privilege, and absolute power."--Guizot. 26
ECE	35	3	Politically, feudalism might be defined as the system which made the owner of a piece of land, whether large or small, the sovereign of those who dwelt thereon: an annexation of personal to territorial authority more familiar to Easter despotism than to the free races of primitive Europe. On this principle were founded, and by it are explained, feudal law and justice, feudal finance, feudal legislation, each tenant holding toward his lord the position which his own tenants held toward himself. And it is just because the relation was so uniform, the principle so comprehensive, the ruling class so firmly bound to its support, that feudalism has been able to lay upon society that grasp which the struggles of more than twenty generations have scarcely shaken off."--Bryce. 27
ECE	36	1	From this point onward to the period of the Reformation, the history of France is so wrapped up in contentions with the papacy, with the Crusades, and with the "Hundred Years' War" with England, that it is not necessary to treat it any further separately. The dynasty founded in the election of Hugh Capet continues even to-day, in certain claimants to the throne of France, if only that throne were restored.
------------------------Chapter 5 - The Alemanni in the Middle Ages
ECE	37	1	The Alemanni and their Suevic brethren who followed them in the invasion and division of the Roman Empire took possession of all of the Roman provinces of Rhaetia and Vindelicia, and the territory of Agri Decumates. "Thus the Alemanni filled up all that southwestern corner of Germany and Switzerland which is naturally bounded by the Rhine as it flows westward to Bale and then makes a sudden turn at right angles northward to Strasburg, Worms, and Maintz."--Hodgkin. 1 They occupied the northern border of what is now Switzerland, as far south as Winterthur. To this territory to the eastward of the northern flow of the Rhine, they also added that part of Gaul which lay between the Rhine and Moselle, and the head waters of the Seine. Thus in all at the fall of the empire in 476 the Alemanni occupied the country which now comprises Alsace, Lorraine, Baden, Wurtemburg, greater part of Bavaria, and the southern of the large divisions of HesseDarmstadt.
ECE	37	2	When the Alemanni were defeated by Clovis, their Gallic possessions became the prize of the conqueror, but all the rest they were allowed to occupy, and were permitted by Clovis and his successors "to enjoy their peculiar manners and institutions, under the government of official, and at length of hereditary dukes."--Gibbon. 2 These, as well as the other German conquests of Clovis, "soon became virtually free. They continued to acknowledge Frankish supremacy; but the acknowledgment was only formal. At the head of each confederation was its own herzog or duke. These rulers were at first appointed by the Frankish kings, or received their sanction; but in course of time the office became hereditary in particular families." 3
ECE	38	1	Of the Alemanni the two principal dukedoms were Swabia and Bavaria; and it is under these two names that their future history is found. But as Swabia is the original, and as it has exerted a greater influence in the affairs of Germany than has any other confederation, it is the one about which most must be said; for the history of it is, in a measure, the history of Germany, especially after the treaty of Verdun, A. D. 843.
ECE	38	2	Thassilo, duke of Bavaria, had been on ill terms with Pepin, the father of Charlemagne. When Charlemagne came to the throne, Thassilo rendered very indifferent service. His repeated acts of treachery caused Charlemagne to remove him, and Bavaria was placed under the authority of the margrave of Ostreich. The "margraves" were "lords of the marches." The "marches" were formed of the border countries, by Charlemagne, over which he appointed "margraves" (markgrafen) "whose duty was to administer justice in his name, to collect tribute, and extend his conquests." Bavaria was ruled by margraves till about 900, when it again became a dukedom. The margraviate of Ostreich continued till 1156, when it, too, was made a duchy, and thus the march of Ostreich--East domain--formed by Charlemagne, was the origin of what is now the empire of Austria.
ECE	38	3	In the treaty of Verdun, it will be remembered, Louis the German received the whole of Germany east of the Rhine. And as he was the first sovereign who ruled over the Germans, and over no other western people, he is considered in history as the founder of the kingdom of Germany. At his death, his son Charles the Fat received from him Swabia--Alemannia; and, as before shown, by the death of his two brothers, Charles inherited all Germany, was made emperor, and by invitation assumed the sovereignty of France, but was deposed, and Arnulf, his nephew, was chosen king of Germany in his place. Arnulf. like Charles the Fat, went to Rome and was crowned emperor. He returned in 890 and inflicted such a defeat upon the Northmen that "they never again returned in such numbers as to be a national peril."
ECE	38	4	Arnulf died in 899 and was succeeded by his son Louis the Child, six years old, who nominally reigned till 911. His reign was one of the darkest periods of German history. For, as soon as the Magyars--the modern Hungarians--heard that Arnulf had been succeeded by a child, "they swept into Germany in vast numbers, and fearful was the havoc they caused in every part of the kingdom." "Where the Northmen had whipped with cords, these barbarians lashed with scorpions." And there was no leader around whom the nation could rally. At this time and for about three hundred years, Germany consisted of five duchies,--Swabia, Bavaria Franconia, Saxony, and Lorraine.
ECE	39	1	Louis the Child died in 911. Even while he lived, the dukes were virtually kings in their duchies; and when he died, they could have been altogether kings, but that the dangers threatened by the Magyars, the Slavs, and the Northmen, obliged them to form a central government for the common defense. Accordingly, the nobles assembled at Forcheim, and upon the advice of Otto, the duke of Saxony, Conrad, duke of Franconia, was made king. But his election displeased the dukes of Bavaria, Swabia, and Lorraine. The duke of Lorraine rebelled outright. The dukes of Bavaria and Swabia yielded; but the bishops, jealous of their power, induced Conrad to force a quarrel with these as also with Henry, duke of Saxony. This fairly created all an anarchy all the days of Conrad; but on his deathbed, 918, he recommended that Henry of Saxony be chosen king in his stead.
ECE	39	2	With Henry began the rule of the house of Saxony, which continued one hundred and six years, 918-1024, through Henry I, Otto I, Otto II, Otto III and Henry II. Henry I delivered Germany from the scourge of the Magyars; and so thoroughly restored peace and order throughout the dominion that when he died, in 936, "every land inhabited by German population formed part of the kingdom, and none of the duchies were at war with each other nor among themselves." Before his death the nobles had, in national assembly, promised Henry that his son Otto should be recognized as his successor, and the promise was kept. Otto I the Great reigned from 936-973. His half-brother, however, raised a rebellion, and was joined by the dukes of Franconia and Bavaria. But by the help of the duke of Swabia the rising was put down. A second rebellion was led by Otto's brother helped by the dukes of Franconia and Lorraine. This, too, was quelled, to the immense advantage of Otto.
ECE	39	3	Having secured peace in Germany, and made himself master of the kingdom, as none of his immediate predecessors had been, Otto was by far the greatest sovereign in Europe. But not content with this, he decided to take a step that caused Germany ages of trouble--he put himself into the hands of the pope, and became the "protector of the Church." The way in which it was brought about was this: Adelaide, the young widow of Lothair, the son of King Hugh of Provence,--Burgundy,--had refused to marry the son of Berengar, king of Lombardy. For this she was cast into prison and was cruelly treated. She appealed to Otto. Her appeal not only touched his sympathies, but aroused in him a strong ambition; for he saw the way thus opened to imperial authority.
ECE	40	1	At the head of a strong force Otto crossed the Alps in 951. He displaced Berengar, who, "in the extremity of his fortunes, made a formal cession of the Italian kingdom, in his own name and in that of his son Adalbert to the Saxon, as his overlord." Upon this Otto assumed the title of king of Italy. Besides this, he was so fascinated by young Queen Adelaide that in a few weeks he married her. His son Ludolf thought his rights threatened by this marriage; returned sullenly to Germany; and with the archbishop of Mainz formed a conspiracy against his father. Otto, hearing of their plot, hastened home, leaving Duke Conrad of Lorraine to attend to affairs in Italy. But Conrad restored the crown to Berengar, and returned to Germany and joined the conspiracy of Ludolf and the archbishop. War broke out. The majority of the kingdom were indeed opposed to Otto: being displeased with his ambitious designs in Italy. But Conrad and Ludolf basely invited in the terrible Magyars; which so disgusted the Germans that the whole nation, with one consent, rallied to the support of Otto. At the battle of Lechfeld, 955. Conrad was slain, and the Magyars received such an overwhelming defeat that the deliverance of Germany was complete. From that time the Magyars began to settle, and "adapt themselves to the conditions of civilized life in the country which they now occupy." and so arose the kingdom of Hungary.
ECE	40	2	Meantime, in Italy, Berengar and his son Adalbert had laid such exorbitant taxes, and had made themselves so tyrannical, that an embassy was sent by the most of the bishops and princes, as well as the pope, imploring Otto to come again and deliver them. The pope at this time was John XII. The legates of the pope "were enjoined to offer the imperial crown to the king of Germany, provided he drove out the tyrants, and delivered the mother of all churches from the miseries she groaned under and could no longer bear."--Bower. 4 At this Otto went a second time into Italy, in 962, deposed Berengar, and was crowned emperor by the pope.
ECE	41	1	"The emperor, at the request of the pope, promised upon oath to defend the Roman Church against all her enemies; to maintain her in the quiet possession of all the privileges she had enjoyed to that time; to restore to the holy see the lands and possessions that belonged to St. Peter, as soon as he recovered them; to assist the pope to the utmost of his power when assistance was wanted; and lastly to make no alteration of the government of Rome without his knowledge or approbation. At the same time the emperor confirmed all the grants of Pepin and Charlemagne; but obliged in his turn the pope and the Romans to swear obedience to him, and promise upon oath to lend no kind of assistance to Berengar or to his son Adalbert, from whose tyranny he was come to deliver them." 5
ECE	41	2	Thus in the year 962 was formed the "Holy Roman Empire," that mightiest weapon of the papacy in the Middle Ages. After Otto, the sovereign crowned in Germany always claimed it as his right to be afterward crowned in Milan with the iron crown of Lombardy, and in Rome with the golden crown of the empire. In 964 Otto returned to Germany, increased the number of the duchies and nobles, and as he was now the protector of the Church, and was set for the promotion of her interests, he immensely increased the importance of the prelates. "They received great gifts of land, were endowed with jurisdiction in criminal as well as civil cases, and obtained several other valuable sovereign rights." In 966 he went once more to Italy, where he remained till his death, May 7, 973.
ECE	41	3	Nothing of particular note occurred in the reigns of the three following emperors of the house of Saxony, except that the last one, Henry II, made a treaty with Rudolf III, king of Burgundy, by which at the death of Rudolf his kingdom was to be united to the empire; and showed himself so dutiful to the papacy that both he and his wife were made saints.
ECE	42	1	At Henry's death, in 1024, the great nobles met at Oppenheim, and elected Conrad II, a count of Franconia, king. With him began the rule of the house of Franconia, which continued one hundred years, through Conrad II, Henry III, Henry IV, and Henry V. Through the reigns of all, there were plottings, counter-plottings, and wars, civil as well as foreign, which kept the nation in a constant turmoil. In accordance with the above-mentioned treaty, Conrad, in 1032, received into the empire the kingdom of Burgundy; and in 1034 he received in Geneva the homage of its leading nobles. Conrad died in 1039, and was succeeded by his son Henry III, whom, as early as 1026, Conrad had caused to be elected king of Germany, and whom he had made duke of Bavaria in 1027, and duke of Swabia and king of Burgundy in 1038.
ECE	42	2	At this time the vices of the clergy all over Europe had become most scandalous: the popes setting the infamous example. Henry entered Rome with an army in 1046, summoned a council, deposed the pope who held the throne, and raised to the papal see, Clement II, who, in turn, crowned him emperor. In the succeeding ten years of his reign it devolved upon Henry to appoint three more popes in the succession; and as all of them were energetic administrators, and exerted themselves to carry out the policy of Henry, thus he did much to stay the tide of papal wickedness.
ECE	42	3	In 1056 Henry III died, and was succeeded by his son Henry, six years old, but who had already, at the age of four years, been crowned King Henry IV of Germany. He was under guardianship till he was fifteen years old, 1065, when he assumed the duties of government, and from that time till his death, forty-one years, between the fierce arrogance of the papacy and the ambitious jealousies of his own subject nobles, he never knew peace. During his reign was the first crusade, 1095; and he made Welf (or Guelf, or Guelph), of Altdorf in Swabia, duke of Bavaria.
ECE	42	4	Henry IV died in 1106, and was succeeded by his son Henry V. War with the papacy was renewed, in which Henry's chief friends were two Swabian princes of the Hohenstaufen family, Frederick and Conrad. Frederick had been made duke of Swabia by Henry IV; and now by Henry V, Conrad was made duke of Franconia, which had been directly attached to the crown since the time of Otto I. Henry V was succeeded in 1125 by Lothair, duke of Saxony, and when he received the imperial crown, Innocent II claimed that he did so as the vassal of the pope. Lothair was succeeded in 1137 by the above Conrad, the Swabian duke of Franconia, who became Conrad III.
ECE	43	1	With Conrad III began the reign of the house of Swabia, or Hohenstaufen, which continued one hundred and seventeen years, and was the most glorious age of the mediaeval history of Germany. In 1146 went forth the second crusade, headed by the Emperor Conrad, and Louis VII of France. Conrad died in 1152, when Germany passed under the rule of one of the greatest sovereigns she ever had,--Frederick Barbarossa, duke of Swabia,--who reigned thirty-eight years.
ECE	44	2	Here we must notice the rise of another Swabian family which has had a notable course in history, and which is inseparably connected with the reign of Frederick Barbarossa. Henry IV made Welf, or Guelf, of Swabia, duke of Bavaria. He was succeeded in the duchy of Bavaria by his son, Henry the Proud, who was invested with the duchy of Saxony. Henry the Proud rebelled against Conrad III, whereupon both his duchies were declared forfeited: Saxony was granted to Albert the Bear, a Saxon noble; and Bavaria fell to Leopold, margrave of Austria. Henry the Proud suddenly died, and his brother, duke Welf, continued the contest for his duchies. Welf, hoping to succeed Leopold in the margraviate, consented to a compromise by which Saxony, with the assent of Albert the Bear, was granted to Henry the Lion, the son of Henry the Proud. Instead, however, of the margraviate of Austria being given to Welf, it passed, in the end, to Henry Jasomirgott. 6 Welf for years contended with his rival, but without avail, for Henry the Lion finally, at the head of an army, laid claim to Bavaria as his, by right of inheritance from his father, Henry the Proud. Frederick Barbarossa, through his mother, was allied to the Welfs; and he, having a personal regard for Henry the Lion, began his reign by promising to secure for Henry the duchy of Bavaria. The margrave Jasomirgott, however, persistently refused to give it up, till at last in 1156 Frederick detached the march of Austria from Bavaria, made it a duchy with special privileges, and bestowed it on the stubborn margrave. This honor contented Jasomirgott, and left Frederick free to fulfill his promise to Henry the Lion; and so Henry received his paternal duchy of Bavaria, in addition to the duchy of Saxony which he already held. And from this Swabian--Alemannian--house of Welf, or Guelph, is descended in direct line through Henry the Proud and Henry the Lion, the house of Hanover, which has ruled England from George I--Aug. 1, 1714--to the present Edward VII, "Rex Dei gracia."
ECE	44	1	Frederick Barbarossa received the German crown at Aix-la-Chapelle, March 9, 1152. In October, 1154, he descended to Italy and assumed the iron crown of Lombardy. Then, "after apprehending Arnold of Brescia, as an earnest of his purpose to support the papal cause," he was crowned emperor by Pope Adrian IV, June 18, 1155. From this time onward till 1186 the reign of Frederick was little else than a long contest with the Lombard cities and with the popes. By his marriage with Beatrice, daughter of the count of Upper Burgundy, he added that province to the kingdom of Burgundy and to the empire. He thus reasserted the imperial authority in Burgundy and received the homage of the Burgundian nobles. Having at last brought these struggles to an honorable close, he started in 1187 for Palestine at the head of the third crusade, but was drowned while crossing a small river in Pisidia, June 10, 1190.
ECE	44	2	Frederick was succeeded by his son, Henry VI, who was crowned emperor by Celestine III, March 31, 1191. Richard I of England,--Coeur de Lion,--as he was on his way home from the third crusade, had been arrested by the duke of Austria, Dec. 21, 1192, and in the following March was surrendered to the emperor Henry, who imprisoned him. With the money that was paid for Richard's ransom, the emperor was enabled to fit out a fine army, with which he succeeded in conquering the Saracen kingdom of Sicily. So great was the authority which he acquired that it is supposed to be almost certain that had he lived a little longer he would have achieved his great ambition of having the crown declared hereditary in his family. But this aspiration was quenched by his death in 1197. In his reign, about 1195, began the fourth crusade.
ECE	45	1	Upon Henry's death there was a double election. Philip, Henry's son, was favored by a large majority of the princes; while his opponents urged the claims of Otto, son of Henry the Lion. There was no hope for Otto, however, had not Innocent III cast into the scale in his favor all the influence of the papacy, which at this time was absolute. Even with the help of the pope, Otto's success was exceedingly doubtful until Philip was murdered, in 1208. This, of course, put a stop to the war, and Otto IV was crowned emperor.
ECE	45	2	As soon as Otto had been made emperor, he violated all the pledges he had made to the pope for the pontiff's favor, and began to act as an independent sovereign. This was what no sovereign could be suffered to do while Innocent III was pope. He accordingly played off against Otto, Frederick, the son of Henry VI. Otto, thinking to injure Frederick's chances by striking at the pope, went to the support of John, of England, against Philip Augustus, of France, but at the battle of Bouvines, July 27, 1214, he met a crushing defeat, and fled, a ruined emperor. He retired to his hereditary possession, the principality of Brunswick, and apart from that has no more place in history.
ECE	45	3	In the place of Otto IV, Frederick II "ascended the marble throne of Charlemagne at Aix-la-Chapelle, and received the silver crown" of Germany, July, 1215; and Nov. 22, 1220, received at Rome, from the hands of Pope Honorius IV, the golden crown of the empire. In the estimation of his contemporaries, Frederick II was "the wonder of the world." Though perhaps not the strongest in all respects, he was the most brilliant of the German kings. In the beginning of his public career, in 1208, at the age of fifteen, he possessed but the crown of Sicily; and at his death, Dec. 13, 1250, the splendor of his position was such that it has never been surpassed in human history. For then he possessed in addition to his original and inherited crown of Sicily, the crown of Sardinia; the crown of Burgundy; the iron crown of Lombardy; the silver crown of Germany; the golden crown of the empire; and last, but in that age the most glorious of all, the crown of Jerusalem, with which he with his own hands had crowned himself, May 18, 1229, at the time of his recovery of the holy city from the Saracens and its restoration to the Church.
ECE	45	4	In A. D. 1245, July 17, Frederick was excommunicated by Pope Innocent IV. When he heard of it he laughed, and said: "'Has the pope deposed me? Bring me my crowns that I may see of what I am deprived.' Then seven crowns were brought him--the royal crown of Germany, the imperial diadem of Rome, the iron circlet of Lombardy, the crowns of Sicily, Burgundy, Sardinia, and Jerusalem. He put them on his head one after another, and said, 'I have them still, and none shall rob me of them without hard battle.'" 7 But though Frederick feared not the excommunication of the pope, the effect of such a thing was always to turn loose the elements of violence among men, and especially in Germany. Of that time an old historian says: "After the emperor Frederick was put under the ban, the robbers rejoiced over their spoils. Then were the plowshares beaten into swords, and the reaping hooks into lances. No one went anywhere without steel and stone, to set in blaze whatever he could fire."
ECE	46	1	During the reign of Frederick II the conquest of Prussia was begun A. D. 1230, under the leadership of the Knights of the Teutonic Order, who "after half a century of hard fighting, found themselves masters of the entire country." Also, in the beginning of his reign the fifth crusade was proclaimed by Innocent III, 1198; and it went forth in 1201.
ECE	46	2	Frederick II died Feb. 13, 1250, and was succeeded by his son, Conrad IV, who reigned only four years: and such was the condition of the empire through the contending factions of Germany and the intrigues of the pope that he was never actually crowned emperor. He died in 1254 and with him ended the line of Hohenstaufen emperors, whose rule formed the age" most interesting in the mediaeval history of Germany." "Women never held a higher place, nor, on the whole, did they ever respond more nobly to the honors freely lavished upon them." "The problems of government were seen in new lights, partly from the study of Roman law which passed from Italy to Germany, partly from the summaries of native custom in the 'Sachsenspiegel' [Saxon law] and. 'Schwabenspiegel' [Swabian--Alemannian--law]. Altogether, Germany has seen no more fascinating epoch, none more full of life, movement, and color." 8
ECE	47	1	This age of glory was followed by one of misery, called the Great Interregnum, which lasted twenty years. "This was the saddest time that ever was in Germany. Every one did what he liked. The fist and the sword decided between right and wrong. The princes and the cities were in constant feud. The knights made themselves strong castles and lived in them on plunder and murder. From their fortresses they swooped down on the merchants traveling from town to town and robbed them, or levied on them heavy tolls. They went plundering over the level land; they robbed the farmers of their cattle, devastated their fields, and burned their houses. Moreover, the neighboring nobles and knights quarreled with each other and fought, so that the country was one battlefield." 9
ECE	47	2	This period of anarchy was turned to account by the papacy through Pope Urban IV. Up to this time the election of the emperor had always been, virtually, by the leading princes, although each election needed the sanction of the whole class of immediate nobles. Now, however, mainly by the influence of the pope, the electorate was definitely settled upon only the archbishop of Mainz, the archbishop of Cologne, the archbishop of Treves, the margrave of Brandenburg, the king of Bohemia, and the princes of the house of Wittelsbach (Bavaria), and of the house of Saxony.
ECE	47	3	At the beginning of the Great Interregnum, William of Holland received a nominal allegiance for two years, when he died; then, about 1257, there was a double election, of Alphonso of Castile in Spain; and Richard, earl of Cornwall, brother of Henry III, of England. Richard was crowned, but he visited Germany only three times in the seventeen years; while Alphonso never visited it at all, although claiming all the time to be its sovereign. The influence of none of these tended in the least degree to check the disorder of the times. When Richard died, the princes showed no disposition to choose an emperor; for a condition of affairs that allowed every one to do as he pleased was exactly to their liking. But the northern revenues of the pope were seriously falling off, and this with troubles at home caused a papal longing for an emperor again who would be "the protector of the Church." The pope, therefore, informed the electors that if they did not choose an emperor he himself would appoint one.
ECE	48	1	Accordingly the electors met in 1273 and raised to the throne Rudolf, count of Hapsburg, of Swabia. During the interregnum Ottocar, king of Bohemia, had acquired by marriage and conquest, a great territory beyond his native possessions; and his acquisitions included the duchy of Austria and its dependencies, Styria, Carinthia, and Carniola. This made Ottocar the most powerful prince in Germany, and he expected to receive the German crown at the election. Therefore, when the crown was bestowed upon Rudolf, Ottocar refused to acknowledge him as sovereign. War followed, and in the battle of Marchfield, near Vienna, A. D. 1278, Ottocar was defeated and slain. Austria, Styria, and Carniola were then granted in fief to Rudolf's son Albert. Thus Rudolf made himself memorable as the founder of the house of Hapsburg, which has ruled Austria from that time to this; which from his time has formed one of the most influential forces in the national life of Germany, and which gave sovereigns to Spain in the days of her greatest glory.
ECE	48	2	Rudolf of Swabia died in 1291, and was succeeded by Adolf of Nassau, who ruled till 1298, when he was succeeded by Duke Albert of Austria, Rudolf's son. Albert reigned till 1308, and was succeeded by Count Henry of Luxembourg, who reigned, as Henry VII, till 1313. Upon the death of Henry VII the electors could not agree, and the result was a double election--Frederick the Fair, duke of Austria, son of Albert; and Louis, duke of Bavaria. War broke out and continued for nine years, when, at the battle of Muhlberg, A. D. 1322, Frederick's army was entirely routed, and in 1325 the two rivals agreed to rule in common. Frederick died in 1330, and Louis IV reigned till 1347.
ECE	48	3	At the death of Louis, Gunther, count of Schwarzburg, was elected; but Charles, king of Bohemia, by liberal bribes, bought off his supporters, and Gunther resigned his claim, and Charles IV reigned. The working of the imperial electorate had proved to be unsatisfactory; and it was reformed by Charles IV in 1356 by what is known as the Golden Bull. By this new arrangement the electorate was allowed to include, as formerly, the three archbishops, the king of Bohemia, and the margrave of Brandenburg; but only the duke of Saxony, and the palsgrave, or count palatine, of the Rhine of the house of Wittelsbach. Thus by Charles in the Golden Bull the electorate was confined to seven personages--three archbishops, three lay princes, and one king--and ever afterward the emperor was chosen by these officials, who are the ones so often referred to in the history of the Reformation, by the term "electors." Luther's protector, Frederick, was the "elector of Saxony" in his day.
ECE	49	1	Charles IV added to the original possessions of his house of Luxembourg, Silesia, Lower Lusatia, and the margraviate of Brandenburg; and in his last days "he wore the crowns of Bohemia, of Germany, of Burgundy, of Lombardy, and of the empire." He died at Prague in 1378, and was succeeded by his son, Wenceslaus. Wenceslaus was deposed and the crown was given to Rupert, elector of the palatinate, A. D. 1400, who reigned till 1410, when he died and Sigismund, brother of Wenceslaus, and king of Hungary, reigned. This was the emperor Sigismund who gave up John Huss and Jerome of Prague, to be burned by the Council of Constance; which brought on the Hussite wars. Sigismund was a spendthrift and never had enough money for his wants; and for 400,000 gulden he granted to Frederick, count of Hohenzollern, of Swabia, first as a pledge but afterward as a permanent fief, the march of Brandenburg. With the death of Sigismund ended the Luxembourg dynasty, and the House of Hapsburg was restored.
ECE	49	2	Sigismund was succeeded by Albert II, duke of Austria, in 1438. Albert II was succeeded in 1440 by Frederick IV, and he, in 1493, by Maximilian I, and he, in 1519, by Charles V, before whom Luther stood for the faith of Christ; and before whom the German princes read the famous PROTEST.
ECE	49	3	Although the German crown remained elective from the time of Albert II forward, it was "always conferred on a member of the house of Hapsburg until the extinction of the male line;" and then it was taken up by the female in Maria Theresa, whose husband was elected emperor in 1745. He was emperor only in name, however; Maria Theresa's was the rule in fact. Maria Theresa's husband was succeeded in 1765 by her son, Joseph II. And in her line of the house of Hapsburg the imperial office remained till both the "Holy Roman Empire" and the German kingdom came to an end in 1806; and in her line the imperial office of the empire of Austria-Hungary remains to the present day.
ECE	49	4	Reference was made above to the march of Brandenburg, and its sale by the emperor Sigismund, to Frederick of Hohenzollern, of Swabia. Frederick thus became one of the electors of the empire. It will be remembered, too, that it was the Knights of the Teutonic Order who made the conquest of Prussia. At the time of the Reformation, Albert of Brandenburg happened to be Grand Master of the Teutonic Order. He became a Protestant, dissolved the Order, and received in fief, 1525, from the king of Poland, the duchy of Prussia. Albert left two granddaughters. Joachim Frederick, Elector of Brandenburg, married Eleanor, the younger; his son, John Sigismund, married Anna, the elder; and thus the duchy of Prussia was secured to the family of the Elector of Brandenburg. Frederick William, called the Great Elector, was the grandson of John Sigismund and Anna. By the treaty of Wehlau, in 1657, the duchy of Prussia was declared independent of Poland. The Great Elector added largely to his territories, and in 1701 his son Frederick, who had succeeded him in 1688, having obtained the consent of the emperor, crowned himself king of Prussia. And thus, under the Alemannian house of Hohenzollern, arose the kingdom of Prussia, which, through Frederick I 1701-1713, Frederick William I 1713-1740, Frederick II the Great 1740-1786, Frederick William II 1786-1797, Frederick William III 1797-1840, Frederick William IV 1840-1861, has come down in direct descent to William I, king of Prussia, 1861-1871, and German emperor from Jan. 18, 1871, till March 9, 1888; Frederick, till June 15, 1888; and William II, German emperor of the present day.
------------------------Chapter 6 - The Burgundians in the Middle Ages
ECE	51	1	It will be remembered--Chapter III, pars. 7-9--that the conquest of the kingdom of the Burgundians was begun by Clovis, and was completed by his sons in 532; and that in the quadruple division of the Frankish dominion in 561 Burgundy with some additional counties in the north fell to Gontran, who fixed his capital there. When the Frankish dominions, having been united under Charles Martel, were again divided between Pepin the Short and Carloman, Burgundy fell to the share of Pepin. And when Carloman became a monk, and Pepin became king by the grace of Pope Zachary, of course Burgundy was but a province of his kingdom, as it was also of the empire of Charlemagne, the son of Pepin. In the division of the empire of Charlemagne, by the treaty of Verdun, 843, Burgundy was included in the portion of the emperor Lothair, which, it will be remembered, reached from the Mediterranean to the North Sea, and included the Italian territory.
ECE	51	2	In the time of Charles the Fat, 877, Burgundy became again independent, under Boso, or Boson, husband of Ermangarde, the daughter of Emperor Louis II. This kingdom was called Provence as well as Burgundy, and sometimes Cis-Jurane Burgundy, or, as the real title ran, regnum Provinciae seu Burgundiae. It "included Provence, Dauphine, the southern part of Savoy, and the country between the Saone and the Jura" Mountains. There was formed another kingdom of Burgundy on the other side of the Jura Mountains. This was called the kingdom of trans-Jurane Burgundy, or by title, regnum Iurense, Burgundia Transiurensis, and was founded by Count Rudolph in A. D. 888, and was recognized by the emperor Arnulf the same year. It included the northern part of Savoy and all Switzerland between the Jura Mountains and the River Reuss.
ECE	51	3	In 937 Rudolph's son, Rudolph, traded for the Cis-Jurane Burgundy his rights to the Italian crown; and thus the two Burgundies-- the Trans-Jurane and the Cis-Jurane--were united in the one kingdom of Burgundy or Arles, by title, regnum Burgundae, regnum Arelatense. This kingdom continued independent till A. D. 1032, when, in accordance with a treaty which had been made between the emperor Henry II and Rudolph II, its last king, the kingdom of Burgundy was received into the empire by Emperor Conrad II; Rudolph III confirming it by will, as his niece Gisela was Conrad's wife. The emperor thus assumed the Burgundian crown, and this "beautiful kingdom," "full of prosperous cities," became a part of the empire.
ECE	52	1	"The kingdom of Burgundy, or Arles, comprehended the whole mountainous region which we now call Switzerland. It was accordingly reunited to the Germanic empire by the bequest of Rodolph along with the rest of his dominions. A numerous and ancient nobility, vassals one to another, or to the empire, divided the possession with ecclesiastical lords hardly less powerful than themselves. Of the former we find the counts of Zahringen, Kyburg, Hapsburg, and Tokenburg, most conspicuous; of the latter the Bishop of Coire, the Abbot of St. Gall, and Abbess of Seckingen. Every variety of feudal rights was early found and long preserved in Helvetia; nor is there any country whose history better illustrates that ambiguous relation--half property and half dominion--in which the territorial aristocracy under the feudal system stood with respect to their dependents. In the twelfth century the Swiss towns rise into some degree of importance. Zurich was eminent for commercial activity, and seems to have had no lord but the emperor; Basel, though subject to its bishop, possessed the usual privileges of municipal government. Berne and Friburg, founded only in that century, made a rapid progress, and the latter was raised, along with Zurich, by Frederick II, in 1218, to the rank of a free imperial city."--Hallam. 1
ECE	52	2	In the northern part of what is now Switzerland, between Lake Constance and Lake Luzerne, and along the left bank of the Rhine, the Alemanni had settled when they first took the country from the Romans. The castle of Hapsburg was possessed by Rudolf, the Alemannian nobleman who was made emperor in 1273. His ambitious descendants, the dukes of Austria, endeavored to enlarge their authority and possessions at the expense of the cantons.
ECE	53	1	"Several changes in the principal Helvetian families took place in the thirteenth century before the end of which the house of Hapsburg, under the politic and enterprising Rodolph and his son Albert, became possessed, through various titles, of a great ascendency in Switzerland. Of these titles none was more tempting to an ambitious chief than that of advocate to a convent. That specious name conveyed with it a kind of indefinite guardianship, and right of interference, which frequently ended in reversing the conditions of the ecclesiastical sovereign and its vassal.... Among other advocacies, Albert obtained that of some convents which had estates in the valleys of the Schweitz and Underwald.... The people of Schweitz had made Rodolph their advocate. They distrusted Albert, whose succession to his father's inheritance spread alarm through Helvetia. It soon appeared that their suspicions were well founded. Besides the local rights which his ecclesiastical advocacies gave him over part of the forest cantons, he pretended, after his election to the empire, to send imperial bailiffs into their valleys as administrators of criminal justice." 2
ECE	53	2	Some authorities make Frederick III the one who sent these bailiffs, but whether it was Frederick or Albert the facts are the same. One of these bailiffs was Gesler, whom William Tell resisted. "Their oppression of a people unused to control, whom it was plainly the design of Albert to reduce into servitude, excited those generous emotions of resentment which a brave and simple race have seldom the discretion to repress. Three men, Stauffacher of Schweitz, Furst of Uri, Melchthal of Underwald, each with ten chosen associates, met by night in a sequestered field, and swore to assert the common cause of their liberties, without bloodshed or injury to the rights of others. Their success was answerable to the justice of their undertaking; the three cantons unanimously took up arms, and expelled their oppressors without a contest. Albert's assassination by his nephew which followed soon afterwards, fortunately gave them leisure to consolidate their union (A. D. 1308).... But Leopold, duke of Austria, resolved to humble the peasants who had rebelled against his father, led a considerable force into their country. The Swiss, commending themselves to Heaven, and determined rather to perish than undergo that yoke a second time, though ignorant of regular discipline, and unprovided with defensive armor, utterly discomfited the assailants at Morgarten (A. D. 1315).
ECE	54	1	"This great victory, the Marathon of Switzerland, confirmed the independence of the three original cantons. After some years, Lucerne, contiguous in situation and alike in interests, was incorporated into their confederacy. It was far more materially enlarged about the middle of the fourteenth century by the accession of Zurich, Glaris, Zug, and Berne, all of which took place within two years. The first and last of these cities had already been engaged in frequent wars with the Helvetian nobility, and their internal polity was altogether republican. They acquired, not independence, which they already enjoyed, but additional security, by this union with the Swiss, properly so-called, who in deference to their power and reputation ceded to them the first rank in the league.... The eight already enumerated are called the ancient cantons, and continued, till the late reformation of the Helvetic system, to possess several distinctive privileges and even rights of sovereignty over subject territories in which the five cantons of Friburg, Soleure, Basel, Schaffhausen, and Appenzell did not participate. From this time the united cantons, but especially those of Berne and Zurich, began to extend their territories at the expense of the rural nobility.... The Helvetic cities acted with policy and moderation towards the nobles whom they overcame, admitting them to the franchises of their community as coburghers (a privilege which virtually implied a defensive alliance against any assailant), and uniformly respecting the legal rights of property. Many feudal superiorities they obtained from the owners in a more peaceable manner, through purchases or mortgage.
ECE	54	2	"Thus the house of Austria, to which the extensive domains of the counts of Kyburg had devolved, abandoning, after repeated defeats, its hopes of subduing the forest cantons, alienated a great part of its possessions to Zurich and Berne. And the last remnant of their ancient Helvetic territories in Argovia was wrested, in 1417, from Frederick, count of Tyrol, who, imprudently supporting Pope John XXIII against the Council of Constance had been put to the ban of the empire. These conquests Berne could not be induced to restore, and thus completed the independence of the confederate republics. The other free cities, though not yet incorporated, and the few remaining nobles, whether lay or spiritual, of whom the abbot of St. Gall was the principal, entered into separate leagues with different cantons. Switzerland became, therefore, in the first part of the fifteenth century, a free country, acknowledged as such by neighboring states, and subject to no external control, though still comprehended within the nominal sovereignty of the empire....
ECE	55	1	"The affairs of Switzerland occupy a very small space in the great chart of European history. But in some respects they are more interesting than the revolutions of mighty kingdoms.... Other nations displayed an insuperable resolution in the defense of walled towns; but the steadiness of the Swiss in the field of battle was without a parallel, unless we recall the memory of Lacedaemon. It was even established as a law that whoever returned from battle after a defeat, should forfeit his life by the hands of the executioner. Sixteen hundred men, who had been sent to oppose a predatory invasion of the French in 1444, though they might have retreated without loss, determined rather to perish on the spot, and fell amid a far greater heap of the hostile slain. At the famous battle of Sempach in 1385, the last which Austria proceeded to try against the forest cantons, the enemy's knights, dismounted from their horses, presented an impregnable barrier of lances which disconcerted the Swiss; till Winkelried, a gentleman of Underwald, commending his wife and children to his countrymen, threw himself upon the opposing ranks, and, collecting as many lances as he could grasp, forced a passage for his followers by burying them in his bosom.
ECE	55	2	"Though the house of Austria had ceased to menace the liberties of Helvetia, and had even been for many years its ally, the emperor Maximilian ...endeavored to revive the unextinguished supremacy of the empire. That supremacy had just been restored in Germany by the establishment of the Imperial Chamber, and of a regular pecuniary contribution for its support, as well as for other purposes, in the Diet of Worms [1495]. The Helvetic cantons were summoned to yield obedience to these imperial laws.... Their refusal to comply brought on a war, wherein the Tyrolese subjects of Maximilian, and the Suabian league, a confederacy of cities in that province lately formed under the emperor's auspices, were principally engaged against the Swiss. But the success of the latter was decisive; and after a terrible devastation of the frontiers of Germany, peace was concluded [1499] upon terms very honorable for Switzerland. The cantons were declared free from the jurisdiction of the Imperial Chamber, and from all contributions imposed by the Diet.... Though, perhaps, in the strictest letter of public law, the Swiss cantons were not absolutely released from their subjection to the empire until the treaty of Westphalia, their real sovereignty must be dated by a historian from the year when every prerogative which a government can exercise was finally abandoned." 3
ECE	56	1	And thus the kingdom of the Burgundians of A. D. 407 is represented in the independent confederacy of the Switzerland of to-day.
------------------------Chapter 7 - The Angles and Saxons in the Middle Ages
ECE	57	1	From the time of the first permanent hold of the Jutes, the Saxons, and the Angles, on British soil until they really possessed the land, was about a hundred and fifty years.
ECE	57	2	The Jutes possessed Kent. These were the fewest of the three peoples; and therefore occupied the smallest portion of the land. "Their dominions took in only Kent, with perhaps for a while Surrey, and [the Isle of] Wight, with a small part of the neighboring mainland of Hampshire:" and the kingdom of the Jutes "never permanently outgrew the bounds of their earliest conquests."
ECE	57	3	On all sides of the Jutes landward, dwelt the Saxons: South and West were the South Saxons, from whom the land held by them derived the abbreviated name Sou'-Sax', and from that Sussex, which it has ever since borne; west of these, but more inland, dwelt the West Saxons, whose kingdom was called Wessex;north of Kent dwelt the East Saxons, their kingdom and land called forever, Essex; and between the East Saxons and the West Saxons--between Essex and Wessex--dwelt the Middle Saxons, their kingdom and land called forever Middlesex.
ECE	57	4	The Angles held all the land north of Essex, Middlesex, and Wessex, to the Firth of Forth. In the peninsula immediately north of Essex, dwelt the East Angles, their kingdom and country called East Anglia: those in the northern part of the peninsula were called Northfolk, and those in the southern part, South-folk, from which the descent through Nor'-Folk and Sou'-Folk, come the names that still remain--Norfolk and Suffolk. West of these dwelt the South Angles; immediately north of these the Mid Angles, reaching to the River Humber. From the Humber to the Firth of Forth the land was divided by the Angles into two almost equal portions, the southern of which was the kingdom of Deira; and the northern, the kingdom of Bernicia. The territory between Wales and Mid and South Anglia, being the border, was at first a mark, or march; from which it became Marcia and Mercia. Its Anglican inhabitants were called Mercians, and their kingdom Mercia, which also included the Mid and South Angles.
ECE	58	1	The kingdom of the Jutes was established in Kent in A. D. 475; that of the South Saxons in 491; that of the West Saxons in 519; that of the East Saxons about 525; and by 552 the Angles had made the conquest of their part of Middle Britain to the march or border. This pressure of the Angles in Mid Britain enabled the South Saxons to push their conquests farther inland. "In 552 their capture of the hill-fort of Old Sarum threw open the reaches of the Wiltshire downs, and a march of King Cuthwulf on the Thames made them masters in 571 of the districts which now form Oxfordshire and Berkshire. Pushing along the upper valley of Avon to a new battle of Barbury Hill, they swooped at last from their uplands on the rich prey that lay along the Severn. Gloucester, Cirencester, and Bath, cities which had leagued under their British kings to resist this onset, became in 577 the spoil of an English victory at Deorham, and the line of the great western river lay open to the arms of the conquerors....
ECE	58	2	"With the victory of Deorum the conquest of the bulk of Britain was complete. Eastward of a line which may be roughly drawn along the moorlands of Northumberland and Yorkshire, through Derbyshire and the Forest of Arden to the lower Severn, and thence by Mendip to the sea, the island had passed into English hands. Britain had in the main become England. And within this new England a Teutonic society was settled on the wreck of Rome. So far as the conquest had yet gone it had been complete. Not a Briton remained as subject or slave on English ground. Sullenly, inch by inch, the beaten men drew back from the land which their conquerors had won; and eastward of a border-line which the English sword had drawn, all was now purely English.
ECE	58	3	"It is this which distinguishes the conquest of Britain from that of the other provinces of Rome. The conquest of Gaul by the Franks, or of Italy by the Lombards, proved little more than a forcible settlement of the one or the other among tributary subjects who were destined in the long course of ages to absorb their conquerors. French is the tongue, not of the Frank, but of the Gaul whom he overcame: and the fair hair of the Lombard is all but unknown in Lombardy. But the English conquest of Britain up to the point which we have reached, was a sheer dispossession of the people whom the English conquered. It was not that Englishmen, fierce and cruel as at times they seem to have been, were more fierce or more cruel than other Germans who attacked the empire:.... what really made the difference between the fate of Britain and that of the rest of the Roman world, was the stubborn courage of the British themselves. In all the world-wide struggles between Rome and the German peoples, no land was so stubbornly fought for or so hardly won. In Gaul no native resistance met Frank or Visigoth save from the brave peasants of Brittany and Auvergne. No popular revolt broke out against the rule of Odoacer or Theodoric in Italy. But in Britain the invader was met by a courage almost equal to his own. Instead of quartering themselves quietly, like their fellows abroad, on subjects who were glad to buy peace by obedience and tribute, the English had to make every inch of Britain their own by hard fighting....
ECE	59	1	"What strikes us at once in the new England is this: that it was the one purely German nation that rose upon the wreck of Rome. In other lands, in Spain or Gaul or Italy, though they were equally conquered by German peoples, religion, social life, administrative order, still remained Roman. Britain was almost the only province of the empire where Rome died into a vague tradition of the past. The whole organization of government and society disappeared with the people who used it... The settlement of the English in the conquered land was nothing less than an absolute transfer of English society in its completest form to the soil of Britain. The slowness of their advance, the small numbers of each separate band in its descent upon the coast, made it possible for the settlers to bring with them, or to call to them when their work was done, the wives and children, the laet and slave, even the cattle they had left behind them. The first wave of conquest was but the prelude to the gradual migration of a whole people. It was England which settled down on British soil, England with its own language, its own laws, its complete social fabric, its system of village life and village culture, its township and its hundred, its principle of kinship its principle of representation. It was not as mere pirates or stray war bands, but as peoples already made, and fitted by a common temper and common customs to draw together into our English nation in the days to come, that our fathers left their home-land."--Green. 1
ECE	60	1	Of the three peoples--the Jutes, the Saxons, and the Angles--the Angles "occupied a much larger portion of the land" than did both the others; and so their name gave a new name to the land to which they had come--Angle-land, Engel-land, England: while as to the kingdom itself, it was Wessex that "grew into England," and her "house of Cerdic" that "became the royal house over the whole land." 2 However, this matter of one royal house over the whole land is another long story in addition to that of these three peoples taking possession of the land. For "though all spoke the same language and used the same laws, and though all were bent on winning the same land, each band and each leader preferred their own separate course of action to any collective enterprise."--Green. 3 This spirit caused them, though only three distinct peoples, to form themselves, in the occupancy of the land, into no less than eight distinct kingdoms. And no sooner were ended their wars with the Britons, that they might in quietness inhabit the land, than they began as desperate a struggle among themselves for the supremacy and the sole kingship of all England.
ECE	60	2	Thus in A. D. 597 there were in England the eight distinct kingdoms of Wessex, Sussex, Kent, Essex, Mercia, East Anglia, Deira, and Bernicia. Each kingdom was the result of the union of smaller divisions called shires, their chiefs "bearing the title of Ealdorman or Alderman, in peace, of Heretoga or Herzog, in time of war." The union of shires "formed a rice or kingdom; the chief of the group thus formed was a cyning or king. What, it may be asked, was the difference between king and ealdorman? ...The ealdorman was a ruler in peace and a captain in war. The king was more. Among the English, at least, the kingly houses all claimed descent from the blood of the gods. 4 Every king was a son of Woden. A vague religious reverence thus gathered round the king, in which the ealdorman had no share. He was also the head of the highest political aggregate which the ideas of those days had reached. He was, as the name implies, the head of the kin, the nation. The rule of the ealdorman was tribal, and merely earthly; the rule of the king was national, and in some sort divine." 5 Of the community there were three classes: earls, churls, and thralls. The earls were a class who by distinction of birth were held to be entitled to special respect and honor; and who, because of this, possessed certain political privileges. The churls were freemen, but had no honors or privileges above those of the general community. The thralls were slaves held in bondage or thraldom. "The earl, the churl, and the thrall are found everywhere. They are taken for granted; and legend represented the three classes as called into being by separate acts of the creative power of the gods." 6
ECE	61	1	In A. D. 605 Ethelfrith, king of Bernicia, seized the kingdom of Deira; and as this gave them to all East Britain north of the River Humber, the enlarged kingdom thus formed was called Northumbria. Ethelfrith also made the complete conquest of the greater part of the land that was yet held by the Britons westward to the Irish Sea between the Firth of Clyde and the mouths of the Mersey and the Dee. This reduced the number of the English kingdoms to seven; and it is this that is the ground upon which writers treat the history of that time under the title of "The Saxon Heptarchy." When Ethelfrith seized Deira, Edwin, its rightful king, being but a child, fled to East Anglia, where he was protected by King Raedwald. This served Ethelfrith as a pretext for an attempt to subdue that kingdom. He was vigorously resisted; and at the "River Idle, by Retford," he was defeated and slain.
ECE	61	2	Upon the death of Ethelfrith, the people of Deira were glad to have Eadwine return to his kingdom. By the conquest of Bernicia, Eadwine re-established and made permanent the union of Bernicia and Deira that Ethelfrith had formed. "The greatness of Northumbria now reached its height. Within his own dominions, Eadwine displayed a genius for civil government, which shows how utterly the mere age of conquest had passed away. With him began the English proverb so often applied to after kings: 'A woman with her babe might walk scathless from sea to sea in Eadwine's day.' Peaceful communication revived along the deserted highways; the springs by the roadside were marked with stakes, and a cup of brass was set beside each for the traveler's refreshment...The Northumbrian king became, in fact, supreme over Britain as no king of English blood had been before. Northward his kingdom reached to the Firth of Forth; and here, if we may trust tradition, Eadwine formed a city which bore his name, Edinburgh--Eadwine's burg. To the west, his arms crushed the long resistance of Elmet, the district about Leeds: he was master of Chester, and the fleet he equipped there subdued the isles of Anglesea and Man. South of the Humbria, he was owned as overlord by the five English States of Mid Britain. The West Saxons remained for a while independent;" but they, too, were at last obliged to acknowledge "the overlordship of Northumbria." And "Kent had bound itself to him by giving him its king's daughter as a wife, a step which probably marked political subordination."--Green. 7
ECE	62	1	At this time Penda was king of Mercia; and the other kingdoms of Mid Britain recognized his overlordship, as he in turn recognized the overlordship of Eadwine. In 633 Penda formed an alliance with a Welsh king, Cadwallon, to break the power of Eadwine. "The armies met in 633 at a place called Haethfeld, and in the fight, Eadwine was defeated and slain." Bernicia at once "seized on the fall of Eadwine to recall the line of Ethelfrith to its throne; and after a year of anarchy, his second son, Oswald, became its king. The Welsh had remained encamped in the heart of the north, and Oswald's first fight was with Cadwallon." The forces met in 635 "near the Roman Wall. Cadwallon fell fighting on the 'Heaven's Field,' as after times called the field of battle; the submission of the kingdom of Deira to the conqueror, restored the kingdom of Northumbria; and for nine years the power of Oswald equaled that of Eadwine."
ECE	62	2	"Oswald's lordship stretched as widely over Britain as that of his predecessor Eadwine. In him, even more than in Eadwine, men saw some faint likeness of the older emperors: once, indeed, a writer from the land of the Picts calls Oswald 'emperor of the whole of Britain.'" In 642 Oswald led his army into East Anglia to deliver that kingdom from the terrible rule of Penda, king of Mercia. The battle was fought at Maserfeld; Oswald was defeated and slain; and for thirteen years Penda stood supreme in Britain. Oswiu, younger brother of Oswald, succeeded to the kingship of Northumbria. In 655 the Northumbrians again met Penda "in the field of Winward by Leeds," Penda was slain, and because of a great rain which swelled the river over which the Mercians must flee, only a remnant of them escaped; and Northumbria under Oswiu stood to England as it had under Eadwin and Oswald. It so continued under Ecgfrith who succeeded Oswiu in 670; and whose "reign marks the highest pitch of Northumbrian power."
ECE	63	1	Eegfrith in 685 carried an expedition against the Picts, but was slain, and his army was annihilated in a battle at Fife. This delivered the central and southern kingdoms from the domination of Northumbria. Mercia immediately regained her full power over all Mid Britain, while Wessex, under Ine from 688 to 714, gained full power over "all Britain south of the Thames;" and Ine's "repulse of a new Mercian king, in a bloody encounter at Wodnesburh in 714, seemed to establish the threefold division of the English race between three realms of almost equal power"--Northumbria, Mercia, and Wessex. However, Ine, in 726, made a pilgrimage to Rome. In his absence anarchy reigned in Wessex. In this Ethelbald, the Mercian king, saw his opportunity: he penetrated to the very heart of the West Saxon kingdom, and his siege and capture of the royal town of Somerton in 733 ended the war. For twenty years the overlordship of "Mercia was recognized by all Britain south of the Humber." And since at this time anarchy reigned in Northumbria, the kingdom of Mercia became fairly the kingdom of England. This, however, was for only a short time; for in a desperate battle at Burford in 753, "a decided victory freed Wessex from the Mercian yoke. Four years later, in 757, its freedom was maintained by a new victory at Secandum."
ECE	63	2	Wessex had regained independence; but that was all. For Ethelbald, who was slain in the battle of Secandum, was immediately succeeded by Offa under whose long reign, 757-796, Mercia "rose again to all but its old dominion." Offa's "is the greatest name in Mercian history;" and his position "was as great as that of any English king before the final union of the kingdoms. In one way it was higher than that of any of them. Offa held not only a British, but a European position." This because the mighty Charlemagne corresponded with him as with an equal. This was before Charlemagne was made emperor by the pope: and when he manifested a disposition to treat the king of Mercia as less than an equal, war was threatened between them. And after Charlemagne became emperor of Rome, Cenwulf, Offa's successor, 797-819, "put it clearly on record that neither the bishop of Rome nor the emperor of Rome had any jurisdiction in his realm of Mercia." 8
ECE	64	1	By this time Wessex had so well employed her independence as not only to have regained, but enlarged and firmly established her power over "all Britain south of the Thames." This, Mercia was compelled to recognize; and Cenwulf could only preserve the immediate realm of Mercia as he received it. Thus, "at the close of the eighth century the drift of the English peoples toward a national unity was in fact utterly arrested. The work of Northumbria had been foiled by the resistance of Mercia; the effort of Mercia had broken down before the resistance of Wessex. A threefold division seemed to have stamped itself upon the land; and so complete was the balance of power between the three realms which parted it, that no subjection of one to the other seemed likely to fuse the English tribes into an English people."--Green. 9
ECE	64	2	Yet at this very time there were taking shape in Wessex the elements which presently developed a mighty impulse toward a national unity; and which in the former part of the tenth century, with but slight checks meanwhile, culminated in the actual union of all England under only one king. Among the rival claimants of the kingship of Wessex, after the regaining of her independence in 757, was a certain Ecgberht, or Egbert. The king who was elected in 786 sought to kill him, and he was compelled to flee the kingdom entirely. He first took refuge with Offa. The king of Wessex demanded that he be surrendered. Offa refused; but as he could no longer harbor Ecgberht without bringing into his own affairs continual trouble, he declined to assure him further protection. Then Ecgberht escaped to the Continent, and in 787 found refuge at the court of Charlemagne. There he went to Charlemagne's school in more senses of the word than one. In the year 800 Edburga, the wife of the king of Wessex, prepared a poisoned drink for a young friend of her husband's; but both he and her husband drank of it, and both died. Then Edburga, being obliged to flee, likewise took refuge at the court of Charlemagne. Her coming there brought to Ecgberht the information that the throne of Wessex was vacant. He immediately returned to Wessex, and was promptly chosen to the kingship. "The day of Northumberland and the day of Mercia had passed: the day of Wessex had come. The single reign of Ecgberht (802-837) placed her forever at the head of the powers of Britain." 10
ECE	65	1	Ecgberht's first exploit as king was the conquest of Cornwall, "the last fragment of the British kingdom in the southwest." In 825 the king of Mercia invaded Ecgberht's territory, but at the battle which was fought at Ellandum the West Saxons were victorious. This victory confirmed to Ecgberht all of England south of the Thames; and also encouraged the East Anglians to revolt against the king of Mercia. The East Anglians were victorious in two great battles; and this, in turn, so weakened the king of Mercia as to encourage Ecgberht to venture even across the Thames in an invasion of Mercia. This he did "in 827, and the realm of Penda and Offa bowed without a struggle to its conqueror." But Ecgberht did not stop with the conquest of Mercia: he marched on toward the north. Northumbria had but lately been terrorized by an invasion of Danes, and unable to resist them alone, "its thegns met Ecgberht in Derbyshire and owned the supremacy of Wessex;" and, "with the submission of Northumbria, the work which Oswiu and AEthelred had failed to do was done, and the whole English race was for the first time knit together under a single rule."--Green. 11
ECE	65	2	This Danish invasion of Northumbria was but a part of that great movement of the Danes in this century, which reached even to France, and created Normandy; and it continued in Britain until it had covered practically the whole of the land occupied by the English. Ecgberht defeated one host of them which invaded the land from Ireland, which gave them a check until after his death in 839. He was succeeded immediately by his son, AEthelwulf. The Danes came again and were "beaten off only by years of hard fighting." But, a final victory at Aclea in 851 "won peace for the land through the short and uneventful reigns of his sons, AEthelbald and AEthelberht. But the northern storm burst in full force upon England when a third son, AEthelred, followed his brothers on the throne. "The Northmen were now settled on the coast of Ireland and the coast of Gaul; they were masters of the sea; and from west and east alike they closed upon Britain. While one host from Ireland fell on the Scot kingdom north of the Firth of Forth, another from Scandinavia landed in 866 on the coast of East Anglia under Hubba, and marched the next year upon York. A victory over two claimants of the crown gave the pirates Northumbria; and their two armies united at Nottingham in 868 for an attack on the Mercian realm. Mercia was saved by a march of King AEthelred to Nottingham; but the peace which he made there with the Northmen left them leisure to prepare for an invasion of East Anglia, whose undertaking Eadmund, brought prisoner before their leaders, was bound to a tree and shot to death with arrows.... With him ended the line of East Anglian underkings; for his kingdom was not only conquered, but divided among the soldiers of the pirate host, and their leader, Guthrum, assumed its crown." 12
ECE	66	1	By these victories of the Dance the power of Wessex north of the Thames was again absolutely destroyed. And "the loss of the subject kingdoms left Wessex face to face with the invaders. The time had now come for it to fight, not for supremacy, but for life. As yet the land seemed paralyzed by terror. With the exception of his one march on Nottingham, King Aethelred had done nothing to save his underkingdoms from the wreck. But the pirates no sooner pushed up the Thames to Reading in 871 than the West Saxons, attacked on their own soil, turned fiercely at bay. A desperate attack drove the Northmen from Ashdown on the heights that overlooked the vale of White Horse, but their camp in the tongue of land between the Kennet and Thames proved impregnable. AEthelred died in the midst of the struggle, and his brother AElfred [Alfred], who now became king, bought the withdrawal of the pirates and a few years' breathing-space for his realm. It was easy for the quick eye of AElfred to see that the Northmen had withdrawn simply with the view of gaining firmer footing for a new attack: three years indeed had hardly passed before Mercia was invaded and its underking driven over-sea to make place for a tributary of the invaders. From Repton half their host marched northward to the Tyne, while Guthrum led the rest into his kingdom of East Anglia to prepare for the next year's attack on Wessex." 13
ECE	67	1	From 874 and onward Northumbria and Mercia had been brought wholly under the power of the Danes. In 877 AElfred defeated one main portion of their host in his region and forced the surrender of another. In their surrender they bound themselves by an oath to leave Wessex, which they did. But, the arrival of a new horde of their kinsmen caused them to forget their oath; and, at the beginning of 878, the whole double host again "marched ravaging over the land. The surprise of Wessex was complete, and for a month or two the general panic left no hope of resistance. AElfred, with his small band of followers, could only throw himself into a fort raised hastily in the isle of Athelney among the marshes of Parret, a position from which he could watch closely the position of his foes. But with the first burst of spring he called the thegns of Somerset to his standard; and, still gathering troops as he moved, marched through Wiltshire on the Northmen. He found their host at Edington, defeated it in a great battle, and after a siege of fourteen days forced them to surrender and to bind themselves by a solemn peace or 'frith' at Wedmore in Somerset.
ECE	67	2	"In form the peace of Wedmore seemed a surrender of the bulk of Britain to its invaders. All Northumbria, all East Anglia, all central England east of a line which stretched from the Thames's mouth along the Lea to Bedford, thence along the Ouse to Watling Street, and by Watling Street to Chester, was left subject to the Northmen. Throughout this 'Danelagh'--as it was called--the conquerors settled down among the conquered population as lords of the soil, thickly in northern Britain, more thinly in its central districts; but everywhere guarding jealously their old isolation, and gathering in separate 'heres' or armies round towns which were only linked in close confederacies. The peace had, in fact, saved little more than Wessex itself. But in saving Wessex, it saved England. The spell of terror was broken. The tide of invasion turned. From an attitude of attack the Northmen were thrown back on an attitude of defense. The whole reign of AElfred was a preparation for a fresh struggle that was to wrest back from the pirates the land they had won." 14
ECE	68	1	This peace continued till 893, during which time AElfred continually strengthened the defenses of his kingdom. He built a strong fleet; and gathered all the freemen of his realm into an organized force. He had a son and a daughter, Eadward and AEthelflaed, who both grew up to be efficient warriors. AEthelflaed was married to AEthelred, "an ealdorman of the old royal stock," who also was an able warrior. This gave to AElfred three strong supporters in the building up of his power of defense against the Danes. AEthelflaed and AEthelred, her husband, were made lord and lady of AElfred's portion of Mercia. When in 893 there was a new invasion of the land by the Danes, both by land and by sea, AElfred met their fleet and held it at bay, while "Eadward and AEthelred caught their army near the Severn and overthrew it with a vast slaughter at Buttington." And AElfred was able so well to hold his own that in 897 the latest invaders withdrew, and the Danes, who had dwelt in the land, renewed the peace, which continued for thirteen years.
ECE	68	2	AElfred died in 901, and was succeeded by his son Eadward. In 910 there was a new outbreak of the Danes inhabiting England. AEthelred, the lord of Mercia, was also now dead, which left AEthelflaed the ruler of Mercia. She took the field and was so successful everywhere that she won back all that had composed the full kingdom of Mercia. Eadward, on his part, repulsed an inroad of another new band of Danes, and brought East Anglia under his power. AEthelflaed died in 918. Eadward immediately annexed Mercia to his dominion and carried his arms triumphantly to the Humber; and "in 924 the whole of the north suddenly laid itself at his feet. Not merely Northumbria, but the Scots and the Britons of Strathclyde 'chose him to father and lord.'"
ECE	68	3	Eadward the Unconquered died in 925, and was succeeded by his son AEthelstan till 940, when he died and was succeeded by his son Eadmund till 946, when he was killed by a robber, and was succeeded by his brother Eadred. "Under AEthelstan Northumberland was incorporated, and the immediate realm of the one king of England reached to the Forth. Still both he and his two successors had to fight against endless revolts and rival kings in Northumberland. The Danish land was won and lost, and won back, over and over again, till at last under Eadred Northumberland was finally incorporated, and ruled, sometimes by a single earl, sometimes by two, of the king's appointment. 15 With its submission in 954 the work of conquest was done. Dogged as his fight had been, the Northman at last owned himself beaten. From the moment of Eadred's final triumph all resistance came to an end."
ECE	69	1	"The kingdom of England was now formed. The first half of the tenth century thus gave the West Saxon kings a position in Britain such as no English kings of any kingdom had ever held before them. Dominant in their own island, claiming and, whenever they could, exercising, a supremacy over the other princes of the island, their position in the island-world of Britain was analogous to the position of the western emperors in continental Europe. It was, in fact, an imperial position. As such, it was marked by the assumption of the imperial title, monarcha, imperator, basileus, Augusius, and even Caesar. These titles were meant at once to assert the imperial supremacy of the English kings within their own world, and to deny any supremacy over Britain on the part of either of the lords of the continental world. 16 .... But one and strong and glorious as England stood in the central years of the tenth century, her unity and strength and glory were bought in no small degree by the loss of the ancient freedom of her people." 17
ECE	69	2	In 955 Eadred died, and was succeeded by the two sons of his brother and predecessor, Eadmund. The elder son, Eadwig, received Wessex as king of England by right, while the younger, Eadgar, received Northumberland and Mercia as underking to Eadwig. But in 957 the kingdom was actually divided into these two parts by the Mercians and Northumbrians declaring Eadgar full king in his own right. However, in 959 Eadwig died and Eadgar succeeded to the whole dominion in his own right; and "under Eadgar's rule the land enjoyed sixteen years of unparalleled peace and of unparalleled prosperity. During his reign no word of foreign invasion was breathed, and the two or three disturbances within the island were of slight consequence.... At no time in our early history did England hold a higher position in the world in general. And when Old-Saxon Otto wore the crown of Rome, and West Saxon Eadgar, in some sort his nephew, reigned over the island-empire of Britain, the Saxon name had reached the highest point of its glory." 18
ECE	70	1	Eadgar was succeeded by his son Eadward in 975, but he was allowed to reign only four years, for at the instigation of his step-mother AElfthryth, he was murdered in 979, and AElfthryth's son AEthelred II was put upon the throne, and thus "entered on the saddest and most shameful reign" in English annals, which continued for thirty-seven years. In the second year of his reign, 980, another invasion of the Danes flooded the land, and the flood never really ceased until all England was held by the Danes, and a Dane sat upon the throne of all England. "The unready king--that is, the king without rede or counsel--seems to have been incapable of any settled or vigorous plan of action. He showed energy now and then in needless and fruitless enterprises; but under him the kingdom never showed a united front toward the common enemy. His only policy, only policy of his cowardly or traitorous advisers, was the self-destroying policy of buying off the invaders with money.
ECE	70	2	"The invaders are met at London, at Maldon, at Exeter, with the highest valor and conduct on the part of the leaders and people of particular cities and districts; but it is always isolated cities and districts which resist. Such local efforts were naturally fruitless; the local force is either defeated by superior numbers, or, if victorious, it has, through want of concert with other parts of the kingdom, no means of following up its victory. Through a warfare like this, carried on year after year, the nation at last lost heart as well as its king. Local jealousies, hushed under the vigorous rule of earlier kings, now rose again. It is emphatically said that 'one shire would not help other.' Under such a reign the efforts of the best men in the land were thwarted, and the places of highest power fell to the worst men. The successive advisers of AEthelred appear as a succession of traitors, who sold him and his kingdom to the enemy." "It was for the Witan to pass decrees, but it was for the king to put them in force: and under AEthelred nothing good was ever put in force." 19
ECE	71	1	In 991 a new wave of the Danish flood swept upon the land. However, by this time, they were more than Danes who came. Even the Norwegian King, Olaf Tryggvesson, was amongst them. In 994 another wave swept upon the devoted land. In this the Northmen hosts were led by King Olaf of Norway and King Swegen of Denmark. The forces of London defeated those that invaded that part of the land; but AEthelred obtained peace from them by purchase with money. Yet the peace was not kept, except by a portion of them; and for eight years the war went on by new invasions on the part of the Danes, and new payments on the part of the king, until 1002 when an attempt was made to rid England of the Danes, by a general massacre on St. Brice's day, the thirteenth of November.
ECE	71	2	AEthelred had also quarreled with Duke Richard of Normandy; but in this same year, 1002, he sealed a peace with Richard, and also hoped to strengthen his kingdom by receiving in marriage Emma, the daughter of Duke Richard of Normandy. "Wedding and murder, however, proved feeble defenses against Swegen. His fleet reached the coast in 1003, and for four years he marched through the length and breadth of southern and eastern England, 'lighting his war-beacons as he went' in blazing homestead and town. Then for a heavy bribe he withdrew, to prepare for a later and more terrible onset. But there was no rest for the realm. The fiercest of the Norwegian jarls took his place, and from Wessex the war extended over Mercia and East Anglia .... Swegen returned in 1013. The war was terrible but short. Everywhere the country was pitilessly harried, churches plundered, men slaughtered. With the one exception of London, there was no attempt at resistance. Oxford and Winchester flung open their gates. The thegns of Wessex submitted to the Northmen at Bath. Even London was forced at last to give way, and AEthelred fled over-sea to a refuge in Normandy."--Green. 20 "The Danish king was acknowledged as king--though native writers choose rather to call him tyrant--over all England." 21
ECE	72	1	Swegen died in 1014, and was succeeded by his son Cnut, or Knut,--Canute,--a young man of nineteen. The English Council, or Witan, however, called for the restoration of AEthelred. AEthelred returned, which caused a war between the two kings. In 1016 AEthelred died, and was succeeded by his son Eadmund, surnamed "Ironside," an able general, who was successful against Cnut until Ealdorman Eadric of Mercia's deserting him in the midst of a great battle at Assandun caused his complete overthrow. The kingdom was then divided between Eadmund and Cnut, Eadmund taking the south, and Cnut the north. But Eadmund died shortly afterward, and Cnut, both by his power and by formal election, became king of all England, was regularly crowned as such, and ruled even "as a native king." "England was neither oppressed nor degraded under his rule. His government, his laws, were framed after the pattern of those of the ancient kings. He sent home his Danish army, keeping only a body of chosen guards, the famous house-carls. These were the first standing army known in England, a body of picked men, Danes, Englishmen, or brave men from any quarter. Cnut gradually displaced the Danes whom he had at first placed in high offices, and gave them English successors. He raised an Englishman, the renowned Godwine, to a place second only to kingship, with the new title of Earl of the West Saxons.
ECE	72	2	"In her foreign relations, England, under her Danish king, was in no sense a dependency of Denmark. England was the center, Winchester was the imperial city, of a northern empire, which rivaled those of the East and the West. Canute, it must be remembered, was chosen to the crown of England first of all, while still very young. To that crown he added the crown of Denmark, on the death or deposition of his brother Harold. He won Norway, which had revolted against his father, from its king Olaf; and he seems to have established his power over part of Sweden and other parts of the Baltic lands. But all these were acquisitions made by one who was already 'king of all England:' they were largely won by English valor, and the complaint in Denmark and elsewhere was that Canute made his northern kingdom subordinate to England, and preferred Englishmen rather than natives to high offices in them.
ECE	72	3	"At home, after the first years of his reign, his rule was one of perfect peace." 22 "In 1028 he wrote: 'I have vowed to God to lead a right life in all things, to rule justly and piously my realms and subjects, and to administer just judgment to all. If heretofore I have done aught beyond what was just, through headiness or negligence of youth, I am ready, with God's help, to amend it utterly. No royal officer, either for fear of the king or for favor of any, is to consent to injustice, none is to do wrong to rich or poor as they would value my friendship and their own well-being. I have no need that money be heaped together for me by unjust demands. I have sent this letter before me that all the people of my realm may rejoice in my well-doing; for as you yourselves know, never have I spared, nor will I spare, to spend myself and my toil in what is needful and good for my people." In 1031 Canute's reign over all the north was made complete by the Scotch king's doing "full homage to the king of all England."
ECE	73	1	Canute died in 1035. He had named as his successor in England Harthacnut, or Hardicanute, his son by Emma, the widow of AEthelred, whom, early in his reign, he had married, though she must have been nearly twice as old as he. But there was another son named Harold, who was supported in his claims to the kingdom by Mercia and Northumberland. The West Saxons, with Godwine and Emma, in accordance with Canute's will, accepted Harthacnut. War was prevented by a decree of the national council, dividing the kingdom between the two. Harthacnut remained in Denmark, and the West Saxons deposed him and acknowledged Harold. There came also over from Normandy AElfred, the elder son of AEthelred, who, in 1016 had been obliged to flee the kingdom from the jealous hate of Canute. But his attempt was a complete failure. He and his companions fell into the hands of Harold. His companions were all put to death, he himself was blinded; and soon afterward he died.
ECE	73	2	In 1040 Harold himself died; and Harthacnut, by right and by national choice, became again king, this time, king of the whole realm. But his reign was now short, for he died in 1042. The English nation then chose Eadward, the second son of AEthelred, who had fled to Normandy. "His monastic virtues won him the reputation of a saint and the title of 'the Confessor;' but no man could have been less fitted to wear the crown of England in such an age." It was chiefly by the influence of Godwine that Eadward had been chosen to the kingship, and Eadward now married Godwine's daughter, and did him further honor by appointing his sons to earldoms.
ECE	74	1	Eadward greatly offended the English people by bringing with him from Normandy, and putting into every place that he could, a great number of Norman favorites. His chief favorite was a Norman monk whom he made, first, bishop of London, and, presently archbishop of Canterbury. These Norman favorites soon made themselves so insolent and unbearable that Godwine and his sons, in behalf of the nation, took up arms against them. But Godwine was induced to submit his cause to the National Council, which decided against him, and he and his sons were banished. But within a year, 1050, they returned, with an army. The English were now so utterly wearied with the arrogance of the king's Norman favorites that they gladly welcomed Godwine. The king mustered an army to meet him, but the army refused to fight. The national assembly again considered Godwine's cause, and banished the Norman archbishop of Canterbury, with a great company of other Normans.
ECE	74	2	In 1053 the great earl Godwine died, and was succeeded in his high place in the kingdom by his son Harold. In the beginning of 1066 King Eadward died while the national assembly was in session. Eadward had no children, and on his deathbed he had recommended Harold as his successor. The national assembly accepted the recommendation, and Harold was regularly chosen and crowned king of England, and reigned as Harold II.
			The Norman Invasion
ECE	74	3	In 1035 the death of Duke Robert of Normandy had left his son William, his successor, a child of but seven or eight years old. He was the sixth duke of Normandy, and by relationship was the fifth in direct descent from Rolf, or Rollo, the Danish chief who received from Charles the Simple the duchy of Normandy. By the time that he attained to the age of twenty, he had firmly fixed his authority in Normandy; and by the time he was thirty-six he had obtained possession of the counties of Maine and Brittany, and "stood first among the princes of France." In 1051 he had made a visit to King Eadward of England, and ever afterward claimed that at that time Eadward had promised to him the crown of England at Eadward's death. He further claimed that while Eadward was a child in banishment in Normandy, he had said to William that if ever he became king of England, William should be his successor. Further, about 1065, when Harold was the foremost subject in England, he had made a journey to Normandy, but by a storm was driven out of his direct course, and was shipwrecked near the mouth of the Somme, in the territory of the count of Ponthieu, who would not let him go without a ransom, and William paid the ransom; and so Harold came safely to William's court. William told him of the promise that Eadward had made, and asked Harold whether he would support him in his claims under the promise. Harold assented; but William asked for an oath. This, too, Harold gave.
ECE	75	1	And now, in 1066, when William learned that Harold himself had received the crown of England, without any recognition or even mention of any of his claims, he determined that he would have the kingdom anyhow. He first sent an envoy to Rome, to obtain the sanction of the pope. When William had taken the oath of Harold to support him in his claims to the kingship of England under the promises of Eadward. By a trick he had secured Harold's oath upon the relics of the saints. And now, when he desired the pope's sanction of his enterprise, he urged the perjury and the awful blasphemy of Harold's course in disregarding an oath given upon the holy relics. He asked the pope even to put all England under an interdict because of her having chosen such a man as this for king, and also because the nation had expelled the archbishop of Canterbury, who had borne the consecration of Rome. Hildebrand was at that time archdeacon at the papal court. He approved William's claims, and, by his influence, the pope also was brought to William's support. William "was thus able to cloak his schemes under the guide of a crusade and to attack England alike with temporal and spiritual weapons." Feeling thus sure of his ground in the support of the papacy, William issued "a proclamation that, supported by the holy father of Christendom, who had sent to him a consecrated banner, William, duke of Normandy, was about to demand, by force of arms, his rightful inheritance of England; and that all who would serve him with spear, sword, or cross-bow, should be amply rewarded. At this call, gathered together all the adventurers of Western Europe. They came in crowds from Maine and Anjou, from Poitou and Brittany, from Aquitaine and Burgundy, from France and Flanders. They should have land; they should have money; they should wed Saxon heiresses; the humblest foot soldier should be a gentleman. The summer of 1066 was almost past before the preparations were complete. A large fleet had assembled at the beginning of September at the mouth of the Dive."--Knight. 23
ECE	76	1	At this same time there was hanging over England another invasion from Norway. The king of Norway in this same month of September landed with a host in what is now Yorkshire, defeated the local forces, and September 24 received the submission of the territory immediately north of the Humber. Harold, marching to meet the invaders, found them September 25, and routed them at Stamford Bridge, near the city of York. In the afternoon of September 27, William, at the head of his fleet, started across the Channel, and, early in the day, September 28, landed at Pevensey, on the coast of Sussex. Harold, learning of this, brought his army as rapidly as possible again to the south; and, October 14, with his forces of Wessex, East Anglia, and Mercia, "met William and his host on the hill of Senlac," near the city of Hastings, and not a great distance from the place of his landing. "At nine o'clock the Normans moved across the little valley, with the papal banner carried in advance of the Duke." The camp of the English was fortified by a trench and a stockade, and at first the English were successful. They repulsed both the Norman horsemen and footmen, and at one time there was such danger of a panic amongst the Normans that William was obliged to tear off his helmet, so that he could be readily recognized, and by voice rally his troops. "After a fight of six hours, William commanded his men to turn their backs. The English raised a cry of triumph, and, breaking their ranks, rushed from their commanding position into the plain. Then the Norman cavalry wheeled around and a terrible slaughter took place. Harold fell a little before sunset," pierced by an arrow, in his right eye. Under cover of the night the remnant of the English army fled, and William's victory was complete.
ECE	76	2	All of Harold's brothers had fallen with him in the battle; and of the regular royal line there was remaining but one male, a boy named Eadgar, about ten years old, the grandson of Eadmund Ironside. This boy the national council chose to the kingship. But the boy had sufficient sense to keep him from offering resistance to the greatest warrior of the age, and he himself was at the head of the deputation sent by the national assembly to offer the crown to William. The widow of the late king Eadward yielded to William and surrendered Winchester. By the national assembly "he was now chosen king and crowned at Westminster on Christmas day. He was thus king by the submission of the chief men, by the right of coronation, and by the absence of any other claimant." Yet he had practically the whole of the territory of his kingdom still to conquer. This, however, he accomplished with ease, never, after Senlac, being required to fight a single pitched battle.
ECE	77	1	Yet, though so much of the realm was still unconquered, William felt so secure in his kingdom that in the month of March, the next year, 1067, he went back to Normandy to attend to the affairs of his dominions on the Continent. His lieutenants whom he left in charge in England, made themselves so obnoxious that before the end of the year, revolts recalled William to England; and within two years he secured the recognition of his power throughout the whole kingdom. "Early in 1070 William reviewed and dismissed his army at Salisbury. At the Easter feast of the same year, being now full king over all England, he was again solemnly crowned by legates from Rome." In 1072 he "entered Scotland and received the homage of Malcolm at Abernethy. He had thus succeeded to the empire, as well as to the immediate kingdom, of his West Saxon predecessors. In the next year he employed English troops on the Continent in winning back the revolted county of Maine. In 1074 he could afford to admit Eadgar, the rival king of a moment, to his favor." 24
ECE	77	2	As before stated, William laid the basis of his claim to the kingdom of England in his asserted promise of Eadward that William should be his successor. And now that he had actually obtained possession of the kingdom, he held that the kingdom had been his, by full right, ever since the death of Eadward. By this assertion he made it to follow that all that had been done in the kingdom since the death of Eadward, had been illegal; that all who had fought against him were guilty of treason; that all who had sustained Harold, had fought against him; and that as the general assembly of the kingdom had sustained Harold, and had even crowned a new king after the death of Harold, the whole nation was thus involved in the crime of treason. Whoever was guilty of treason, all his lands and goods were forfeit to the crown. And, since the whole kingdom was guilty of treason, all the lands and goods of all the people in the whole realm were forfeit to him, and he actually claimed all as his own. He did not remove the original owners from their land indiscriminately and everywhere. Much of the land he turned over to new owners, some he left in the possession of the original owners. But, whether given to new owners or left in the possession of the original owners, every one was obliged to receive it as the direct gift of the king, and to hold it continually subject to the king's pleasure, and as the king's "man." "The only proof of lawful ownership was either the king's written grant, or else evidence that the owner had been put in possession by the king's order."
ECE	78	1	In order to make this system thorough, William had a survey made of all the lands of the whole realm, and a census of all property and of the owners thereof. All this was recorded in a book--the value of the lands at the time the survey was made, the value of it in the time of Eadward, and the value of it at the date when it was bestowed upon its latest owner by the grant of the king. In the book were recorded the numbers dwelling upon the land, whether as tenants, or dependents; the amount of live stock, etc., etc. And, because the record in this book was the standard of decision upon every question or dispute as to property, and because its testimony was final in every case, that book was called Domesdeie Book--Domesday Book--Doomsday Book, from dom, doom, decree, law, judgment, or decision. This record was finished in 1086; and then "William gathered all the land-owners of his kingdom, great and small, whether his tenants in chief or the tenants of an intermediate lord, and made them all become his men." And thus the Norman king was not only the head of the State, but "also the personal lord of every man in his kingdom." This thoroughness with respect to persons and property caused the king's authority to be respected everywhere throughout the realm; and "the good peace that he made in the land" was such "that a man might fare over his realm with a bosom full of gold."
ECE	78	2	In January, 1087, William went again to Normandy especially for the purpose of setting a dispute concerning some Norman territory which the king of France had seized. In the month of August his forces had taken the town of Mantes; and, as William rode amongst the smoldering ruins, his horse stumbled and fell, by which William received an injury from which he died September 9. He left three sons. The eldest, Robert, was at the court of France; the other two, William and Henry, were with him at the time of his death. To the eldest he left the inheritance of Normandy; to William he gave his ring, and advised him to go at once to England and assume the crown; to Henry, the youngest, he bequeathed five thousand pounds of silver. William arrived safely in England and was crowned at Westminster, Sept. 26, 1087. He is known in history as William Rufus--"the Red." The Norman element of England was so opposed to him that they actually revolted; but it was in vain, for his English subjects stood so loyally by him as to render him successful against all opposition. In 1096 his brother of Normandy, desiring to go on the first crusade, and not having sufficient funds, borrowed the needed sum from William of England, and gave Normandy as the mortgage for the repayment of the money. A part of the duchy rebelled. William went over and put down the rebellion. In 1098-99 he also conquered Maine. Shortly afterward he returned to England, and Aug. 2, 1100, he was found dead in the New Forest, with an arrow in his breast; whether shot by an assassin, or in accident by a hunter, was never discovered.
ECE	79	1	The kingdom was instantly seized by his brother Henry, surnamed Beauclerc. The Norman element of the kingdom opposed him, as they had opposed William Rufus; but the national assembly unanimously elected him, and promptly crowned him. Further, to hold the affections of his English subjects, he married a lady of English blood--Edith, the daughter of the king of Scotland, whose mother was the sister of the last king Eadgar, and granddaughter of King Eadmund Ironside. She changed her name to Maud, or Matilda; "and the shout of the English multitude when he set the crown on Matilda's brow drowned the murmur of churchman and of baron. The mockery of the Norman nobles who nicknamed the king and his spouse Godric and Godgifu, was lost in the joy of the people at large. For the first time since the conquest an English sovereign sat on the English throne. The blood of Cerdic and AElfred was to blend itself with that of Rolf and the Conqueror. Henceforth it was impossible that the two peoples should remain parted from each other: so quick, indeed, was their union that the very name of Norman had passed away in half a century, and at the accession of Henry's grandson it was impossible to distinguish between the descendants of the conquerors and those of the conquered at Senlac."--Green. 25
ECE	80	1	Shortly after this, Robert returned from the Crusades, and the Norman nobles in England conspired to bring him over to contend in England for that kingdom. He did come with an army, landing at Portsmouth; but Henry was able to make with him such terms that without fighting, a peace was settled, by which Robert recognized Henry as king of England, and returned to his proper dominions on the Continent. There, however, he so misgoverned his territories that they called on Henry to come over and be their king. In 1106 he went to Normandy with an army. The dispute culminated in the battle of Tenchebrai, in which Robert was defeated and captured, and was held in captivity until his death in 1134. Thus Normandy was conquered and possessed by the king of England, as, forty years before, England had been conquered and possessed by William of Normandy."During the rest of Henry's reign there was perfect peace in England; but nearly the whole time was filled with continental wars. The warfare between France and England, of which there had been only a glimpse in the days of Rufus, now began in earnest." And, from the entanglements, intrigues, and war in France, which was now begun by Henry, England never found herself free for three hundred and forty-seven years.
ECE	80	2	In 1120, as Henry was returning with his forces from Normandy to England, his only son, William, "full of merriment and wine," and "with rowers and steersman mad with drink," had barely left harbor when his ship struck a rock, and instantly sank. "One terrible cry, ringing through the silence of the night, was heard by the royal fleet, but it was not till the morning that the fatal news reached the king. Stern as he was, Henry fell senseless to the ground, and rose never to smile again."--Green. 26 This left the son of his captive brother Robert as the true heir to Henry's dominions, alike of England and Normandy. But Henry determined not to allow him to be his successor. Henry had a daughter, Maud, or Matilda, who had been married to the emperor Henry V, but who, on his death, had returned to England and her father's house. And although, so far, in English history the reign of a woman had been unknown, yet Henry decided that Maud should succeed him upon the throne of England. Accordingly, while he lived, he "forced priests and nobles to swear allegiance to Maud as their future mistress;" and chose for her husband Geoffry, the son of the count of Anjou in France.
ECE	81	1	In 1135 Henry died. But the arrangement which he had made for the succession of Maud to the throne was disregarded by the national assembly, and Stephen was chosen king of England. Stephen was the grandson of William the Conqueror, and, with the rest of the chief men of England, had done homage, and sworn allegiance, to Maud as the successor of Henry. All this, however, was disregarded, and without opposition Stephen became king of England. One great reason why the agreement with Maud was not carried into effect, was that for her to be queen would cause that Geoffry of Anjou would practically be ruler--and he an utter foreigner: and this neither English nor Normans would have. At the time all this occurred, Maud was not in England, but was with her husband in Anjou; and, when they heard of these proceedings in England, Geoffry seized Normandy. With this added prestige, and with an army, Maud invaded England in 1139. Stephen was defeated and captured, at Lincoln, in 1141, and Maud "was received throughout the land as its lady"--they would not use the word queen. However, she was not crowned. She offended the city of London, which rose in arms against her. In an exchange of prisoners, Stephen had been released. For eleven years there was civil war, "a time of utter anarchy and havoc," a "chaos of pillage and bloodshed." Then, in 1153 an agreement was made between King Stephen and Maud's son Henry, who was now duke of Normandy. By this agreement Stephen was to reign as long as he lived, and then Henry should have the kingdom. Stephen died the next year, and the agreement was fully carried out, as to Henry; and so he came to his kingdom without any opposition or any further confusion.
ECE	81	2	Henry II was now, by right from his grandfather, Henry I, king of England, and duke of Normandy; in France, as the heir of his father, Geoffry, he was lord of the counties of Anjou, Maine, and Touraine, and, through his brother, also of Brittany; and now, by marriage to Eleanor, the duchess of Poitou, Aquitaine, and Gascony, he received, with her, these three counties, the principal portion of southern Gaul. Besides all this, one of the first events of his reign was the granting of a bull by the pope, giving to him Ireland. Thus, in the reign of Henry II, the British empire embraced Ireland, all of England and Wales south of the Forth, and all of western and central France, from the English Channel to the border of Spain. "In ruling over a vast number of distinct states, widely differing in blood, language, and everything else, ruling over all without exclusively belonging to any, Henry II, king, duke; and count of all the lands from the Pyrenees to the Scottish border, was the forerunner of the emperor Charles V." His father, Geoffry, count of Anjou, habitually wore in his helmet a sprig of broom-corn, called in the native tongue planta genista, from which he received the nickname of Plantagenet, which clung to his house. And so Henry--II of England--became the first of the Plantagenets, who ruled England for three hundred and thirty-one years--1154-1485.
ECE	82	1	Henry II died in 1189, and was succeeded by his son Richard, surnamed Coeur de Lion--heart of lion. At his accession, Richard was absent from England, in his mother's possession in southern Gaul, and during his whole reign of ten years he was in England but twice, both times merely for the purpose of being crowned: first, immediately on his accession, in the autumn of 1189; second, in 1194, on his return from the Crusades. In 1190 Richard went on his crusade; and to obtain the money for his expenses he sold everything that he could sell, short of the very kingdom itself. "He put up the crown demesnes; he sold the public offices; he sold earldoms; he sold the claim which [his father] Henry had asserted to the right of homage for the crown of Scotland. 'I would sell London, if I could find a chapman,' he exclaimed. 'Richard's presence chamber was a market overt, in which all that the king could bestow--all that could be derived from the bounty of the crown, or imparted by the royal prerogative--was disposed of to the best chapman.'"--Knight. 27
ECE	82	2	Though on his crusade Richard was four years absent from his dominions, he was in Palestine only about sixteen months--June 8, 1191, to Oct. 9, 1192. While there he had dealt a kick to the duke of Austria for his refusing to work on the walls of Ascalon. And now on his return, as he was trying to make his way in disguise through Austria, he was detected when near Vienna, and was made prisoner by the duke of Austria, Dec. 21, 1192, who sold him to the emperor, who was also ready to sell him, but there was no buyer. In hope of release Richard agreed to pay an annual tribute to the emperor, resigned his crown to the emperor, and received it back as vassal to the "overlord of Christendom." Yet he was kept prisoner till March 8, 1194, when he was released on a ransom of what would be now about a million dollars. He went at once to England, landing March 12: and notwithstanding the heavy drain upon the people to pay his ransom, without any recompense whatever he "forcibly resumed the lands which he had sold, and turned out the officers who had purchased their places," to enable him to make his crusade. His stay in England was brief. He sailed away May 11, 1194, and never saw England again. He was mortally wounded by an arrow while besieging Chaluz, in a war with King Philip II of France, and died twelve days afterward, April 6, 1199. He was immediately succeeded by his brother John.
ECE	83	1	John, surnamed Lackland because his father, with all his vast possessions, left him no land, was crowned king of England on Ascension Day, May 27, 1199. There was a nearer heir in the person of Arthur, the grandson of Henry II, through his third son Geoffry, while John was so far removed as to be the fifth son of Henry. But Arthur, being a boy of only twelve years, while John was a man of thirty-two years, John was chosen as the one better able to discharge the responsibilities of kingship at that time. All the continental possessions of England likewise recognized John, except the three counties of Maine, Touraine, and Anjou. These openly espoused the claims of Arthur. King Philip of France stood with these in supporting Arthur: this, however, to promote his own designs in excluding, if possible, England from any possessions within the limits of what should be France. This brought on a war. John went at once to Normandy to defend his interests on the Continent: Philip invaded Normandy, besides putting garrisons in the three counties of Maine, Touraine, and Anjou.
ECE	83	2	When the war had continued eight months, a truce was arranged, about the first of March, 1200. John spent the months of March and April in England; and the first of May he returned to Normandy. The war was taken up again; but on May 23 a peace was concluded. Philip abandoned the interests of Arthur with respect to Maine, Touraine, and Anjou; but in the peace it was arranged that Arthur should receive Brittany as a fief from John; and that Philip's son Louis should marry John's niece, Blanche of Castile. While passing through his province of Aquitaine, John saw a beautiful woman, already betrothed to a noble, and he secured a divorce from his own wife, and persuaded this lady to marry him. This stirred up to vengeance against John, the noble--Hugh, count of La Marche. He incited an insurrection in John's possessions on the Continent: he was secretly supported by Philip, and in two years and a half, Normandy, Anjou, Maine, and Touraine were lost to England. Arthur had joined in the insurrection, had been captured, and was assassinated at the direction of John, if not by the very hand of John himself.
ECE	84	1	In 1203 the estates of Brittany sent a deputation to Philip to demand justice against John. John, as duke of Normandy, was summoned to appear before a court of his peers in France, and as a vassal of the king of France. John's envoy asked for a safe conduct. Philip answered that he should come unmolested. Then John's envoy wanted to know whether he could be assured of a safe return. Philip replied that he should have safe return "if the judgment of his peers acquitted him." John's envoy then remarked that, since John was king of England as well as duke of Normandy, the duke of Normandy could not come without the king of England's coming, and declared that "the barons of England would not permit their king to run the risk of death or imprisonment." Philip, however, insisted that the duke of Normandy should come, because, as such, he was truly the vassal of the king of France.
ECE	84	2	John did not go; and, for his "contumacy," the court decreed that "whereas, John, duke of Normandy, in violation of his oath to Philip, his lord, has murdered the son of his elder brother, a homager of the crown of France, and near kinsman to the king, and has perpetrated the crime within the seigniory of France, he is found guilty of felony and treason, and is therefore adjudged to forfeit all the lands he has held by homage." This allowed Philip to assert legal claim to all the English possessions in France; and he at once entered Normandy and occupied the strongholds with his troops. But this the Normans did not like, and they appealed to John to come to their rescue. But, against this England protested, because she "thought the time was come when her wealth should no longer be dissipated in Normandy; when her language should be spoken by those who ruled over her; when her laws should be administered by those who abided among her people; and when her Church should be upheld by those who had no foreign bishoprics and abbeys." As a consequence, all the continental possessions of England, except Aquitaine, were now lost, "and from the lordship of a vast empire that stretched from the Tyne to the Pyrenees John saw himself reduced at a blow to the realm of England."
ECE	85	1	Next, in 1207 John fell into a quarrel with Rome. March 24, 1208, England was placed under an interdict, which John resisted for five years, when in 1213 to the interdict, the excommunication of John was added; and England was given by the pope to Philip of France. Philip gathered a fleet and an army with which to go and take possession of England. John surrendered to the pope, and took an oath of fealty as the vassal of Rome. Then the pope forbade Philip any further designs upon England. Philip determined to take England anyhow; but his vassal, the count of Flanders, refused to support him. This caused war; John supported Flanders, and Philip's fleet was destroyed. Next, supported by the pope and the emperor, the count of Flanders and the Earl of Boulogne, John went with an army to punish Philip further. A great battle was fought at Bouvines. John and his allies were completely overthrown, and "concluded an ignominious truce with Philip," and returned to England, October, 1214.
ECE	85	2	The people of England had long borne with the numberless wickednesses of John; but, when he made the realm of England a fief, and the king of England a vassal, of the pope, they could bear with him no longer. John himself wrote to the pope that "whereas, before we were disposed to subject ourselves and our realm to your dominion, the earls and barons of England never failed in their devotion to us; since then, however, and as they publicly avow for that reason, they have been in continual and violent rebellion against us." Because of this attitude of his nobles, when John returned now from France, he came with an army of mercenaries, with the avowed intent that by this power he would be "for the first time king and lord of England."
ECE	86	1	But "there were now two eminent persons among many other bold and earnest churchmen and laity who saw that the time was come when no man should be 'king and lord in England' with a total disregard of the rights of other men; a time when a king should rule in England by law instead of by force, or rule not at all. Stephen Langton, the archbishop, and William, earl of Pembroke, were the leaders and at the same time moderators, in the greatest enterprise that the nation had yet undertaken. It was an enterprise of enormous difficulty. The pope was now in friendship with the king, and this might influence the great body of ecclesiastics. The royal castles were in possession of the mercenary soldiers. The craft of John was as much to be dreaded as his violence. But there was no shrinking from the duty that was before these patriots. They moved on steadily in the formation of a league that would be strong enough to enforce their just demands, even if the issue were war between the crown and the people. The bishops and barons were the great council of the nation. Parliament, including the Commons, was not, as yet, though not far distant. The doctrine of divine right was the invention of an age that sought to overthrow the ancient principle of an elective monarchy, in which hereditary claims had indeed a preference, but in which the sovereign 'is appointed to protect his subjects in their lives, properties, and laws, and for this very end and purpose has the delegation of power from the people.'"--Knight. 28
ECE	86	2	The nobles met at Saint Edmundsbury; and after duly considering the situation, Nov. 20, 1214, they "solemnly swore to withdraw their allegiance from John, if he should resist their claims to just government. They had not only public wrongs to redress, but the private outrages of the king's licentiousness were not to be endured by the class of high-born knights whom he insulted through their wives and daughters. From Saint Edmundsbury they marched to London, where the king had shut himself up in the temple. When their deputies came into his presence, he first despised their claims and then asked for delay. The archbishop of Canterbury, the earl of Pembroke, and the bishop of Ely guaranteed that a satisfactory answer should be given before Easter. The king employed the time in the endeavor to propitiate the church by promising a free election of bishops. He took the cross, and engaged to wage war with the infidels. He sent to Rome, to implore the aid of the pope in his quarrel. And the pope came to his aid; and commanded Langton to exercise his authority to bring back the king's vassals to their allegiance.
ECE	87	1	"At Easter, the barons, with a large force, assembled at Stamford. John was at Oxford, and Langton and Pembroke were with him. They were sent by the king to ascertain the demands of their peers; and these messengers, or mediators, brought back" Magna Charta. This "was a code of laws, expressed in simple language, embodying two principles--the first, such limitations of the feudal claims of the king as would prevent their abuse; the second, such specifications of the general rights of all freemen as were derived from the ancient laws of the realm, however these rights had been neglected or perverted.... It demanded no limitation of the regal power which had not been acknowledged, in theory, by every king who had taken a coronation oath. It made that oath, which had been regarded as a mere form of words, a binding reality. It defined, in broad terms of practical application, the essential difference between a limited and a despotic monarchy. It preserved all the proper attributes of the kingly power, while it guarded against the king being a tyrant." In it the king was required to declare the great principle of the supremacy of the law of the realm in the words: "No freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or disseized, or outlawed, or banished, or any otherwise destroyed; nor will we pass upon him, nor send upon him, unless by the legal judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land. To no man will we sell, to no man will we deny or delay, right or justice."--Knight. 29
ECE	87	2	The Charter was a long document. The archbishop read it to the king slowly and solemnly, item by item. "John went into a furious passion," exclaiming, "Why do they not ask for my kingdom? I will never grant such liberties as will make me a slave." Langton and Pembroke took back to the nobles this the king's answer. The barons proclaimed themselves "the army of God and holy Church," and marched upon London, which they entered May 22, 1215, the citizens of London having already agreed to make common cause with them. There were further negotiations: the barons were immovable, and John yielded and agreed to a meeting. The meeting was appointed to be held June 15 "on an island in the Thames, between Windsor and Staines, near a marshy meadow by the riverside, the meadow of Runnymede"--Runemed, the mead or meadow of council. "The king encamped on one bank of the river, the barons covered the flat of Runnymede on the other. Their delegates met on the island between them, but the negotiations were a mere cloak to cover John's purpose of unconditional submission. The Great Charter was discussed and agreed to in a single day."--Green. 30
ECE	88	1	However, this was not all. The barons had not yet finished with John. They next required that he should agree to articles by which there should be assured the means of carrying into effect the provisions of the charter. "Twenty-five barons were to be chosen by the barons assembled, to maintain the observance of the peace and liberties granted and confirmed; so that if the king or his officers violated any of the conditions, four out of the twenty-five barons so chosen might petition for redress of the grievance; and if not redressed within forty days, the cause being laid before the rest of the twenty-five, they, 'together with the community of the whole kingdom shall distrain and distress us all the ways possible; namely, by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, and in any other manner they can, till the grievance is redressed according to their pleasure, saving harmless our own person, and those of our queen and children; and when it is redressed, they shall obey us as before.'" It was further required "that the Charter should not only be published throughout the whole country, but sworn to at every hundred-mote and town-mote by order from the king."
ECE	88	2	When these new demands were made, John was more angry than ever. He cried out: "They have given me four-and-twenty overkings:" and flung himself on the floor "gnawing sticks and straw in his impotent rage." But it was all in vain; the nobles were inflexible, and John was obliged to sign all that they required. No sooner was it all over, however, and the respective parties had separated and the forces dispersed, than John let himself loose to take vengeance on the whole kingdom, in all of which he was still zealously supported by the pope, who issued a bull excommunicating the barons and annulling the Charter. England rejected the excommunication and maintained the Charter. But, by the bull, John counted himself free from his oaths to the nobles, with full right to punish the whole people. "Wherever he marches, his force is to be tracked by fire and blood. The country was overrun by his fierce mercenaries. He marched to the north with the determination to recover his authority by the terrors of a widespread desolation, without one passing thought of justice or mercy. As he entered Scotland, in revenge for the alliance which its king, Alexander II, had formed with the barons, he burned the abbeys without distinction, and having rested at a village, set fire with his own hand, when he departed in the morning, to the house in which he had slept the previous night. In the South the same work of terror went forward, under the command of John's illegitimate brother, the earl of Salisbury. The barons despaired of their cause, for the people fled before these hell-hounds, abandoning home and property rather than perish under the hands of relentless torturers. Their leaders came at last to a desperate resolution. They offered the crown to Louis, the eldest son of the king of France."--Knight. 31
ECE	89	1	This desperate step, of course, was fraught with more war; yet it was certain that no war could be worse than were the miseries which John was inflicting upon the kingdom without war. Louis of France landed in England, May 30, 1216. Many of John's mercenaries were Frenchmen, and when their own prince came into England, they not only refused to fight against him, but actually went over to him in such numbers that John dared not meet him. Louis soon reached London, where he was welcomed: the barons and citizens paid him homage, "he swearing to govern justly, to defend them against their enemies, and to restore them to their rights and possessions." Everything was in his favor; but he destroyed all his good prospects by bestowing upon Frenchmen, English honors and possessions. But the whole situation was presently relieved by the death of John. He was attacked with a fever, in addition to which he gorged himself with a "surfeit of peaches and new cider," and as a consequence died Oct. 18, 1216.
ECE	90	1	Though the nobles had invited Louis of France to be king of England, he had so offended that they now rejected him, and chose, to be king, John's son Henry, a boy of ten years, who was crowned King Henry III, at Gloucester, Oct. 28, 1216. Louis, however, defended his claims to the crown. There was war for two years, in which he was defeated, on both land and sea. He then willingly agreed to resign his claims and withdraw to France, upon the payment to him of "five thousand pounds to meet his necessities." While Henry III was so young, the kingdom was governed by a regency till 1227, when he declared himself of age, and began immediately to imitate his father John. He rejected the Charter and its appendices, which John had signed, and, instead of all that, declared: "Whensoever, and wheresoever, and as often as it may be our pleasure, we may declare, interpret, enlarge, or diminish, the aforesaid statutes, and their several parts, by our own free will, and as to us shall seem expedient for the security of us and our land." But he, as John, was firmly met by the kingdom's insistence upon the right of the people and the supremacy of the law.
ECE	90	2	In answer to Henry's pronunciamento, an English judge, Bracton, set the voice of English law, in words worthy of everlasting remembrance: "The king must not be subject to any man, but to God and the law, for the law makes him king. Let the king, therefore, give to the law what the law gives to him, dominion and power for there is no king where will, and not law, bears rule." Again: "The king can do nothing on earth, being the minister of God, but what he can do by law." And yet again, he "reckons as superior to the king, 'not only God and the law by which he is made king, but his court of earls and barons; for the former (comites) are so styled as associates of the king, and whoever has an associate has a master: so that, if the king were without a bridle--that is, the law--they ought to put a bridle upon him.'" 32 Upon this it has been well observed: "Let no Englishman, who lives under the rule of law, and not of will, forget that this privilege has been derived from a long line of forefathers; and that, although the eternal principles of justice depend not upon the precedence of ages, but may be asserted some day by any community with whom a continued despotism has made them 'native, and to the manner born,' we have the security that the old tree of liberty stands in the old earth, and that a short-lived trunk has not been thrust into a new soil, to bear a green leaf or two and then to die."--Knight. 33
ECE	91	1	Henry III reigned fifty-three years, and the whole reign is remarkable for the constitutional contest between the king and the people, upon the great question as to whether just government is by law, or by arbitrary and despotic will. His reign is also remarkable for the fact that "history presents him in scarcely any other light than that of an extortioner or a beggar. There were no contrivances for obtaining money so mean or unjust that he disdained to practice them;" and the pope sustained him in it all, and "had more than an equal share of the spoil." Thus, both he and the pope incurred not only the antagonism of the nobles, but the disrespect of the common people everywhere. Says a writer of the time, in 1252: "During all this time angry feelings were aroused, and hatred increased against the pope and the king, who favored and abetted each other in their mutual tyranny; and all, being in ill-humor, called them the disturbers of mankind." Matters reached such a pass in 1257 that the nobles took another step in constitutional government. The Parliament met at Westminster, May 2, the barons clad "each in complete armor. As the king entered, there was a clatter of swords; and Henry, looking around in alarm, said, 'Am I a prisoner?' 'No, sir,' said Roger Bigod, 'but your foreign favorites and your prodigality have brought misery upon the realm; wherefore we demand that the powers of government be delegated to a committee of bishops and barons, who may correct abuses, and enact good laws."
ECE	91	2	To this demand the king was obliged to submit; and, on June 11, Parliament met at Oxford, to formulate what had been demanded. "It was enacted that four knights should be chosen by the votes of the freeholders in each county, who should submit all breaches of law and justice to a parliament, to be called together regularly thrice in each year; that the sheriffs of the counties should be chosen by the freeholders; and that the great officers of State should be reappointed." This was but carrying into effect the provisions of Magna Charta, and its securities, which John had signed at Runnymede. And Henry, like John, after having sworn to it all, obtained a dispensation from the pope to violate it, and "told the committee of council, in 1261, that he should rule without them." However, in 1262, after making a blustering show of war, he yielded, and again agreed to observe the law. In 1264, however, he broke loose again, and the difference this time did bring on a war. Henry was defeated; a parliament was assembled "on a more democratic basis than any which had been ever summoned since the foundation of the monarchy," to whose laws Henry was again required to submit.
ECE	92	1	Henry III died Nov. 16, 1272, and was succeeded by his son Edward, who, at the time, was absent in the Crusades. And it was not till 1274 that he arrived in England, August 3; and on August 19 he and his queen were crowned at Westminster. In 1282 Wales revolted, and Edward was obliged to make war there for two years before it was subdued. There, April 25, 1284, his first son was born, who was named Edward, and was given the title Prince of Wales, which is the origin of the title in the royal family of England. Edward I also resisted constitutional government, especially in the matter of raising taxes. But under the leadership of the two great earls, Roger Bigod of Norfolk and Humphrey Bohun of Hereford and Essex, the nobles of the kingdom "called upon the sheriffs to levy no more taxes till the charters were confirmed without any insidious reservation of the rights of the crown." Edward yielded and the statute of the confirmation of the charter was accepted by the king. "From that day, the tenth of October, 1297, the sole right of raising supplies has been invested in the people--this most salutary power, which is the greatest of the many distinctions between a limited and a despotic monarchy."
ECE	92	2	Next Edward set up a claim to be "sovereign lord of the land of Scotland." This brought on a war in 1296, which continued for twenty-three years--far beyond his death which occurred July 7, 1307. He was immediately succeeded by his son Edward, who was twenty-three years old. Edward II carried on the war with Scotland until 1323, when on May 10 a truce of thirteen years was concluded. In the first year of his reign Edward had married Isabella, the daughter of the king of France. In 1323 Isabella entered into an intrigue with Lord Roger Mortimer, which ended only in their murdering of the king. The murder, however, was preceded by his imprisonment. the declaring of his son Edward king at the age of fifteen, Jan. 7, 1327; the deposition of Edward II, January 13; the proclamation of the accession of Edward III, January 24; and his crowning, January 29.
ECE	93	1	Only four years of the truce between England and Scotland had passed when the king of Scotland--Robert Bruce--broke the truce, and invaded England. But, in 1328 a peace was concluded, in which England recognized the independence of Scotland under Bruce, and the peace was sealed by the marriage of the sister of Edward to the son of Bruce. In 1328 had died Charles IV, king of France, leaving no direct heir. The throne was taken by a cousin--Philip of Artois. Edward's mother was the sister of Charles; and therefore as Charles's nephew and nearer of kin than was Philip, Edward of England claimed the throne of France. The French law was that a woman could not inherit the throne; but Edward asserted the claim that though women were excluded, the law did not exclude the son of a woman who, if she had been a man, would have inherited. When Charles IV had died, Edward had presented his claim.
ECE	93	2	In 1332 Robert Bruce died, and John Balliol, who had done homage to Edward II for the kingdom, now attempted to take it from Bruce's young heir. Edward III favored Balliol, and the king of France aided young David, the son of Bruce. And this aiding of Scotland by the rival king of France against the king of England and his ally was by Edward III made the ground "for commencing a great war for the purpose of asserting his pretensions to the crown of France." The king of France was just then at war with the people of Flanders. Edward III helped the Flemings, and they proclaimed him king of France. In 1337 "Edward boldly assumed the title of king of France, and prepared to enforce his claim at the sword's point." And thus began the Hundred Years' War between England and France, which continued about a hundred and twenty years, through the rest of the reign of Edward III, to 1337; through the reign of Richard II, to 1399; that of Henry IV, to 1413; that of Henry V, to 1422; and into the reign of Henry VI, till 1458.
ECE	94	3	The Hundred Years' War was barely ended when a civil war--the Wars of the Roses--began between the house of York and the house of Lancaster, which continued for thirty-five years, through the reigns of Edward IV, Edward V, Richard III, till the death of Richard III, the last of the Plantagenets, and the crowning of Henry VII, the first of the Tudors, on Bosworth Field, Aug. 22, 1485. Though the Wars of the Roses were thus ended, peace did not come to the kingdom; for there were insurrections and pretenders to the throne which kept the kingdom in a constant turmoil for fifteen years. In the last eight years of the reign of Henry VII, 1501 to April 21, 1509, there was "neither revolts nor wars" in the kingdom. Henry VII had two sons, Arthur, born 1486, and Henry in 1491. When Arthur was four years old, a marriage was arranged for him with a girl of five years, Catherine of Aragon, the daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain. In the year 1499, when the children were aged twelve and thirteen, respectively, the marriage ceremony was performed; first by proxy while Catherine was in Spain, and again in their own proper persons, Nov. 6, 1501, when Catherine arrived in England.
ECE	94	1	In January, 1502, a treaty of perpetual peace was made between England and Scotland. This treaty was sealed by the marriage of Margaret, the daughter of Henry VII, of England, to James IV, the king of Scotland. In April of the same year occurred the death of Arthur, the husband of Catherine, and heir apparent to the throne. The two kings, however, Henry and Ferdinand, immediately arranged that Henry's remaining son--Henry--should be married to Arthur's young widow, Catherine. It took a year satisfactorily to settle the terms and to get a dispensation from the pope making the marriage legal; so that it was not till 1503 that the contract was actually completed by a ceremonial, "in which a person was appointed to object that the marriage was unlawful, and another to defend it as 'good and effectual in the law of Christ's Church.'" To this contract young Henry was opposed; and, before he reached the age of fifteen, "he protested, in legal form, against the contract which had been made during his nonage." Henry VII died April 21, 1509, and the next day began the reign of his young son Henry, eighth of the name. June 7, following, Henry and Catherine were publicly married by the archbishop of Canterbury, and were crowned at Westminster the 24th of the same month.
------------------------Chapter 8 - Pagan Philosophy the Strength of the Papacy
ECE	95	1	As, out of the political difficulties of the days of Constantine and the failing empire of Rome, the Catholic Church--the apostasy--rose to power in the State, in the formation of the papacy; so, out of the ruin of the Roman Empire, she, in her Ecclesiastical Empire, rose to supremacy over kings and nations. She had speedily wrought the ruin of one empire; and now for more than a thousand years she would prove a living curse to all the other states and empires that should succeed it. However, in order to a clear understanding and appreciation of the standing of the papacy at the moment when the Roman Empire vanished, and she found herself alone in the midst of that vast scene of destruction and anarchy, it is essential to know the source of her strength, by which she was able to survive. And, in order to know this, it is essential that we sketch a certain portion of her preceding history.
ECE	95	2	In that dismal mixture of downright heathenism, and the profession and forms of Christianity in the philosophical schools of Ammonius Saccas, Clement, and Origen, in Alexandria, there was given birth to the element which, above all other things, has ever been the mainstay of the papacy--monkery, or monasticism: from the Greek word "movachos" signifying "living alone, solitary; a man who retired from the world for religious meditation and the practice of religious duties in solitude; a religious hermit."
ECE	95	3	It will be remembered 1 that in the philosophy of Ammonius, Clement, and Origen, all Scripture contains at least two meanings,--the literal and the hidden: that the literal is the baser sense of the Scripture, and is therefore a hindrance to the proper understanding of the hidden meaning with its train of further hidden meanings, and, accordingly, was to be despised and separated as far as possible from the hidden sense, and counted as of the least possible worth: that "the source of many evils lies in adhering to the carnal or external part of Scripture;" that "those who do so will not attain to the kingdom of God;" and that, therefore, "the Scriptures are of little use to those who understand them as they are written."
ECE	96	1	Now, the basis of that whole scheme was their conception of man himself. It was because that, in their philosophy, the body is the baser part of man, that the literal was counted the baser sense of Scripture. It was because that the body often betrays good men into sin, that, in their philosophy, the literal sense of Scripture was held to often lead men into error. In their system of philosophy, the body of man was but a clog to the soul, and hindered it in its heavenly aspirations; and therefore was to be despised, and, by neglect, punishment, and starvation, was to be separated as far as possible from the soul. And from this it followed that the literal sense of Scripture--which corresponded to man's body,--was, likewise, a hindrance to the proper understanding of the hidden meanings of the Scripture, and was, therefore, to be despised, neglected, and separated as far as possible from the hidden sense or soul of the Scripture.
ECE	96	2	Whence, then, came to them this philosophy of the nature of man? It was the adoption entire of the heathen conception of the nature of man: it was the direct continuation, under the Christian profession, of the heathen philosophy of the immortality of the soul. For, about the close of the second century, "a new philosophic body suddenly started up, which in a short time prevailed over a large part of the Roman Empire, and not only nearly swallowed up the other sects, but likewise did immense injury to Christianity. Egypt was its birthplace, and particularly Alexandria, which for a long time had been the seat of literature and every science. Its followers chose to be called Platonics [or Platonists]. Yet they did not follow Plato implicitly, but collected from all systems whatever seemed to coincide with their own views. And the ground of this preference for the name of Platonics [or Platonists] was, that they conceived Plato to have understood more correctly than any one besides, that most important branch of philosophy, which treats of God, and things remote from sensible apprehension.... Notwithstanding these philosophers were the partisans of no sect, yet it appears from a variety of testimonies that they much preferred Plato, and embraced the most of his dogmas concerning God, the human soul, and the universe." This, because they regarded "Plato as wiser than all the rest, and as especially remarkable for treating the deity, the soul, and things remote from sense, so as to suit the Christian scheme."--Mosheim. 2
ECE	97	1	This new philosophy "permitted the common people to live according to the laws of their country, and the dictates of nature; but directed the wise, by means of contemplation, to raise their souls, which sprang from God himself, above all earthly things, at the same time weakening and emaciating the body, which is hostile to the spirit's liberty, by means of hunger, thirst, labor, and other austerities. Thus they might, even in the present life, attain to communion with the Supreme Being, and ascend, after death, active and unimcumbered, to the universal Parent, and be forever united with him ....
ECE	97	2	"This new species of philosophy, imprudently adopted by Origen and other Christians, did immense harm to Christianity. For it led the teachers of it to involve in philosophic obscurity many parts of our religion, which were in themselves plain and easy to be understood; and to add to the precepts of the Saviour no few things, of which not a word can be found in the Holy Scriptures. It also produced for us that gloomy set of men called mystics, whose system, if divested of its Platonic notions respecting the origin and nature of the soul, will be a lifeless and senseless corpse. It laid a foundation, too, for that indolent mode of life which was afterward adopted by many, and particularly by numerous tribes of monks; and it recommended to Christians various foolish and useless rites, suited only to nourish superstition, no small part of which we see religiously observed by many even to the present day. And finally it alienated the minds of many, in the following centuries, from Christianity itself, and produced a heterogeneous species of religion, consisting of Christian and Platonic principles combined."--Mosheim. 3
ECE	97	3	"Plato had taught that the souls of heroes, of illustrious men, and eminent philosophers, alone, ascended after death into the mansions of light and felicity, while those of the generality, weighed down by their lusts and passions, sunk into the infernal regions, whence they were not permitted to emerge before they were purified from their turpitude and corruption. This doctrine was seized with avidity by the Platonic Christians, and applied as a commentary upon that of Jesus. Hence a notion prevailed that only the martyrs entered upon a state of happiness immediately after death; and that, for the rest, a certain obscure region was assigned, in which they were to be imprisoned until the second coming of Christ, or, at least, until they were purified from their various pollutions. 4 ...
ECE	98	1	"Jesus Christ prescribed to all His disciples one and the same rule of life and manners. But certain Christian doctors, either through a desire of imitating the nations among whom they lived, or in consequence of a natural propensity to a life of austerity (which is a disease not uncommon in Syria, Egypt, and other Eastern provinces), were induced to maintain that Christ had established a double rule of sanctity and virtue, for two different orders of Christians. Of these rules, one was ordinary, the other extraordinary; one of a lower dignity, the other more sublime; one for persons in the active scenes of life, the other for those who, in a sacred retreat, aspired to the glory of a celestial state. In consequence of this wild system, they divided into two parts all those moral doctrines and instructions which they had received, either by writing or tradition. One of these divisions they called precepts, and the other counsels. They gave the name of precepts to those laws which were obligatory upon all orders of men; and that of counsels to such as related to Christians of a more sublime rank, who proposed to themselves great and glorious ends, and aspired to an intimate communion with the Supreme Being.
ECE	98	2	"This double doctrine suddenly produced a new set of men, who made profession of uncommon degrees of sanctity and virtue, and declared their resolution of obeying all the counsels of Christ, that they might enjoy communion with God here; and also, that, after the dissolution of their mortal bodies, they might ascend to Him with greater facility, and find nothing to retard their approach to the supreme center of happiness and perfection. They looked upon themselves as prohibited from the use of things which it was lawful for other Christians to enjoy, such as wine, flesh, matrimony, and trade [or worldly business]. They thought it their indispensable duty to extenuate the body by watchings, abstinence, labor, and hunger. They looked for felicity in solitary retreats, in desert places, where, by severe and assiduous efforts of sublime meditation, they raised the soul above all external objects and all sensual pleasures. Both men and women imposed upon themselves the most severe tasks, the most austere discipline, all of which, however, the fruit of pious intention, was, in the issue, extremely detrimental to Christianity. These persons were called ascetics, "epovdioi", "echlektoi" philosophers and even she-philosophers; not were they only distinguished by their title from other Christians, but also by their garb."--Mosheim. 5
ECE	99	1	"Egypt, the fruitful parent of superstition, afforded the first example of the monastic life."--Gibbon. 6 "From Egypt, this sour and unsocial discipline passed into Syria, and the neighboring countries, which also abounded with persons of the same dismal constitution with that of the Egyptians; and thence, in process of time its infection reached the European nations. Hence arose that train of austere and superstitious vows and rites, that still, in many places, throw a veil over the beauty and simplicity of the Christian religion. Hence the celibacy of the priestly order, the rigor of unprofitable penances and mortifications, the innumerable swarms of monks, who, in the senseless pursuit of a visionary sort of perfection, refused their talents and labors to society. Hence also that distinction between the theoretical and mystical life, and many other fancies of a like nature. 7
ECE	99	2	Soon there arose certain orders amongst the monks themselves: Coenobites, Eremites or Hermits, Anchorites, and Sarabaites or Vagrants. The Coenobites "lived and ate together in the same house, and were associated under a leader and head, whom they called Father, or in the Egyptian tongue, Abbot." "The nuns [or female monks] also had their presidents, who were called Mothers." "The Eremites led a cheerless, solitary life in certain parts of the country, dwelling in hovels among the wild beasts." The Anchorites were "still more austere than the Eremites: these lived in desert places, with no kind of shelter; fed on roots and plants, and had no fixed residence, but lodged wherever night overtook them, so that visitors might not know where to find them." The Sarabaites, or Vagrants, "roamed about the provinces, and from city to city, and got their living without labor, by pretended miracles, by trafficking in relics, and by other impositions."--Mosheim. 8
ECE	100	1	The Eremites "sunk under the painful weight of crosses and chains; and their emaciated limbs were confined by collars, bracelets, gauntlets, and greaves of massy and rigid iron. All superfluous incumbrance of dress they contemptuously cast away; and some savage saints of both sexes have been admired, whose naked bodies were covered only by their long hair. They aspired to reduce themselves to the rude and miserable state in which the human brute is scarcely distinguished above his kindred animals: and a numerous sect of Anchorets derived their name ["Boskoi", or Grazing-monks] from their humble practice of grazing in the fields of Mesopotamia with the common herd. They often usurped the den of some wild beast whom they affected to resemble; they buried themselves in some gloomy cavern, which art or nature had scooped out of the rock; and the marble quarries of Thebais are still inscribed with the monuments of their penance. The most perfect hermits are supposed to have passed many days without food, many nights without sleep, and many years without speaking; and glorious was the man (I abuse the name) who contrived any cell, or seat, of a peculiar construction, which might expose him, in the most inconvenient posture, to the inclemency of the seasons."
ECE	100	2	"In this comfortless state, superstition still pursued and tormented her wretched votaries. The repose which they had sought in the cloister was disturbed by a tardy repentance, profane doubts, and guilty desires; and, while they considered each natural impulse an unpardonable sin, they perpetually trembled on the edge of a flaming and bottomless abyss. From the painful struggles of disease and despair, these unhappy victims were sometimes relieved by madness or death, and, in the sixth century, a hospital was founded at Jerusalem for a small portion of the austere penitents, who were deprived of their senses. Their visions before they attained this extreme and acknowledged term of frenzy, have afforded ample materials of supernatural history. It was their firm persuasion that the air which they breathed was peopled with invisible enemies; with innumerable demons, who watched every occasion, and assumed every form, to terrify, and above all, to tempt, their unguarded virtue. The imagination, and even the senses, were deceived by the illusions of distempered fanaticism; and the hermit whose midnight prayer was oppressed by involuntary slumber might easily confound the phantoms of horror or delight which had occupied his sleeping and his waking dreams."
ECE	101	1	"The actions of a monk, his words, and even his thoughts were determined by an inflexible rule, or a capricious superior: the slightest offenses were corrected by disgrace or confinement, extraordinary fasts or bloody flagellations; and disobedience, murmur, or delay was ranked in the catalogue of the most heinous sins. A blind submission to the commands of the abbot, however absurd, or even criminal, they might seem, was the ruling principle, the first virtue of the Egyptian monks; and their patience was frequently exercised by the most extravagant trials. They were directed to remove an enormous rock; assiduously to water a barren staff that was planted in the ground, till, at the end of three years, it should vegetate and blossom like a tree; to walk into a fiery furnace; or to cast their infant into a deep pond: and several saints, or madmen, have been immortalized in monastic story, by their thoughtless and fearless obedience. The freedom of the mind, the source of every generous and rational sentiment, was destroyed by the habits of credulity and submission; and the monk, contracting the vices of a slave, devoutly followed the faith and passions of his ecclesiastical tyrant. The peace of the Eastern Church was invaded by a swarm of fanatics, insensible of fear, of reason, or humanity; and the Imperial troops acknowledged without shame that they were much less apprehensive of an encounter with the fiercest barbarians."--Gibbon. 9
ECE	101	2	As we have seen, to be a monk, was, in itself, to be holier than any could be who were not monks. But there arose degrees of holiness even amongst the monks themselves: and the chief of these were the Mystics. These were a sect composed of extremes of the Eremites and Anchorites. They "argued from that known doctrine of the Platonic school, which also was adopted by Origen and his disciples, that the divine nature was diffused through all human souls; or, in other words, that the faculty of reason, from which the health and vigor of the mind proceed, was an emanation from God himself, and comprehended in it the principles and elements of all truth, human and divine. They denied that men could, by labor or study, excite this celestial flame in their breasts; and, therefore, they highly disapproved the attempts of those who, by definitions, abstract theorems, and profound speculations, endeavored to form distinct notions of truth, and to discover its hidden nature. On the contrary, they maintained that silence, tranquillity, repose, and solitude accompanied with such acts of mortification as might tend to extenuate and exhaust the body, were the means by which the internal word [?????, or reason] was excited to produce its latent virtues, and to instruct men in the knowledge of divine things.
ECE	102	1	"For thus they reasoned: 'They who behold with a noble contempt all human affairs, they who turn away their eyes from terrestial vanities, and shut all the avenues of the outward senses against the contagious influences of a material world, must necessarily return to God, when the spirit is thus disengaged from the impediments that prevented that happy union; and in this blessed frame, they not only enjoy inexpressible raptures from their communion with the Supreme Being, but are also invested with the inestimable privilege of contemplating truth, undisguised and uncorrupted, in its native purity, while others behold it in a vitiated and delusive form." "An incredible number of proselytes joined those chimerical sectaries, who maintained that communion with God was to be sought by mortifying the senses, by withdrawing the mind from all external objects, by macerating the body with hunger and labor, and by a holy sort of indolence, which confined all the activity of the soul to a lazy contemplation of things spiritual and eternal. The progress of this sect appears evidently from the prodigious number of solitary monks and sequestered virgins, which had overrun the whole Christian world with an amazing rapidity." 10
ECE	102	2	No one would readily think to what an extent these persons really did go in their endeavors to make manifest their contempt of the body, and to separate it from the soul. It was not alone that they separated themselves from all people except their own kind, and starved the body by fastings and insufficient quantities of food, but it was manifested in every possible way what a wild and fanciful imagination could invent. "Every sensation that is offensive to man, was thought acceptable to God." Neither the body nor the clothes were ever washed--not even feet or hands, except by an indulgence; so that filthiness actually became the measure of the degree of holiness.
ECE	103	1	Antony, if not the first, was the chief, the great exemplar, and the master of the monks in Egypt. In A. D. 305 he began the work of organizing such of them as would admit of it, into a regular body. He "engaged them to live in society with each other, and prescribed rules for the direction of their conduct." In 341, Athanasius, archbishop of Alexandria, the great champion of Catholic orthodoxy, "introduced into Rome the knowledge and practice of the monastic life; and a school of this new philosophy was opened by the disciples of Antony, who accompanied their primate to the holy threshold of the Vatican. The strange and savage appearance of these Egyptians excited, at first, horror and contempt, and, at length, applause and zealous imitation. The senators, and more especially the matrons, transformed their palaces and villas into religious houses, and the narrow institution of six Vestals was eclipsed by the frequent monasteries, which were seated on the ruins of ancient temples and in the midst of the Roman forum.
ECE	103	2	"Inflamed by the example of Antony, a Syrian youth, whose name was Hilarion, fixed his dreary abode on a sandy beach, between the sea and a morass, about seven miles from Gaza. The austere penance in which he persisted forty-eight years, diffused a similar enthusiasm; and the holy man was followed by a train of two or three thousand anchorets, whenever he visited the innumerable monasteries of Palestine. The fame of Basil is immortal in the monastic history of the East. With a mind that had tasted the learning and eloquence of Athens, with an ambition scarcely to be satisfied by the archbishopric of Caesarea, Basil retired to a savage solitude in Pontus, and deigned for a while to give laws to the spiritual colonies which he profusely scattered along the coast of the Black Sea. In the West, Martin of Tours, a soldier, a hermit, a bishop, and a saint, established the monasteries of Gaul; two thousand of his disciples followed him to the grave; and his eloquent historian challenges the deserts of Thebais to produce, in a more favorable climate, a champion of equal virtue.
ECE	104	1	"Every province, and at last every city, of the empire, was filled with their increasing multitudes; and the bleak and barren isles from Lerins to Lipari, that arise out of the Tuscan Sea, were chosen by the anchorets for the place of their voluntary exile .... The pilgrims who visited Jerusalem eagerly copied, in the most distant parts of the earth, the faithful model of the monastic life. The disciples of Antony spread themselves beyond the tropic, over the Christian empire of Ethiopia. The monastery of Banchor, in Flintshire, which contained above two thousand brethren dispersed a numerous colony among the barbarians of Ireland; and Iona, one of the Hebrides, which was planted by the Irish monks, diffused over the northern regions a doubtful ray of science and superstition."--Gibbon. 11 Thus Christendom was "filled with a lazy set of mortals, who, abandoning all human connections, advantages, pleasures, and concerns, wore out a languishing and miserable life, amidst the hardships of want and various kinds of suffering, in order to arrive at a more close and rapturous communion with God and angels."--Mosheim. 12
ECE	104	2	"It is incredible what rigorous and severe laws they imposed on themselves, in order to appease God, and deliver the celestial spirit from the body's bondage. To live among wild beasts--nay, in the manner of these beasts; to roam about like madmen, in desert places, and without garments; to feed their emaciated bodies with hay and grass; to shun the converse and even the sight of men; to stand motionless in certain places, for many years, exposed to the weather; to shut themselves up in confined cabins, till life ended;--this was accounted piety: this the true method of eliciting the [spark of] Deity from the secret recesses of the soul!
ECE	104	3	"Among these examples of religious fatuity none acquired greater veneration and applause than those who were called Pillar-Saints (Sancti Columnares), or in Greek, Stylites: persons of a singular spirit and genius, who stood motionless on the top of lofty columns during many years, even to the end, in fact, of life, to the great astonishment of the ignorant multitude. This scheme originated in the present [the fifth] century [395-451] with Simeon of Sysan, a Syrian; at first a shepherd, then a monk; who, in order to be nearer heaven, spent thirty-seven years in the most uncomfortable manner, on the tops of five different pillars, of six, twelve, twenty-two, thirty-six, and forty cubits' elevation; and in this way procured for himself immense fame and veneration. His example was afterward followed, though not equaled, by many persons in Syria and Palestine, either from ignorance of true religion, or from love of fame."
ECE	105	1	The top of Simeon's last pillar "was three feet in diameter, and surrounded with a balustrade. Here he stood, day and night, and in all weathers. Through the night, and till nine A. M. he was constantly in prayer, often spreading forth his hands, and bowing so low that his forehead touched his toes. A bystander once attempted to count the number of these successive prostrations," and, "after numbering twelve hundred and forty-four repetitions, at length desisted from the endless account." "At nine o'clock A. M., he began to address the admiring crowd below, to hear and answer their questions, to send messages and write letters, etc.; for he took concern in the welfare of all the churches, and corresponded with bishops, and even with emperors." "Successive crowds of pilgrims from Gaul and India saluted the divine pillar of Simeon: the tribes of Saracens disputed in arms the honor of his benediction; the queens of Arabia and Persia gratefully confessed his supernatural virtue; and the angelic hermit was consulted by the younger Theodosius, in the most important concerns of the Church and State." "Toward evening he suspended his intercourse with this world, and betook himself again to converse with God till the following day. He generally ate but once a week; never slept; wore a long sheepskin robe, and cap of the same. His beard was very long, and his frame extremely emaciated.
ECE	105	2	"In this manner he is reported to have spent thirty-seven years; and at last, in his sixty-ninth year, to have expired unobserved, in a praying attitude, in which no one ventured to disturb him till after three days, when Antony, his disciple and biographer, mounting the pillar, found that his spirit was departed, and his holy body was emitting a delightful odor." "His remains were transported from the mountain of Telenissa, by a solemn procession of the patriarch, the master-general of the East, six bishops, twenty-one counts or tribunes, and six thousand soldiers; and Antioch revered his bones, as her glorious ornament and impregnable defense." "His pillar also was so venerated that it was literally inclosed with chapels and monasteries for some ages. Simeon was so averse from women, that he never allowed one to come within the sacred precincts of his pillar. Even his own mother was debarred this privilege, till after her death, when her corpse was brought to him. Pagan India still supplies gloomy fanatics resembling Simeon, and admirers like his contemporaries; a plain proof that his austerities were a graft from gentilism, the great religious evil of his day, and still at work upon the Christian Church." 13
ECE	106	1	"The Christian Church would never have been disgraced by this cruel and unsocial enthusiasm, nor would any have been subjected to those keen torments of mind and body to which it gave rise, had not many Christians been unwarily caught by the specious appearance and the pompous sound of that maxim of ancient philosophy, 'That in order to the attainment of true felicity and communion with God, it was necessary that the soul should be separated from the body, even here below, and that the body was to be macerated and mortified for this purpose.'" And how exactly according to the ancient philosophy this new Platonic, or monkish, philosophy was, and how certainly all this was the logical fruit of the Platonic philosophy, is easily seen by reference to Plato himself. And, that this may fairly be seen, Plato shall be quite fully quoted. Thus he says:--
ECE	106	2	"True philosophers ...will speak to one another in such words as these: We have found, they will say, a path of speculation which seems to bring us and the argument to the conclusion that while we are in the body, and while the soul is mingled with this mass of evil, our desire will not be satisfied, and our desire is of the truth. For the body is a source of endless trouble to us by reason of the mere requirement of food; and also is liable to diseases which overtake and impede us in the search after truth: and by filling us so full of loves, and lusts, and fears, and fancies, and idols, and every sort of folly, prevents our ever having, as people say, so much as a thought ....
ECE	106	3	"Moreover, if there is time and an inclination toward philosophy, yet the body introduces a turmoil and confusion and fear into the course of speculation, and hinders us from seeing the truth; and all experience shows that if we would have pure knowledge of anything we must be quit of the body, and the soul in herself must behold all things in themselves: then I suppose that we shall attain that which we desire, and of which we say that we are lovers, and that is wisdom; not while we live, but after death, as the argument shows; for if while in company with the body the soul can not have pure knowledge, one of two things seems to follow--either knowledge is not to be attained at all, or, if at all, after death. For then, and not till then, the soul will be in herself alone and without the body.
ECE	107	1	"In this present life, I reckon that we make the nearest approach to knowledge when we have the least possible concern or interest in the body, and are not saturated with the bodily nature, but remain pure until the hour when God himself is pleased to release us. And then the foolishness of the body will be cleared away and we shall be pure and hold converse with other pure souls, and know of ourselves the clear light everywhere; and this is surely the light of truth. For no impure thing is allowed to approach the pure ....
ECE	107	2	"And what is purification but the separation of the soul from the body, as I was saying before; the habit of the soul gathering and collecting herself into herself, out of all the courses of the body; the dwelling in her own place alone as in another life, so also in this, as far as she can; the release of the soul from the chains of the body?
ECE	107	3	"The lovers of knowledge are conscious that their souls, when philosophy receives them, are simply fastened and glued to their bodies: the soul is only able to view existence through the bars of a prison, and not in her own nature; she is wallowing in the mire of all ignorance; and philosophy, seeing the terrible nature of her confinement, and that the captive through desire is led to conspire in her own captivity ...philosophy shows her that this is visible and tangible, but that what she sees in her own nature is intellectual and invisible. And the soul of the true philosopher thinks that she ought not to resist this deliverance, and therefore abstains from pleasures and desires and pains and fears, as far as she is able ....
ECE	107	4	"Each pleasure and pain is a sort of nail which nails and rivets the soul to the body, and engrosses her and makes her believe that to be true which the body affirms to be true; and from agreeing with the body and having the same delights she is obliged to have the same habits and ways, and is not likely ever to be pure at her departure to the world below, but is always saturated with the body; so that she soon sinks into another body and there germinates and grows, and has therefore no part in the communion of the divine and pure and simple....
ECE	107	5	"When the dead arrive at the place to which the genius of each severally conveys them, first of all they have sentence passed upon them, as they have lived well and piously or not. And those who appear to have lived neither well nor ill, go to the river Acheron, and mount such conveyances as they can get, and are carried in them to the lake, and there they dwell and are purified of their evil deeds, and suffer the penalty of the wrongs which they have done to others, and are absolved, and receive the rewards of their good deeds according to their deserts. But those who appear to be incurable by reason of the greatness of their crimes,--who have committed many and terrible deeds of sacrilege, murders foul and violent, or the like,--such are hurled into Tartarus, which is their suitable destiny, and they never come out. Those again who have committed crimes, which, although great, are not unpardonable,--who in a moment of anger, for example, have done violence to a father or a mother, and have repented for the remainder of their lives, or who have taken the life of another under the like extenuating circumstances,--these are plunged into Tartarus, the pains of which they are compelled to undergo for a year, but at the end of the year the wave casts them forth,--mere homicides by way of Cocytus, parricides and matricides by Pyriphlegethon,--and they are borne to the Acherusian Lake, and there they lift up their voices and call upon the victims whom they have slain or wronged, to have pity on them, and to receive them, and to let them come out of the river into the lake. And if they prevail, then they come forth and cease from their troubles; but if not, they are carried back again into Tartarus and from thence into the rivers unceasingly, until they obtain mercy from those whom they have wronged; for that is the sentence inflicted upon them by their judges. Those also who are remarkable for having led holy lives are released from this earthly prison, and go to their pure home which is above, and dwell in the purer earth; and those who have duly purified themselves with philosophy live henceforth altogether without the body, in mansions fairer far than these, which may not be described, and of which the time would fail me to tell.
ECE	108	1	"I do not mean to affirm that the description which I have given of the soul and her mansions is exactly true--a man of sense ought hardly to say that. But I do say that, inasmuch as the soul is shown to be immortal, he may venture to think, not improperly or unworthily, that something of the kind is true." 14
ECE	108	2	From this it is evident that the whole monkish system, with all its extravagances and torments in life, and its torments in purgatory afterward, was and is but the logical extension, under the name of Christianity, of the Platonic philosophy as propounded by Plato himself. This monkery of the Catholic Church was not peculiar, even in its extravagances, unless perhaps, in those of the pillar-saints; for paganism, long before this, had the like, and even yet has it: and, wherever it is found, it is all the strict logic of the philosophy of the immortality of the soul Of the inquiries of the ancient philosophers of Greece and Rome with regard to the immortality of the soul, it has been well observed that "their reason had been often guided by their imagination, and that their imagination had been prompted by their vanity. When they viewed with complacency the extent of their own mental powers, when they exercised the various faculties of memory, of fancy, and of judgment, in the most profound speculations, or the most important labors, and when they reflected on the desire of fame, which transported them into future ages, far beyond the bounds of death and of the grave, they were unwilling to ...suppose that a being, for whose dignity they entertained the most sincere admiration, could be limited to a spot of earth, and to a few years of duration."--Gibbon. 15
ECE	109	1	Thus it is plain that vanity, self-love, self-exaltation--selfishness--is the root of the philosophy of the immortality of the soul. It was this that led them to consider themselves, in their souls, "immortal and imperishable" (for so Plato definitely puts it), 16 and so, essentially a part of the Deity. And this is confirmed by revelation. For, when God had said to the man whom He had formed and placed in dominion over all the earth and over every moving thing upon it: "Of all the trees of the garden thou mayest freely eat, but of the tree which is in the midst of the garden thou shalt not eat of it, for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die," Satan came with the words: "Ye shall not surely die; for God doth know that, on the day ye eat thereof, your eyes will be opened and ye will be as God." 17 The woman believed this Satanic word. So believing, she saw what was not true--that the tree was "to be desired to make one wise," a philosopher; and "she took of the fruit thereof and did eat and gave also unto her husband with her, and he did eat."
ECE	110	1	This is the origin of the philosophy of the immortality of the soul, in this world. And the only reason why that man did not die that day, even in the very hour when he sinned, is that there, at that moment, Jesus Christ offered himself in behalf of man, and took upon himself the death that would then have fallen upon the man; and thus gave to man another chance, a probation, a breathing-space, that he might choose life. This is why God could immediately say to the deceiver: "I will put enmity between thee and the woman and between thy seed and her seed: it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." 18 And so it is written: "I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly." 19 He came that they might first have life; and, without His then offering himself, man never would have had life after he sinned. And, having come that the man might first have life, this life to the man was and is solely for the purpose that he might use it in securing life more abundantly, even eternal life, the life of God. Thus it is only by the gift of Christ that any man in this world ever has opportunity to breathe at all. And, the sole object of man's having an opportunity to breathe, is that he may choose life, that he may live and escape the death that is due to sin, and that is certain to fall, when Christ shall step away from between, and shall resume His place upon the throne of the universe.
ECE	111	1	And so it is written: "What is your life?--It is even a vapor that appeareth for a little time and then vanisheth away." 20 And, what is death--the death which men die in this world?--It is even a sleep, 21 from which there is waking only in the resurrection of the dead. So the entering of Christ--Christ's gift of himself when man had sinned--gave to man this life which is but a vapor, and which ends in this death which is but a sleep, between that life which is life indeed, and that death which is death indeed. Therefore, to all mankind it is spoken forever: "See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil. Therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live." 23 "He that heareth my word and believeth on Him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life."
ECE	111	2	Accordingly, "he that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God, hath not life;" for "this is the record that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in His Son." 24 And this life which is life indeed, beyond this life which is a vapor and this death which is a sleep, is assured only in Christ, through the resurrection of the dead: as it is written, "When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with Him in glory." 25 "For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord." 26 And, without the resurrection of the dead, there is no hereafter; for "if the dead rise not ...your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins; then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished." And "if after the men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me if the dead rise not? Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die." 27
ECE	112	1	This is the true course, and the only true course, to immortality: not merely immortality of the soul, but the immortality of both soul and body. For Christ has bought, and will redeem, the body equally with the soul; He cares, and would have men care, for the body equally as for the soul; as it is written, "I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth." 28 God only hath immortality. 29 Christ "hath brought life and immortality to the light through the gospel." 31 Thus immortality is the gift of God, and is obtained only by believers of the gospel. And to these it is given only at the resurrection of the dead; as it is written: "We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ."
ECE	112	2	This is the truth as to immortality. This is the true way of mankind from mortality to immortality. But, it is directly antagonistic to the Platonic or pagan idea of immortality, and of that way to it. This is evident on its face; but it is aptly confirmed by an incident that occurred at the very seat of the original Platonic philosophy--in Athens itself. Paul, in one of his journeys, came to Athens, where he remained several days, and talked "in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them that met with him." And, in all his speech, he preached the gospel--Christ and Him crucified: Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God: Christ and the resurrection of the dead: and life and immortality only through Christ and the resurrection of the dead. "Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans and of the Stoics encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? Other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods." And this "because he preached unto them Jesus and the resurrection." This was altogether a new doctrine, something which they never had heard. Therefore, "they took him, and brought him unto Areopagus, saying, May we know what this new doctrine, whereof thou speakest, is? For thou bringest certain strange things to our ears: we would know therefore what these things mean." And when, standing on Mars' Hill, he preached to them the gospel, and called upon all "to repent: because He hath appointed a day in the which He will judge the world in righteousness by that Man whom He hath ordained; whereof He hath given assurance unto all men, in that He hath raised Him from the dead--when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter."
ECE	113	1	This account demonstrates even by inspiration that the Christian conception of immortality is not in any sense that of Plato and the other philosophers. If Paul had preached in Athens the immortality of the soul, no one in Athens would ever have counted him "a setter forth of strange gods." Such preaching would never there have been called "new doctrine." Nothing of that sort would ever have been "strange things to their ears." But Christianity knows no such thing as the immortality of the soul. Therefore Paul preached immortality as the gift of God through Jesus Christ and the resurrection from the dead: immortality to be sought for and obtained only through the faith of Christ, by believers in Jesus--immortality only through Christ and the resurrection of the dead. He preached that, without the gospel, all men are lost, and subject to death. For, to the Greeks he wrote: "If our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost, in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them that believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them." 32 He preached the Word,--not that the soul is "immortal and imperishable," but--"the soul that sinneth, it shall die;" 33 that "the wicked shall perish:" 35 that "they shall be as nothing:" that "yet a little while and the wicked shall not be; yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place, and it shall not be:" that "the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." "As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die?"
ECE	114	1	Selfishness, then, selfishness in pride and self-exaltation, being the root of the philosophy of the immortality of the soul, in the nature of things selfishness could be the only root of this sanctification and glorification of the soul by all these starvings, punishments, or exercises of whatever sort that were employed to depress the body and exalt the soul so as to accomplish the separation of the soul from the body and enable her to reach the high destiny prescribed in the philosophy. Consequently, the analysis of the monastic life is clearly only self-righteousness: "exorbitant selfishness made the rule of life."--Draper. 38 The goal of the soul was to be reached solely by their own efforts. The rules for their guidance to this goal were of their own making. They themselves prescribed for themselves rules by which they were to deliver themselves from themselves. And, a law without a penalty being of no force, it was perfectly logical that, for the violation of the rules which they themselves had prescribed to themselves, they should lay upon themselves penalties in penances and dreadful punishments to whatever degree would most likely prevent any further violation of the rules, or any recurrence of the proscribed action or thought. But, all their rules were prohibitions of what it was inherently in them to do; all their proscriptions were of things which were essentially of themselves; and, it is impossible for a man by any law, penalty, or proscription upon himself, to prevent himself from desiring to do that which is in him to do. In other words, it is impossible for any finite being to deliver himself from himself. And, when, in his own proud estimation, any such one concludes that he has delivered himself from himself, in the very pride and self-glorification of that which he decides that he has accomplished, self is magnified more than ever before. And this is exactly the round which was traveled in the self-involved system of the philosophy of the immortality of the soul and of its logical manifestation in monkery.
ECE	115	1	There is a way of deliverance from self. It is the way of Christ, and of the faith of Christ who is "the Way." And so it is written: "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery [a thing to be seized upon and held fast, as a robber his prey] to be equal with God: but emptied himself." 39 He, being divine, and in all perfections complete, could empty Himself and still retain His divine humility. He could successfully empty Himself without any taint of self-exaltation. And, that having been accomplished in Himself, in order that the like might be accomplished in all mankind; having emptied Himself, in order that every man might be emptied of himself;--now to every man comes the word: "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who ...emptied Himself." Do not think that you are equal with God: do not think that you are immortal: do not think that equality with God is a thing to be seized upon and held fast. But, "let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus, who ...emptied Himself." And that mind which was in Christ will accomplish in you precisely what it accomplished in Him: it will empty yourself. Do you also become "obedient unto death, even the death of the cross," by which the world shall be crucified unto you, and you unto the world; and so shall you be delivered "from this present evil world, according to the will of God and Jesus Christ our Lord." 40 And all this without any rules, penances, or punishments; but by the divine power of the righteousness of God, which, from faith to faith, is revealed in the gospel of Christ. 41
ECE	115	2	The frenzy of the fanaticism to which the devotees of monkery attained, was only the measure of the popularity which the philosophy of monkery had acquired. And thus the profession of monkery became the standard of all virtue--with the clerical order, with kings and emperors, and with the multitude. Those who were not of the monastic order, in order to have any recognized standing anywhere, were obliged to imitate, or at least, to make a show of imitating, the course of the monks, so far as it was practicable without their actually becoming monks. And one thing in particular that was thus demanded, and with a force that would accept of no refusal, was the celibacy of the clergy.
ECE	116	1	"Marriage was allowed to all the clergy, from the highest rank to the lowest. Yet those were accounted more holy and excellent who lived in celibacy. For it was the general persuasion that those who lived in wedlock were much more exposed to the assaults of the evil spirits than others: and it was of immense importance that no impure or malignant spirit should assail the mind or the body of one who was to instruct and govern others. Such persons, therefore, wished, if possible, to have nothing to do with conjugal life. And this, many of the clergy, especially in Africa, endeavored to accomplish with the least violence to their inclinations; for they received into their houses, and even to their beds, some of those females who had vowed perpetual chastity, affirming, however, most religiously, that they had no disgraceful intercourse with them. Such connections they considered as a marriage of soul, without the marriage of the body. These concubines were by the Greeks called "suneisaktoi" [plural of "suneisaktos" introduced together; a priest's housekeeper--Liddell and Scott], and by the Latins mulieres subintroductae [women secretly brought in]."--Mosheim. 42
ECE	116	2	At first, all orders of monks were composed of the laity. But, when they attained to such heights of popularity, and therefore, of saintliness, many of them, by the voice of the populace, or even by the command of the emperors, were chosen to the clerical office, and even to bishoprics. At first, also, when they were of the laity, they, as others of the laity, were subject to the episcopal jurisdiction of the diocese in which they were. But, by reason of their great popularity and their immense numbers, they became so powerful, and by their self-exaltation they became so arrogant, that, on occasion, they would defy the authority of the bishops; and not only of the bishops, but even of the emperors; and, by the violent and virulent tide of their passions would carry everything before them.
ECE	116	3	This disregard of their authority the bishops resented; which resentment, in turn, the monks resented. Thus, gradually, there developed a condition of continual variance between the bishopric and the monastic orders. In their contentions with the bishops, the monks would invariably appeal to the bishop of Rome; and thus, by degrees, through one minor exemption after another, the point was at last reached at which, by the authority of the pope, the monks were wholly exempt from all episcopal jurisdiction, and were made directly responsible to the bishop of Rome himself. This greatly magnified the self-importance of the monks, and brought to the pope a vast army permeating all Christendom--an army of fanatics, who, by their very philosophy, were inured to the most savage hardships; and who thus were prepared to go through fire or flood, and to face death in any shape without flinching, in the service of their head, and for the propagation of the form of religion which they themselves were largely instrumental in creating.
ECE	117	1	This also gave to the bishop of Rome an army of devotees who were of a disposition to employ any means whatever, even to the most savage, to secure the recognition of his authority, and conformity to his religion. For their own "voluntary martyrdom must have gradually destroyed the sensibility both of the mind and body; nor can it be presumed that the fanatics, who torment themselves, are susceptible of any lively affection for the rest of mankind. A cruel, unfeeling temper has distinguished the monks of every age and country: their stern indifference, which is seldom mollified by personal friendship, is inflamed by religious hatred; and their merciless zeal has strenuously administered the holy office of the Inquisition."--Gibbon. 43
------------------------Chapter 9 - Theological Controversy--Council of Ephesus
ECE	118	1	One element in the establishment of the Ecclesiastical Empire that is impossible to be ignored is Theological Controversy; and another is Episcopal Rivalry and Ambition of Supremacy. These two elements were easily made to combine: each to promote the other, and both to contribute to the exaltation of the bishop of Rome.
ECE	118	2	This, because in every controversy in theology, each party strained every point to get the bishop of Rome to its side, and commit himself to the phase of doctrine held by that party; and when the controversy had been decided by a general council, there was, by the defeated party, invariably appeal to the bishop of Rome: and in every contest of rival bishops, and especially of rival patriarchs, it was the same way. In these rivalries, whether manifested through theological controversy or in episcopal ambition, the appellants, even though they were emperors, were ever ready to employ whatever flattering title, and to concede whatever honor, was most likely to win to their side the bishop of Rome. And such things were always highly pleasing to the bishop of Rome: they were always accepted by him; not one of them was ever forgotten by him. And whatever course the bishop of Rome might take with reference to the cause in behalf of which the flattering title or conceded dignity was bestowed, all these things were tenaciously held, were perpetually treasured, and were forever employed, as indisputable proofs of his supremacy, of his being the only true source of appeal, and of his absolute worthiness in all respects to wear them.
ECE	118	3	By the pious zeal of Theodosius, "the unity of the faith" had been supposedly secured, since by imperial decree and inquisitorial repression, the empire had been made Catholic. All possible efforts of the emperor had been exerted to secure and also to assure the peace of the Church. But peace was just as far from the Church now as it ever had been, and a good deal farther from the State than it had ever yet been.
ECE	119	1	By this time, among the chief bishoprics of the empire, the desire for supremacy had become so all-absorbing that each one was exerting every possible influence to bring the others into subjection to himself. The rivalry, however, was most bitter between the bishopric of Alexandria and that of Constantinople. Of the great sees of the empire, Alexandria had always held the second place. Now, however, Constantinople was the chief imperial city; and the Council of Constantinople had ordained that the bishop of Constantinople should hold the first rank after the bishop of Rome. The Alexandrian party argued that this dignity was merely honorary, and carried with it no jurisdiction. Rome, seeing to what the canon might lead, sided with Alexandria. Constantinople, however, steadily insisted that the canon bestowed jurisdiction to the full extent of the honor. The bishop of Constantinople therefore aspired to the complete occupancy of the second place, and Alexandria was supremely jealous of that aspiration.
ECE	119	2	Theodosius died A. D. 395, and was succeeded by his two sons, Arcadius and Honorius, by whom the empire was permanently divided. Arcadius became emperor of the East and Honorius of the West. Although Arcadius occupied the throne and bore the name of "emperor," "the East was now governed by women and eunuchs."--Milman. 1 Eutropius, a eunuch, was prime minister to Arcadius. At the death of Nectarius, Eutropius had brought from Antioch and made bishop of Constantinople, a presbyter, John surnamed Chrysostom--the golden-mouthed. By the exercise of discipline, Chrysostom undertook to purify the bishopric. He "exposed with unsparing indignation the vices and venality of the clergy, and involved them all in one indiscriminate charge of simony and licentiousness."--Milman. 2 In an episcopal progress through Lydia and Phrygia, he deposed thirteen bishops. He declared his free opinion "that the number of bishops who might be saved, bore a very small proportion to those who would be damned."--Gibbon. 3 In addition to this, and with much more danger to himself, he incurred the enmity of the monks, by declaring with evident truth that they were "the disgrace of their holy profession."
ECE	119	3	These measures set the whole ecclesiastical order against him, and they began to intrigue for his overthrow. This opened the way for the bishop of Alexandria again to assert his authority. Theophilus, a violent and unscrupulous prelate, was now bishop of Alexandria, and he immediately espoused the cause of the malcontents, who proudly accepted him as their leader.
ECE	120	1	Another new element was now added: Chrysostom had not confined his denunciations to the clergy and the monks, but had uttered them against the women of the court, and especially the empress Eudoxia, a young and beautiful woman of violent disposition, "who indulged her passions, and despised her husband."--Gibbon. 4 Her, Chrysostom reviled as another Jezebel. She was not the kind of woman who would take this without making reply. She called Theophilus to Constantinople to preside over a council to depose Chrysostom. He came with a "stout body of Egyptian mariners" to protect him, and a train of bishops to sit in the council.
ECE	120	2	Theophilus and his followers joined with the enemies of Chrysostom, numbering thirty-six bishops in all, and held their council at a place or estate Ad Quercem--at the Oak. Four times the council summoned Chrysostom to appear, and sent the following letter:--
ECE	120	3	"The holy synod at the Oak to John: Letters complaining of countless offenses committed by you have been delivered to us. Appear, therefore, and bring with you the priests Serapion and Tigrius, for they are wanted." 5
ECE	120	4	Chrysostom on his part assembled a council of forty bishops, and sent three of the bishops and two priests with a letter to Theophilus, telling him that he should not disturb the Church, and that if in spite of the Nicene Canon, he wanted to settle a dispute beyond his diocese, he should come to Constantinople itself, and "not like Cain entice Abel into the field." In the letter he also declared that as there was an indictment against Theophilus containing seventy charges, he was the one who ought really to be called to account rather than to be presiding in a council to try another; and besides this that there were more bishops in the council at Constantinople than there were with Theophilus at the Oak. At the same time he wrote privately to other bishops at the Oak telling them that if they would exclude from the council his avowed enemies, he would appear whenever they desired; but if not, he would not appear, even if they sent ten thousand times for him. In answer to this letter, a notary was sent to Chrysostom with an imperial decree that he "must appear at the synod," and at the same time a priest and a monk brought a fresh summons from the synod at the Oak. Chrysostom then sent authorized representatives to the Oak. "They were roughly treated, and the process against him was put into full swing."--Hefele. 6
ECE	121	1	The council sat for two weeks, during which time they framed twenty-nine different charges, amongst which those considered the very gravest were that he had "administered baptism after he had eaten," and another, that he had "administered the sacrament to those who had in like manner broken their fast."--Milman. 7 He was unanimously condemned, and as there had been accessions to their number, there were forty-five bishops who subscribed to the decree.
ECE	121	2	Having deposed him, it was necessary to execute the sentence, but on account of the watchfulness of the populace, this had to be done at night. To prevent a riot, he secretly surrendered himself to the imperial officers, who conducted him across the Bosphorus, and landed him at a place near the entrance of the Black Sea. Theophilus and his followers had come into the city, and the next day when the populace learned that Chrysostom had been carried off, "they suddenly rose with unanimous and irresistible fury. Theophilus escaped; but the promiscuous crowd of monks and Egyptian mariners were slaughtered without pity in the streets of Constantinople."--Gibbon. 8
ECE	121	3	The next night there was a harmless earthquake, but it was readily seized upon and made to do service as evidence of the wrath of Heaven against the deposition of Chrysostom. Eudoxia herself, as superstitious as the rest, was frightened by it, and when the mob crowded about the palace asserting the vengeance of Heaven and demanding the return of Chrysostom, she went herself to Arcadius, asked for his recall, and, to appease the populace, published a letter "disclaiming all hostility to the banished prelate, and protesting that she was 'innocent of his blood.'"--Milman. 9
ECE	122	1	Chrysostom returned in triumph. The whole city, men, women, and children, turned out to meet him. The shores were crowded; the Bosphorus was covered with vessels, and both shores were grandly illuminated. When he landed, with hymns of thanksgiving and chants of praise they escorted him to the cathedral. Chrysostom mounted the pulpit, and made the following speech:--
ECE	122	2	"What shall I say? Blessed be God! These were my last words on my departure, these the first on my return. Blessed be God! because He permitted the storm to rage. Blessed be God! because He has allayed it. Let my enemies behold how their conspiracy has advanced my peace, and redounded to my glory. Before, the church alone was crowded, now the whole forum is become a church. The games are celebrating in the circus, but the whole people pour like a torrent to the church. Your prayers in my behalf are more glorious than a diadem,--the prayers both of men and women; for in Christ there is neither male nor female." 10
ECE	122	3	Thus exultant in his victory over his opponents, he broke out more violently than ever in denunciation of the empress. The statue of Eudoxia was about to be set up in front of the cathedral. It seems that this was to be performed on a festival day, and on such occasions, dances, pantomimes, and all sorts of theatricals were indulged in. Chrysostom uttered a loud protest against this celebration, as his zeal "was always especially directed against these idolatrous amusements which often, he confesses, drained the church of his hearers."--Milman. 11 His denunciations were reported to the empress as personal insults to her. She threatened to call another council, and have him deposed again. He replied with a sermon yet bolder than all before, in which he likened her to Herodias, exclaiming:--
ECE	122	4	"Again Herodias raves; again she is troubled; she dances again; and again desires to receive John's head in a charger." 12
ECE	122	5	The emperor immediately suspended him, and a council was appointed, which, under the guidance of Theophilus, again condemned him, but upon the charges that he had resisted the decrees of the former synod, and that he had violated the canons of the Church in resuming and exercising the office of bishop, while yet under condemnation of a council. The sentence of exile was again pronounced, and a detachment of barbarian troops was brought into the city to assist the imperial officers in executing the sentence. "In the midst of the solemn celebration of Good Friday, in the great church of Santa Sophia, the military forced their way, not merely into the nave, but up to the altar, on which were placed the consecrated elements. Many worshipers were trodden underfoot; many wounded by the swords of the soldiers: the clergy were dragged to prison; some females, who were about to be baptized, were obliged to fly with their disordered apparel: the waters of the font were stained with blood; the soldiers pressed up to the altar; seized the sacred vessels as their plunder; the sacred elements were scattered about! ...Constantinople for several days had the appearance of a city which had been stormed. Wherever the partisans of Chrysostom were assembled, they were assaulted and dispersed by the soldiery; females were exposed to insult, and one frantic attempt was made to assassinate the prelate."--Milman. 13
ECE	123	1	Chrysostom was concealed by his friends, but after a while he escaped from them, and gave himself up again. Again he was taken from the city by night; and now he was banished--A. D. 404--to a town called Caucasus in the mountains of Armenia. And "on the very day of his departure, some of John's friends set fire to the church, which by means of a strong easterly wind, communicated with the Senate-House."--Socrates. 14
ECE	123	2	As soon as Chrysostom had been permanently sent away, Theophilus sent to the bishop of Rome, Innocent I, the information that he had deposed the bishop of Constantinople. Chrysostom also from his place of exile addressed the bishop of Rome, giving an account of the proceedings against him, and asking Innocent "to declare such wicked proceedings void and null, to pronounce all who had any share in them, punishable according to the ecclesiastical laws, and to continue to him the marks of his charity and communion."--Bower." 15
ECE	123	3	As was to be expected, Chrysostom also asked the bishop of Rome to use his influence to have a general council called to settle the matter. Letters were also sent from the clergy of Constantinople and the bishops who sided with Chrysostom, asking Innocent to take an interest in the case. Innocent answered both with the statement that he admitted the bishops of both parties to his communion, and thus left no room for complaints on either side; and the council which was contemplated might not be biased beforehand. Innocent applied to the emperor Honorius, asking him to persuade Arcadius to agree to the calling of a general council, to settle the dispute and contention between Chrysostom and Theophilus. Honorius wrote three letters to Arcadius, the last of which was as follows:--
ECE	124	1	"This is the third time I write to your Meekness entreating you to correct and rectify the iniquitous proceedings that have been carried on against John, bishop of Constantinople. But nothing, I find, has been hitherto done in his behalf. Having therefore much at heart the peace of the Church, which will be attended with that of our empire, I write to you anew by these holy bishops and presbyters, earnestly desiring you to command the Eastern bishops to assemble at Thessalonica. The Western bishops have sent five of their body, two presbyters of the Roman Church, and one deacon, all men of strictest equity, and quite free from the bias of favor and hatred. These I beg you would receive with that regard which is due to their rank and merit. If they find John to have been justly deposed, they may separate me from his communion; and you from the communion of the Orientals, if it appears that he has been unjustly deposed. The Western bishops have very plainly expressed their sentiments, in the many letters they have written to me on the subject of the present dispute. Of these I send you two, the one from the bishop of Rome, the other from the bishop of Aquileia; and with them the rest agree. One thing I must above all beg of your Meekness; that you oblige Theophilus of Alexandria to assist at the council how averse soever he may be to it; for he is said to be the first and chief author of the present calamities. Thus the synod, meeting with no delays or obstructions, will restore peace and tranquillity in our days." 16
ECE	124	2	Not only were the letters of Honorius disregarded, but his ambassadors were insulted and abused; which when he learned, he was about to declare war, but was prevented by an invasion of the barbarians. Thus the efforts to obtain a general council upon this question came to naught. When Innocent learned this, he determined to take the side of Chrysostom. He therefore published a letter announcing the fact, and separating from his communion Theophilus and all who were of his party. Chrysostom died in 407; but the quarrel was continued by the bishop of Rome, who refused to communicate with the new bishop of Constantinople, unless he would acknowledge that Chrysostom was lawful bishop of that city until the day of his death. As this would be to acknowledge that his own election to the bishopric of Constantinople was unlawful, Atticus refused; and the contention was kept up seven years longer, but was finally compromised in 414.
ECE	125	1	The empress Eudoxia died about A. D. 405. The emperor Arcadius died May 1, A. D. 408, leaving a son--Theodosius II--seven years of age, heir to the throne; and a daughter, Pulcheria, ten years of age, who after A. D. 414, held the most important place in the affairs of the empire for forty years. At the age of twenty and by the arts of Pulcheria, Theodosius II was married to Eudocia, who was nearly eight years older than himself, and the incapable youth was kept in a "perpetual infancy, encompassed only with a servile train of women and eunuchs," and ruled by women, eunuchs, and monks.
ECE	125	2	The war with Chrysostom was ended, yet the roots of bitterness and seeds of strife still remained between Alexandria and Constantinople. And though the two men who were bishops of these two cities were in harmony so far as the confusion about Chrysostom was concerned, the same jealousy as to the dignity of their respective sees still existed, and soon broke out more violently than ever before. The subject of the next dispute was a question of doctrine, and, like that over the Homoousion, was so illusive, and the disputants believed so nearly alike and yet were so determined not to believe alike, and the men who led in it were so arrogant and cruel, that from the beginning the contention was more violent than any that had yet been.
ECE	125	3	In. A. D. 412, Cyril, the nephew of Theophilus, became bishop of Alexandria. He was one of the very worst men of his time. He began his episcopacy by shutting up the churches of the Novatians, "the most innocent and harmless of the sectaries," and taking possession of all their ecclesiastical ornaments and consecrated vessels, and stripping their bishop, Theopemptus, of all his possessions. Nor was Cyril content with the exercise of such strictly episcopal functions as these: he aspired to absolute authority, civil as well as ecclesiastical.
ECE	125	4	He drove out the Jews, forty thousand in number, destroyed their synagogues, and allowed his followers to strip them of all their possessions. Orestes, the prefect of Egypt, displeased at the loss of such a large number of wealthy and industrious people, entered a protest, and sent up a report to the emperor. Cyril likewise wrote to the emperor. No answer came from the court, and the people urged Cyril to come to a reconciliation with the prefect, but his advances were made in such a way that the prefect would not receive them. The monks poured in from the desert to the number of about five hundred, to champion the cause of Cyril.
ECE	126	1	Orestes was passing through the streets in his chariot. The monks flocked around him, insulted him, and denounced him as a heathen and an idolater. Orestes, thinking that perhaps they thought this was so, and knowing his life to be in danger, called out that he was a Christian, and had been baptized by Atticus, bishop of Constantinople. His defense was in vain. In answer, one of the monks threw a big stone which struck him on the head, and wounded him so that his face was covered with blood. At this all his guards fled for their lives; but the populace came to the rescue, and drove off the monks, and captured the one who threw the stone. His name was Ammonius, and the prefect punished him so severely that shortly afterward he died. "Cyril commanded his body to be taken up; the honors of a Christian martyr were prostituted on this insolent ruffian, his panegyric was pronounced in the church, and he was named Thaumasius--the wonderful." Milman. 17
ECE	126	2	But the party of Cyril proceeded to yet greater violence than this. At that time there was in Alexandria a teacher of philosophy, a woman, Hypatia by name. She gave public lectures which were so largely attended by the chief people of the city, that Cyril grew jealous that more people went to hear her lecture than came to hear him preach. She was a friend of Orestes, and it was also charged that she, more than any other, was the cause why Orestes would not be reconciled to Cyril. One day as Hypatia was passing through the street in a chariot, she was attacked by a crowd of Cyril's partisans, whose ring-leader was Peter the Reader. She was torn from her chariot, stripped naked in the street, dragged into a church, and there beaten to death with a club, by Peter the Reader. Then they tore her limb, and with shells scraped the flesh from her bones, and threw the remnants into the fire, March, A. D. 414.
ECE	127	1	This was Cyril,--now Saint Cyril,--bishop of Alexandria. And in addition to his naturally tyrannical and murderous disposition, "jealousy and animosity toward the bishop of Constantinople were a sacred legacy bequeathed by Theophilus to his nephew, and Cyril faithfully administered the fatal trust."--Milman. 18
ECE	127	2	In 428, there was appointed to the bishopric of Constantinople a monk of Antioch, Nestorius by name, who in wickedness of disposition was only second to Cyril of Alexandria. In his ordination sermon before the great crowd of people, he personally addressed to the emperor these words:--
ECE	127	3	"Give me, my prince, the earth purged of heretics, and I will give you heaven as a recompense. Assist me in destroying heretics, and I will assist you in vanquishing the Persians." 19
ECE	127	4	The fifth day afterward, in accordance with this proposition, Nestorius began his part in purging the earth of heretics. There was a little company of Arians who met in a private house for worship; these were surprised and attacked, and as they saw the house being torn to pieces and sacked, they set fire to it, which burned that building and many others adjoining. On account of this, Nestorius received from both parties the appropriate nickname of the "Incendiary." This attack upon the Arians was followed furiously upon the Quarto-Decimans, who celebrated Easter on a day other than the Catholic Sunday; and also upon the Novatians. The authority of the emperor somewhat checked his fury against the Novatians, but it raged unmolested against the Quarto-Decimans throughout Asia, Lydia, and Caria, and multitudes perished in the tumults which he stirred up, especially at Miletus and Sardis.
ECE	127	5	And now these two desperate men, Nestorius and Cyril, became the respective champions of the two sides of a controversy touching the faith of the Catholic Church, as to whether Mary was the mother of God or not. In the long contention and the fine-spun distinctions as to whether the Son of God is of the same substance, or only of like substance with the Father, Christ had been removed entirely beyond the comprehension of the people. And owing to the desperate character and cruel disposition of the men who carried on the controversy as the representatives of Christ, the members of the Church were made afraid of Him. And now, instead of Jesus standing forth as the mediator between men and God, He was removed so far away and was clothed with such a forbidding aspect, that it became necessary to have a mediator between men and Christ. And into this place the Virgin Mary was put.
ECE	128	1	This gave rise to the question as to what was the exact relationship of Mary to Christ. Was she actually the mother of the divinity of Christ, and therefore the mother of God? or was she only the mother of the humanity of Christ? For a considerable time already the question had been agitated, and among a people whose ancestors for ages had been devout worshipers of the mother goddesses--Diana and Cybele--the title "Mother of God" was gladly welcomed and strenuously maintained. This party spoke of Mary as "God-bearer;" the opposite party called her only "man-bearer;" while a third party coming between tried to have all speak of her as "Christ-bearer."
ECE	128	2	As before stated, this question had already been agitated considerably, but when two such characters as Cyril and Nestorius took it up, it speedily became the one all-important question, and the all-absorbing topic. Nestorius started it in his very first sermon after becoming bishop of Constantinople. He denied that Mary could properly be called the mother of God. Some of his priests immediately withdrew from his communion, and began to preach against his heresy, and the monks rushed in also. Nestorius denounced them all as miserable men, called in the police, and had some of them flogged and imprisoned, especially several monks who had accused him to the emperor. From this the controversy spread rapidly, and Cyril, urged on by both natural and inherited jealousy, came to the rescue in defense of the title, "Mother of God." "Cyril of Alexandria, to those who esteem the stern and uncompromising assertion of certain Christian tenets the one paramount Christian virtue, may be the hero, even the saint: but while ambition, intrigue, arrogance, rapacity, and violence are proscribed as unchristian means--barbarity, persecution, bloodshed as unholy and unevangelical wickedness--posterity will condemn the orthodox Cyril as one of the worst of heretics against the spirit of the gospel."--Milman. 20
ECE	129	1	It is not necessary to put into this book the blasphemous arguments of either side. It is enough to say that in this controversy, as in that regarding the Homoousion, the whole dispute was one about words and terms only. Each determined that the other should express the disputed doctrine in his own words and ideas, while he himself could not clearly express his ideas in words different from the others. "Never was there a case in which the contending parties approximated so closely. Both subscribed, both appealed, to the Nicene Creed; both admitted the pre-existence, the impassibility, of the Eternal Word; but the fatal duty ...of considering the detection of heresy the first of religious obligations, mingled, as it now was, with human passions and interests, made the breach irreparable."--Milman. 21
ECE	129	2	Cyril demanded of Nestorius that he should confess Mary to be the mother of God, without any distinction, explanation, or qualification. And because Nestorius would not comply, Cyril denounced him everywhere as a heretic, stirred up the people of Constantinople against him, and sent letters to the emperor, the empress, and to Pulcheria, to prove to them that the Virgin Mary "ought to be called" the mother of God. He declared that to dispute such a title was rank heresy, and by adulation, and by declaring that whoever disputed this title was unworthy of the protection of the imperial family, he sought to have the court take his side at once against Nestorius. But Nestorius had the advantage with respect to the court, because he was present in Constantinople.
ECE	129	3	Fierce letters also passed between Cyril and Nestorius, and both sent off letters to Celestine, bishop of Rome. Nestorius sent his first, but he wrote in Greek, and Celestine had to send it to Gaul to be translated into Latin, so that he could read it. Before the letter of Nestorius was returned from Gaul, Cyril's letter had arrived, which was written in Latin; with which also he had sent some of the sermons of Nestorius which he had translated into Latin for the benefit of Celestine. Yet further he gave citations to Athanasius and Peter of Alexandria, where they had given to Mary the title of Mother of God. Celestine called a council in Rome, A. D. 430. The letters and papers of both Cyril and Nestorius were read, after which Celestine made a long speech to prove that "the Virgin Mary was truly the mother of God." He supported his views by quotations from the Eastern bishops, whom Cyril had cited, and also from his predecessors Damasus and Hilary, and from Ambrose of Milan, who had caused the people on Christmas day every year to sing a hymn in honor of Mary, in which she was called the Mother of God.
ECE	130	1	The council declared that Nestorius was "the author of a new and very dangerous heresy," praised Cyril for opposing it, declared the doctrine of Cyril strictly orthodox, and condemned to deposition all ecclesiastics who should refuse to adopt it. Celestine conveyed to Nestorius the decision of the council, and in the name of the council and in his own name, commanded him publicly and in a written apology, to renounce his heretical opinions within ten days after the receipt of this letter, or else incur the penalty of excommunication. On the same day Celestine also wrote a letter to Cyril, appointing him as his agent to execute the decision of the council, and empowering him in the name, and with the authority, of the apostolic see, to excommunicate and depose Nestorius, if by the expiration of ten days he had not recanted. Other letters were also sent at the same time to the clergy and laity of Constantinople and to the principal bishops of the East, exhorting them to steadfastness in the faith, and declaring that whomsoever Nestorius had excommunicated or deposed on account of this question, should be counted as in communion with the bishop of Rome.
ECE	130	2	All these letters were sent to Cyril, who upon receiving them, called a council of the Egyptian bishops, and drew up twelve propositions with their respective curses, which Nestorius was to sign if he would obey the sentence of the council at Rome, and recant his opinions. It was also required that Nestorius should not only acknowledge the creed of Nice, but that he must add a written and sworn declaration that he did so, and that he would condemn all his previous "pernicious and unholy assertions," and agree in future to "believe and teach the same as Cyril, and as the synod, and the bishops of the East and West."--Hefele. 22
ECE	130	3	All this with the decree of the Council of Rome was sent by four bishops to Nestorius at Constantinople. These bishops to make as great a display of their authority as possible, went to the cathedral on Sunday, at the time of public service, and delivered the documents to Nestorius, while he was performing the principal service of the day. In answer to these decrees Nestorius, in a sermon preached on the following Sabbath, declared that to maintain the peace and tranquillity of the Church, "he was ready to grant the title of 'Mother of God' to the Virgin Mary, providing nothing else was thereby meant but that the man born of her was united to the Divinity." But Cyril insisted that he should adopt the twelve propositions and their curses which the Alexandrian Synod had sent. As a final reply Nestorius then drew up twelve counter-propositions with their respective curses, to which he demanded that Cyril should subscribe.
ECE	131	1	It was now the middle of December, 430. All the time that these contentions had been going on, both parties had been calling for a general council; and as early as November 19, the emperors Theodosius II and Valentinian III had issued letters ordering a general council to meet at Ephesus in the spring of 431.
ECE	131	2	Of all places in the world, Ephesus was the very one where it would be the nearest to an impossibility to obtain anything like a fair examination of the question. Like Diana of Old, the Virgin Mary was now the patroness of Ephesus; and the worse than heathen Catholics were more fanatically devoted to her than even the heathen Ephesians had been to Diana. But a fair examination of the question, or in fact any real examination, was not intended by Celestine and Cyril. Their only intention was either the unconditional surrender or the condemnation of Nestorius. Cyril was appointed by Celestine to preside at the council. He addressed Celestine, asking whether Nestorius should be allowed to sit as a member of the council. Celestine told him that he should do everything to restore peace to the Church and to win Nestorius to the truth: but that if Nestorius was quite determined against this, "then he must reap what, with the help of the devil, he had sown."--Hefele. 23
ECE	131	3	Celestine also sent a letter to the emperor Theodosius II, saying that he could not personally attend the council, but that he would take part by commissioners. He desired that the emperor "should allow no innovations, and no disturbance of the peace of the Church. He should even regard the interests of the faith as higher than those of the State; and the peace of the Church as much more important than the peace of the nations." Celestine's instructions to his commissioners were to the same intent. He commanded them to "hold strictly by Cyril," but at the same time to be sure "to preserve the dignity of the apostolic see." They were directed to attend all the meetings of the council, yet to take no part in any of the discussions, but to "give judgments" on the views of others. And finally, the letter which Celestine sent by these legates to the bishops in council exhorted them "to preserve the true faith," and closed with these words:--
ECE	132	1	"The legates are to be present at the transactions of the synod, and will give effect to that which the pope has long ago decided with respect to Nestorius; for he does not doubt that the assembled bishops will agree with this." 24
ECE	132	2	Neither of the emperors was present at the council, but they jointly appointed Count Candidian, captain of the imperial bodyguard, as the "Protector of the Council." Nestorius came with sixteen bishops, accompanied by an armed guard composed of bathmen of Constantinople and a horde of peasants. In addition to this, by the special favor of the emperor, an officer, Irenaeus, with a body of soldiers, was appointed to protect him. Cyril came with fifty Egyptian bishops, and a number of bathmen, and "a multitude of women" from Alexandria, and such sailors in his fleet as he could depend upon. Arrived at Ephesus, he was joined by Memnon, bishop of that city, with fifty-two bishops, and a crowd of peasants whom he had drawn into the city. Juvenalis, bishop of Jerusalem, came with his subordinate bishops, we know not the number; these also were hostile to Nestorius, and joined Cyril and Memnon. Others came from Thessalonica, Apamea, and Hieropolis, and when the council opened, there were one hundred and ninety-eight bishops present, including the pope's legates, and not including Nestorius. John of Antioch, with the bishops of his diocese, was on the way, but did not reach Ephesus until Cyril's part of the council was over.
ECE	132	3	The council was to have met June 7, 431, but owing to delays on the part of the bishops of Jerusalem, Thessalonica, and Antioch, it did not open until June 22, and even then the bishops of Antioch had not arrived. But all the time was spent in preliminary disputes, winning partisans, and working up the populace. As Cyril had the great majority of the bishops on his side, and as the city was already devoted to the "Mother of God," Nestorius was at great disadvantage, and his enemies did not hesitate to let him know it, and to make him feel it. Cyril preached a sermon in which he paid the following idolatrous tribute to Mary:--
ECE	133	1	"Blessed be thou, O Mother of God! Thou rich treasure of the world, inextinguishable lamp, crown of virginity, scepter of true doctrine, imperishable temple, habitation of Him whom no space can contain, mother and virgin, through whom He is, who comes in the name of the Lord. Blessed be thou, O Mary, who didst hold in thy womb the Infinite One; thou through whom the blessed Trinity is glorified and worshiped, through whom the precious cross is adored throughout the world, through whom heaven rejoices and angels and archangels are glad, through whom the devil is disarmed and banished, through whom the fallen creature is restored to heaven, through whom every believing soul is saved." 25
ECE	133	2	Cyril and his party urged that the council should be opened without any more delay. As the emperor had particularly required the presence of John of Antioch, Nestorius insisted on waiting till he came; and Candidian sustained Nestorius. Cyril refused, and he and his partisans assembled in the church of the Virgin Mary to proceed with the council. As soon as Count Candidian learned of this, he hastened to the church to forbid it, and there he fell into an ecclesiastical trap. He declared that they were acting in defiance of the imperial rescript which was to guide the council. They answered that as they had not seen the rescript, they did not know what it required of them. The count read it to them. This was just what they wanted. They declared that the reading of the rescript legalized their meeting! They greeted it with "loud and loyal clamors," pronounced the council begun, and commanded the count to withdraw from an assembly in which he had no longer any legal place.
ECE	133	3	Candidian protested against the unfairness of the proceedings; and then, he himself says, they "injuriously and ignominiously ejected" him. They next expelled all the bishops, sixty-eight in number, who were known to favor Nestorius, "and then commenced their proceedings as the legitimate Senate of Christendom."--Milman. 26
ECE	133	4	One of Cyril's presbyters was secretary, and he formally opened the business of the council by reading a statement of the dispute that had brought them together. Then the emperor's letter calling the council was read. They sent four bishops to notify Nestorius to appear. He courteously refused to acknowledge the legality of their assembly. A second deputation of four bishops was sent, and they returned with the word that they were not allowed by the guard to go near him, but received from his attendants the same answer as before. A third deputation of four was sent, and they returned with the report that they were subjected to the indignity of being kept standing in the heat of the sun, and receiving no answer at all. Having made such an earnest effort to have Nestorius present, but in vain, they "sorrowfully" commenced the proceedings without him.
ECE	134	1	The Nicene Creed was first read, and then Cyril's letter to Nestorius, with the twelve propositions and their accompanying curses, all of which were solemnly confirmed by all the bishops in succession.
ECE	134	2	Then was read the letter of Nestorius to Cyril, with the twelve counter-propositions and their curses. One after another the bishops arose and declared the propositions blasphemous, and vehemently uttered the appended curses: Then when the list was completed, they all arose, and with one mighty roar that made the arches of the great church echo and re-echo, they bawled, "Anathema to him who does not anathematize Nestorius! Anathema! Anathema! The whole world unites in the excommunication! Anathema on him who holds communion with Nestorius!" 27
ECE	134	3	Next were read the letters of Celestine, condemning him, which were made a part of the acts of the council. Then followed the reading of statements from the writings of Athanasius, Peter of Alexandria, Julius I. Felix I of Rome, Theophilus of Alexandria. Cyprian. Ambrose. Gregory Nazianzen, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Atticus of Constantinople and Amphilochius of Iconium, all to the effect that Mary was the mother of God. Then the tender-hearted, pious souls, according to their own words, proceeded "with many tears, to this sorrowful sentence:"--
ECE	134	4	"As, in addition to other things, the impious Nestorius has not obeyed our citation, and did not receive the holy bishops who were sent by us to him, we were compelled to examine his ungodly doctrines. We discovered that he had held and published impious doctrines in his letters and treatises, as well as in discourses which he delivered in this city, and which have been testified to. Urged by the canons, and in accordance with the letter of our most holy father and fellow-servant Celestine, the Roman bishop, we have come, with many tears, to this sorrowful sentence against him, namely, that our Lord Jesus Christ, whom He has blasphemed, decrees by the holy synod that Nestorius be excluded from the episcopal dignity, and from all priestly communion." 28
ECE	135	1	This sentence the bishops all signed, and then it was sent to Nestorius, addressed, "To Nestorius, a second Judas." All these proceedings, from the visit and protest of Candidian to the notice to Nestorius, were carried through in a single day and one prolonged sitting. It was now night. Criers were sent all through the city to post up the decrees of the council, and to announce the joyful news that Mary was indeed the mother of God. Everywhere they were met with loudest shouts of joy. The multitude rushed into the streets and poured toward the church. With lighted torches they escorted the bishops to their abodes, the women marching before and burning incense. The whole city was illuminated, and the songs and exultations continued far into the night. The demonstrations far outdid that of their lineal ancestors, who, when they tried to kill the apostle Paul, "all with one voice about the space of two hours cried out, Great is Diana of the Ephesians."
ECE	135	2	Five days afterward John of Antioch with his bishops, arrived, and was greatly surprised to learn that the council was over. He got together about fifty bishops, who unanimously condemned the doctrines of Cyril and the proceedings of the council, and declared accursed all the bishops who had taken part in it. Cyril and Memnon answered with counter-curses. Letters came from Celestine, and Cyril's council reassembled, formally to receive them. When they were read, the whole company arose, and again cried with one voice: The council renders thanks to the second Paul, Celestine; to the second Paul, Cyril; to Celestine, protector of the faith; to Celestine, unanimous with the council. One Celestine, one Cyril, one faith in the whole council, one faith throughout the world." 29
ECE	135	3	Cyril's council next sent messengers with overtures to John, who refused to see them. Then the council declared annulled all the acts of John's council, and deposed and excommunicated him and all the bishops of his party. John threatened to elect a new bishop of Ephesus in the place of Memnon, whom his council had deposed. A party tried to force their way into the cathedral; but finding it defended by Memnon with a strong garrison, they retreated. Memnon's forces made a strong sally, and drove them through the streets with clubs and stones, dangerously wounding many.
ECE	136	1	On learning that the council had been held, and Nestorius deposed before the arrival of John of Antioch, a letter had been sent down from the court, but was not received till this point in the contest. This letter annulled all the proceedings of the council, and commanded a reconsideration of the question by the whole assembly of the bishops now present. The letter also announced the appointment of another imperial officer, one of the highest officials of the State, to assist Count Candidian.
ECE	136	2	The court had not made known in Constantinople the proceedings of the council, and the deposition of Nestorius. Cyril sent away a secret message to the monks of Constantinople, announcing that Nestorius had been deposed and excommunicated. The object of this was by stirring up those fanatics to influence the court. The weak-minded Theodosius II stood in great awe of the holiness of the monks. "His palace was so regulated that it differed little from a monastery." In 422 there died one of these who was noted for that kind of holiness that attaches to a monk, and Theodosius secured "his cassock of sackcloth of hair, which, although it was excessively filthy, he wore as a cloak, hoping that thus he should become a partaker, in some degree, of the sanctity of the deceased."--Socrates. 30 And now, on receipt of Cyril's message, a certain Dalmatius, who was famous for his filthy sanctity, left his cell, and put himself at the head of the whole herd of monks and archimandrites in and about Constantinople. They marched solemnly through the streets, and about everywhere as they passed, the populace burst into curses against Nestorius. They marched to the palace and lounged about the gates; but the chief influence at court was yet favorable to Nestorius, and their demonstrations had no immediate effect.
ECE	136	3	By this time the reports of both parties had reached the court. Theodosius, after examining both accounts, approved both, and pronounced Nestorius, Cyril, and Memnon, all three deposed. As for their faith, he pronounced them "all three alike orthodox," but deposed them as a punishment which he said they all three alike deserved as being the chief authors of continual disturbances.
ECE	137	1	The new imperial commissioner was sent down to Ephesus with the letter announcing the emperor's decision. As soon as he arrived, he summoned the bishops before him. Memnon refused to appear. Those who did come, however, had no sooner arrived than each party began to denounce the other. Cyril and his party pronounced the presence of Nestorius unendurable, and demanded that he be driven out. The party of Nestorius and John of Antioch, just as sternly demanded that Cyril should be expelled. As neither party could have its way, they began to fight. The imperial commissioner had to command his soldiers to separate the pugilistic bishops, and stop the fight. When order had thus been enforced, the imperial letters were read. As soon as the sentence of deposition against Cyril and Memnon was read, the uproar began again, and another fight was prevented only by the arrest of the three chiefs. Nestorius and John of Antioch submitted without remonstrance; but Cyril made a speech "in which he represented himself as the victim of persecution, incurred by apostolic innocence, and borne with apostolic resignation," and then yielded to the "inevitable necessity." Memnon was hunted up, and also taken into custody. Cyril escaped, and with his bodyguard of bathmen, women, and sailors, sailed away to Alexandria.
ECE	137	2	The emperor next commanded that eight bishops of each party should appear in his presence at Constantinople. They were sent, but, on account of the desperate temper of the monks of Constantinople, it was counted unsafe for them to enter the city, and therefore they were stopped at Chalcedon, on the opposite side of the Bosphorus. There the emperor met them. The whole summer had been spent in these contentions of the council, and it was now September 4, when the emperor granted them the first audience. Four times the emperor had them appear before him, and heard them fully. He appeared so decidedly to favor the party of Nestorius, that they thought the victory was already won. So certain were they of this that they even sent off letters to their party at Ephesus, instructing them to send up a message of thanks to him for his kindness.
ECE	138	1	But at the fifth meeting all their brilliant prospects were blasted. Cyril, from his post in Alexandria, had sent up thousands of pounds of gold, with instructions to Maximian, bishop of Constantinople, to add to it, not only the wealth of that Church, but his utmost personal effort to arouse "the languid zeal of the princess Pulcheria in the cause of Cyril, to propitiate all the courtiers, and, if possible, to satisfy their rapacity."--Milman. 31 As avarice was one of the ruling passions of the eunuchs and women who ruled Theodosius II, "Every avenue of the throne was assaulted with gold. Under the decent names of eulogies and benedictions, the courtiers of both sexes were bribed according to the measure of their rapaciousness. But their incessant demands despoiled the sanctuaries of Constantinople and Alexandria; and the authority of the patriarch was unable to silence the just murmur of his clergy, that a debt of sixty thousand pounds had already been contracted to support the expense of this scandalous corruption."--Gibbon 32
ECE	138	2	The efforts of Cyril were at last effective. The eunuch Scholasticus, one of the chief ministers of the emperor and the supporter of the cause of Nestorius at court, was bought; and it was this that caused the sudden revolution in the emperor's conduct toward the party of Nestorius. In the fifth and last audience that he gave the deputies, the emperor told them at once that they had better abandon Nestorius, and admit both Cyril and Memnon to their communion. They remonstrated, but he would listen to nothing. He put an end to the hearings, and returned the next day to Constantinople, taking with him the bishops of Cyril's party, regularly to ordain the successor of Nestorius in the bishopric of Constantinople. Shortly afterward an imperial edict was issued declaring Nestorius justly deposed, reinstating Cyril and Memnon in their respective sees, pronouncing all the other bishops alike orthodox, and giving them all leave to return to their homes. This dissolved the council.
ECE	138	3	Even before the dissolution of the council the emperor had sent an order to Nestorius, commanding him to leave Ephesus and return to the monastery whence he had been called to the archbishopric of Constantinople. By the persistent efforts of Celestine, bishop of Rome, and others, the emperor was induced--A. D. 436--to banish him and two of his friends--a count of the empire and a presbyter of Constantinople--to Petra in Arabia. July 30, in the same year, an imperial edict was issued, commanding all who believed with Nestorius, to be called Simonians; that all the books by Nestorius should be sought for and publicly burnt; forbidding the Nestorians to hold any meetings anywhere, in city, in village, or in field; and if any such meeting was held, then the place where it was held should be confiscated, as also the estates of all who should attend the meeting. Nestorius was not allowed to remain long at Petra. He was taken from there to a place away in the desert between Egypt and Libya, and from there dragged about from place to place till he died of the hardships inflicted, at what date is not certainly known, but about A. D. 440.
ECE	139	1	Such was the cause and such the conduct of the first Council of Ephesus, the third general council of the Catholic Church. And thus was established the Catholic doctrine that the Virgin Mary was the mother of God.
ECE	139	2	The controversy went on, however, nor did it ever logically stop until Dec. 8, A. D. 1854, when Pope Pius IX established the actual divinity of the Virgin Mary, by announcing the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, which reads as follows:--
ECE	139	3	"By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ and of the blessed apostles Peter and Paul, as well as by our own, we declare, promulgate, and define that the doctrine which teaches that the most blessed Virgin Mary, at the very instant of her conception, was kept free from every stain of original sin solely by the grace and prerogative of the omnipotent God, in consideration of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of mankind, was revealed by God, and must on that account be believed firmly and continually by all the faithful ones." 33
------------------------Chapter 10 - Theological Controversy--Second Council of Ephesus
ECE	140	1	It having been decided that the Virgin Mary was the mother of God, out of that decision there now arose another question involving the nature of Christ. That question was: How was the divine nature related to the human so that Mary could truly be called the mother of God? That is, Did the divine nature become human? or was the divine nature only joined to the human? In other words: Were there two natures in Christ? or was there but one?
ECE	140	2	It was now A. D. 448, and the Eutychian controversy began. For a clear understanding of the case, it will be best formally to introduce the leading characters.
ECE	140	3	Theodosius II was still emperor of the East; Valentinian III was emperor of the West.
ECE	140	4	Eutyches was the abbot, or superior, of a monastery close to Constantinople. He had been the chief leader of the monks in the contest against Nestorius. "At his bidding the swarms of monks had thronged into the streets, defied the civil power, terrified the emperor, and contributed, more than any other cause, to the final overthrow of Nestorius. He had grown old in the war against heresy."--Milman. 1
ECE	140	5	Flavianus was now the occupant of the episcopal seat of Constantinople.
ECE	140	6	Chrysaphius was another eunuch, who had risen to the place of chief minister of Theodosius II, and was also the godson of Eutyches. He was carrying on a court intrigue to break the power of Pulcheria, by exalting the influence of Eudocia. He hoped also to place Eutyches on the episcopal throne of Constantinople. The accession of Flavianus to that dignity had prevented this design for the time being, but he still held it in mind. When Flavianus was installed in the bishopric, Chrysaphius demanded that he should make to the emperor the offering of gold that was customary on such occasions. Instead of bringing gold, Flavianus brought only three loaves of consecrated bread. This, Chrysaphius so employed as to prejudice the emperor against the archbishop.
ECE	141	1	Dioscorus was now archbishop of Alexandria. In this place it will be sufficient description of him simply to remark that he was a second Cyril, and leave it to the progress of the narrative to reveal him exactly as he was.
ECE	141	2	Leo I, "the Great," was bishop of Rome and regarded Dioscorus as "a prelate adorned with many virtues, and enriched with the gifts of the Holy Ghost." 2
ECE	141	3	Eusebius was bishop of Dorylaeum, to which office he had been appointed from a civil office in the household of Pulcheria. He also had been an early, ardent, and persistent adversary of Nestorius. This Eusebius now stood forth as the accuser of Eutyches.
ECE	141	4	At a small synod which had been called for another purpose at Constantinople, Nov. 8, A. D. 448, Eusebius presented a written complaint against Eutyches, and asked that it be read. The complaint was to the effect that Eutyches had accused of Nestorianism orthodox teachers--even Eusebius himself. To the complaint was appended a demand that Eutyches should be summoned before the present synod to answer.
ECE	141	5	As for Eusebius himself, he announced that he was ready to prove that Eutyches had "no right to the name of Catholic," and that he was "far from the true faith." Flavianus expressed surprise, and told Eusebius that he ought to go to Eutyches, and, by a private interview, try to convince him of the true faith; and if then he really showed himself to be a heretic, he would cite him before the synod. Eusebius said he had been to him several times. Flavianus asked him to go again; but he refused, and then the synod sent a priest and a deacon, as deputies to convey to Eutyches the accusations, and summon him to the synod which would meet again in four days.
ECE	141	6	The synod met again, November 12, and Eusebius renewed his complaint, with the addition that by conversations and discussions, Eutyches had misled many others. He then suggested that the synod should give expression to the faith on the question that had been raised. Flavianus produced a letter which Cyril had written to Nestorius at the beginning of the controversy between them; the act of the Council of Ephesus which approved this letter; and another letter, which Cyril had written, about the close of that controversy. He required the bishops present to assent to the statements therein contained, as the expression of the true faith according to the Nicene Creed, which they had always believed and still believed, namely:--
ECE	142	1	"Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, is true God and true man, of a reasonable soul and a body subsisting, begotten of the Father before all time, without beginning, according to the Godhead, but in the last times, for us men and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, according to the manhood; of one substance with the Father according to the Godhead, and of one substance with his mother, according to the manhood. We confess that Christ after the Incarnation consists of two natures in one hypostasis [personality] and in one person; one Christ, one Son, one Lord. Whoever asserts otherwise, we exclude from the clergy and the Church." 3
ECE	142	2	This they all signed, and then at the suggestion of Eusebius it was sent to those who were absent for them to sign.
ECE	142	3	The next session of the synod was held November 15, and the deputies who had been sent to Eutyches reported that he had refused to come, for the reason that when he became a monk, he resolved never to leave the monastery to go to any place whatever. Besides, he told them that the synod ought to know that Eusebius had long been his enemy, and that it was only out of malice that he now accused him. He said he was ready to affirm and subscribe the declarations of the Councils of Nice and Ephesus. The synod summoned him again, and again he refused to come. Then Eusebius declared, "The guilty have ever ways of escaping; Eutyches must now be brought here, even against his will." The synod then summoned him a third time.
ECE	142	4	At the next meeting a messenger came from Eutyches, saying that he was sick. Flavianus told him the synod would wait until Eutyches got well, but that then he must come. At the next meeting, the deputies who had been sent with the third summons, reported that Eutyches had told them he had sent his messenger to the archbishop and the synod that he might in his name give his assent to the declarations of the Councils of Nice and Ephesus, "and to all that Cyril had uttered." At this Eusebius broke in with the declaration, "Even if Eutyches will now assent, because some have told him that he must yield to necessity and subscribe, yet I am not therefore in the wrong, for it is with reference, not to the future, but to the past, that I have accused him." 4 The deputies then closed with the information that he would come to the synod on the next Monday.
ECE	143	1	At the appointed time, Eutyches came; but he did not come alone. He came accompanied by a messenger of the emperor's privy council, and escorted by a great crowd composed of soldiers, and servants if the praetorian prefect, and "a rout of turbulent monks." The emperor's representative bore a letter to the synod, in which the emperor said:--
ECE	143	2	"I wish the peace of the Church and the maintenance of the orthodox faith, which was asserted by the Fathers at Nicaea and Ephesus; and because I know that the patrician Florentius is orthodox, and proved in the faith, therefore it is my will that he be present at the sessions of the synod, as the faith is in question." 5
ECE	143	3	At this the bishops cried out, "Many years to the emperor, his faith is great! Many years to the pious, orthodox, high-priestly emperor." Then the emperor's commissioner took his place, and Eusebius and Eutyches, the accuser and the accused, placed themselves in the midst. The first thing was to read the proceedings from the beginning up to this point, the vital part of which was the declarations to which they had demanded that Eutyches should give his assent. The reader read the Nicene Creed, and there was no dissent. He read the first of Cyril's letters, yet there was no dissent. He read the decision of the Council of Ephesus, and still there was no dissent. Then he began the second of Cyril's letters, and read:--
ECE	143	4	"We confess our Lord Jesus Christ as perfect God and perfect man, and as of one substance with the Father according to the Godhead, and of one substance with us according to the manhood; for a union of the two natures has taken place, therefore we confess one Christ, one Lord, and, in accordance with this union without confusion, we call the holy Virgin God-bearer, because God the Logos was made flesh and man, and in the conception united the temple which He assumed from her with himself--" 6
ECE	144	1	At this point Eusebius broke in. Seeing the reading was nearly finished with no sign of dissent, he was afraid that Eutyches would actually approve all the declarations, which doubtless he would have done. He therefore interrupted the reading, with the exclamation, "Certainly such is not confessed by this man here; he has never believed this, but the contrary, and so he has taught every one who has come to him!" Florentius asked that Eutyches might be given a chance to say for himself "Whether he agreed with what had been read." To this Eusebius vehemently objected, for the reason, said he, "If Eutyches agrees to it, then I must appear as having been lightly a slanderer, and shall LOSE MY OFFICE" !!
ECE	144	2	Florentius renewed his request that Eutyches might be allowed to answer; but Eusebius strenuously objected. And he only consented at the last, on the express condition that no prejudice should lodge against him, even though Eutyches should confess all that was required. Flavianus confirmed this condition, with the assurance that not the slightest disadvantage should come to Eusebius. But even then Eutyches was not allowed to answer in his own way, because the predicament in which Eusebius had found himself, involved in a measure the whole synod also, as they had given full credit to the charges of Eusebius, and had refused all the assurances of Eutyches that he agreed to all the documents which they had cited. Flavianus and Eusebius, therefore, in order to save themselves from defeat and perhaps deposition, if the matter should come to a general council, determined if possible to entrap Eutyches in some statement which they could condemn. The proceedings then were as follows:--
ECE	144	3	Flavianus.--"Say, now, dost thou acknowledge the union of two natures?"
ECE	144	4	Eutyches.--"I believe that Christ is perfect God and perfect man, but here I stop, and advise you to do so, too."
ECE	144	5	Eusebius.--"Dost thou confess the existence of two natures even after the incarnation, and that Christ is of one nature with us after the flesh, or not?"
ECE	144	6	Eutyches.--"I have not come to dispute, but to testify to your Holiness what I think. My view, however, is set down in this writing; command, therefore, that it be read."
ECE	144	7	Flavianus.--"If it is thine own confession of faith, why shouldst thou need the paper?"
ECE	145	1	Eutyches.--"That is my belief: I pray to the Father with the Son, and to the Son with the Father, and to the Holy Ghost with the Father and Son. I confess that his bodily presence is from the body of the holy Virgin, and that he became perfect man for our salvation. This I confess before the Father, before the Son, and before the Holy Ghost, and before your Holiness."
ECE	145	2	Flavianus.--"Dost thou confess also that the one and same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, is of one substance with the Father as to His Godhead, and of one substance with His mother as to His manhood?"
ECE	145	3	Eutyches.--"I have already declared my opinion; leave me now in peace."
ECE	145	4	Flavianus.--"Dost thou confess that Christ consists of two natures?"
ECE	145	5	Eutyches.--"I have not hitherto presumed to dispute concerning the nature of my God; but that he is of one substance with us, have I hitherto, as I affirm, never said. Up to this present day have I never said that the body of our Lord and God is of one substance with us. I do confess, however, that the holy Virgin is of one substance with us, and that our God is made of our flesh."
ECE	145	6	Flavianus, Florentius, and Basil of Seleucia.--"If thou dost acknowledge that Mary is of one substance with us, and that Christ has taken His manhood from her, then it follows of itself that He, according to His manhood, is also of one substance with us."
ECE	145	7	Eutyches.--"Consider well, I say not that the body of man has become the body of God, but I speak of a human body of God, and say that the Lord was made flesh of the Virgin. If you wish me to add further that His body is of one substance with ours, then I do this; but I do not understand this as though I denied that He is the Son of God. Formerly I did not generally speak of a unity of substance, but now I will do so, because your Holiness thus requires it."
ECE	145	8	Flavianus.--"Thou doest it then only of compulsion, and not because it is thy faith?"
ECE	145	9	Eutyches.--"I have not hitherto so spoken, but will do so now in accordance with the will of the synod."
ECE	145	10	"Florentius.--Dost thou believe that our Lord, who was born of the Virgin, is of one substance with us, and that after the incarnation He is of two natures or not?"
ECE	145	11	Eutyches.--"I confess that before the union he was of two natures, but after the union I confess only one nature."
ECE	145	12	At this "the whole council was in an uproar, and nothing was heard but anathemas and curses, each bishop there present striving to distinguish himself above the rest by being the foremost in uttering the most bitter and severe his zeal could suggest."--Bower. 7 When the noise had ceased, Flavianus, in the name of the synod, demanded of Eutyches a public declaration of his faith in, and curse upon every view that did not accept, the doctrines which had been set forth by the synod. The proceedings then were as follows:--
ECE	146	1	Eutyches.--"I will now indeed, since the synod so requires, accept the manner of speech in question; but I find it neither in Holy Scripture nor in the Father collectively, and therefore can not pronounce a curse upon the non-acceptance of the question, because that would be cursing the Fathers."
ECE	146	2	All together (springing to their feet).--"Let him be accursed!"
ECE	146	3	Flavianus.--"What does this man deserve who does not confess the right faith, but persists in his perverseness?"
ECE	146	4	Eutyches.--"I will now indeed accept the required manner of speaking in accordance with the will of the synod, but can not pronounce the curse."
ECE	146	5	Florentius.--"Dost thou confess two natures in Christ, and His unity of substance with us?"
ECE	146	6	Eutyches.--"I read in the writings of St. Cyril and St. Athanasius: before the union they speak of two natures. But after the union only of one."
ECE	146	7	Florentius.--"Dost thou confess two natures even after the union? If not, then wilt thou be condemned."
ECE	146	8	Eutyches.--"Let the writings of Cyril and Athanasius be read."
ECE	146	9	Basil of Seleucia.--"If thou dost not acknowledge two natures after the union also, then thou acceptest a mingling and confusion."
ECE	146	10	Florentius.--"He who does not say 'of two natures,' and who does not acknowledge two natures, has not the right faith."
ECE	146	11	All together.--"And he who accepts anything only by compulsion does not believe in it. Long live the emperors!"
ECE	146	12	Flavianus, announcing the sentence.--"Eutyches, a priest and archimandrite, has, by previous statements, and even now by his own confessions, shown himself to be entangled in the perversity of Valentinus and Apollinaris, without allowing himself to be won back to the genuine dogmas by our exhortation and instruction; therefore we, bewailing his complete perversity, have decreed, for the sake of Christ whom He has reviled, that he be deposed from every priestly office, expelled from our communion, and deprived of his headship over the convent. And all who henceforth hold communion with him, and have recourse to him, must know that they too are liable to the penalty of excommunication." 8
ECE	146	13	The sentence was subscribed by all the synod, about thirty in number, and the synod was dissolved, Nov. 22, A. D. 448.
ECE	146	14	It is not necessary to follow the particulars any farther; as in every other controversy, the dispute speedily spread far and wide. The decree of the synod was sent by Flavianus to all the other bishops for their indorsement. As soon as the action of the synod had been announced, Dioscorus, with all his powers, espoused the cause of Eutyches. Through Chrysaphius the Eunuch, Eutyches was already powerful at court, and added to this the disfavor in which Flavianus was already held by the emperor, the war assumed powerful proportions at the start.
ECE	147	1	The next step was, of course, for both parties to appeal to Leo, bishop of Rome. Eutyches felt perfectly safe in appealing to the because he had the words of Julius, bishop of Rome, saying, "It must not be said that there are two natures in Christ after their union; for as the body and soul from but one nature in man, so the divinity and humanity form but one nature in Christ." 9 This being precisely the view of Eutyches, he felt perfectly confident in his appeal to Leo, for he could not suppose that Leo would contradict Julius. He shortly found that such a hope was altogether vain.
ECE	147	2	The emperor also wrote to the bishop of Rome. It seems that Leo did not make any answer to Eutyches direct. To Flavianus he sent a request for a fuller account of the whole matter, and that it should be sent by an envoy. To the emperor he wrote rejoicing that Theodosius "has not only the heart of an emperor, but also that of a priest, and is rightly anxious that no discord should arise; for then is the empire best established when the holy Trinity is served in unity." 10
ECE	147	3	Dioscorus seeing now a chance of humbling the archbishop of Constantinople, joined Eutyches in a request to the emperor to call a general council. Chrysaphius, seeing again a prospect of accomplishing his favorite project to make Eutyches archbishop of Constantinople, strongly supported this request. But Theodosius, after his experience with the Council at Ephesus, dreaded to have anything to do with another one, and sought to ward off another calamity of the kind. But there was no remedy; the thing had to come.
ECE	147	4	Accordingly, March 30, A. D. 449, a message in the name of the two emperors, Theodosius II and Valentinian III, was issued, announcing that as doubts and controversies have arisen respecting the right faith, the holding of an ecumenical synod has become necessary." Therefore the archbishops, metropolitans, and "other holy bishops distinguished for knowledge and character," should assemble at Ephesus August 1. A. special edict was sent to Dioscorus, saying:--
ECE	148	1	"The emperor has already forbidden Theodoret of Cyrus, on account of his writings against Cyril, to take part in the synod unless he is expressly summoned by the synod itself. Because, however, it is to be feared that some Nestorianizing bishops will use every means in order to bring him with them, the emperor, following the rule of the holy Fathers, will nominate Dioscorus to be president of the synod. Archbishop Juvenal of Jerusalem and Thalassius of Caesarea, and all zealous friends of the orthodox faith, will support Dioscorus. In conclusion, the emperor expresses the wish that all who shall desire to add anything to the Nicene confession of faith, or take anything from it, shall not be regarded in the synod; but on this point Dioscorus shall give judgment, since it is for this very purpose that the synod is convoked."
ECE	148	2	Leo was specially invited; and a certain Barsumas, a priest and superior of a monastery in Syria, was called as the representative of the monks, and Dioscorus was directed to receive him as such, and give him a seat in the council.
ECE	148	3	Not willing to wait for the decision of the question by the coming general council, Leo took occasion to assert his authority over all; and June 13 sent a letter to Flavianus, in which he indorsed the action of the Synod of Constantinople as far as it went, but reproved the synod for treating the matter so mildly as it had done, and himself took the strongest ground against Eutyches. In answer to the request of the emperor that he should attend the general council, Leo declined to attend in person, but promised to be present by Legates a Latere.
ECE	148	4	The council, composed of one hundred and forty-nine members, met in the church of the Virgin Mary at Ephesus, and was formally opened Aug. 8, A. D. 449. Dioscorus, the president, was seated upon a high throne. Two imperial commissioners, Elpidius and Eulogius, were in attendance, with a strong body of troops to keep order in the council, and preserve peace in the city. The council was opened with the announcement by the secretary, that "the God-fearing emperors have from zeal for religion, convoked this assembly." Then the imperial message calling the council was read, and next the two legates of the bishop of Rome announced that though invited by the emperor, Leo did not appear in person, but had sent a letter. Next Elpidius, the imperial commissioner, made a short speech, in which he said:--
ECE	149	1	"The Logos has on this day permitted the assembled bishops to give judgment upon him. If you confess Him rightly, then He also will confess you before His Heavenly Father. But those who shall prevent the true doctrine will have to undergo a severe twofold judgment, that of God and that of the emperor." 11
ECE	149	2	Next was read the emperor's instructions to the two imperial commissioners, which ran as follows:--
ECE	149	3	"But lately the holy Synod of Ephesus has been engaged with the affairs of the impious Nestorius, and has pronounced a righteous sentence on him. Because, however, new controversies of faith have arisen, we have summoned a second synod to Ephesus, in order to destroy the evil to the roots. We have therefore selected Elpidius and Eulogius for the service of the faith in order to fulfill our commands in reference to the Synod of Ephesus. In particular, they must allow no disturbances, and they must arrest every one who arouses such, and inform the emperor of him; they must take care that everything is done in order, must be present at the decisions, and take care that the synod examine the matter quickly and carefully, and give information of the same to the emperor. Those bishops who previously sat in judgment on Eutyches (at Constantinople) are to be present at the proceedings at Ephesus, but are not to vote, since their own previous sentence must be examined anew. Further, no other question is to be brought forward at the synod, and especially no question of money, before the settlement of the question of faith. By a letter to the proconsul, we have required support for the commissioners from the civil and military authorities, so that they may be able to fulfill our commissions, which are as far above other business as divine above human things." 12
ECE	149	4	Following this was read a letter from the emperor to the council itself, in which he said:--
ECE	149	5	"The emperor has adjudged it necessary to call this assembly of bishops, that they might cut off this controversy and all its diabolical roots, exclude the adherents of Nestorius from the Church, and preserve the orthodox faith firm and unshaken; since the whole hope of the emperor and the power of the empire, depend on the right faith in God and the holy prayers of the synod." 13
ECE	149	6	The council was now formally opened, and according to the instructions of the emperor they proceeded first to consider the faith. But upon this a dispute at once arose as to what was meant by the faith. Some insisted that this meant that the council should first declare its faith; but Dioscorus interpreted it to mean not that the faith should first be declared, for this the former council had already done, but rather that they were to consider which of the parties agreed with what the true faith explains. And then he cried out: "Or will you alter the faith of the holy Fathers?" In answer to this there were cries, "Accursed be he who makes alterations in it; accursed be he who ventures to discuss the faith."
ECE	150	1	Next Dioscorus took a turn by which he covertly announced what was expected of the council. He said: "At Nicaea and at Ephesus the true faith has already been proclaimed; but although there have been two synods, the faith is but one." In response to this there were loud shouts from the assembly, "No one dare add anything or take anything away. A great guardian of the faith is Dioscorus. Accursed be he who still discusses the faith; the Holy Ghost speaks by Dioscorus." 14
ECE	150	2	Eutyches was now introduced to the council, that he might explain his faith. He first commended himself to the holy Trinity, and censured the Synod of Constantinople. He then handed to the secretary a written confession, in which he repeated the Nicene Creed, indorsed the acts of the Council of Ephesus and the doctrine of the holy father Cyril, and cursed all heretics from Nestorius clear back to Simon Magus, who had been rebuked by the apostle Peter. He then gave an account of the proceedings against himself. When this had been read, Flavianus demanded that Eusebius should be heard; but the imperial commissioners stopped him with the statement that they were not called together to judge Eutyches anew, but to judge those who had judged him, and that therefore the only legitimate business of the council was to examine the acts of the Synod of Constantinople.
ECE	150	3	Accordingly the proceedings of that synod were taken up. All went smoothly enough until the reader came to the point where the synod had demanded of Eutyches that he should acknowledge two natures in Christ after the incarnation. When this was read, there was an uproar against it in the council, as there had been against the statement of Eutyches in the synod; only the uproar here was as much greater than there, as the council was greater than the synod. The council cried with one voice, "Away with Eusebius! banish Eusebius! let him be burned alive! As he cuts asunder the two natures in Christ, so be he cut asunder!" 15
ECE	151	1	Dioscorus asked: "Is the doctrine that there are two natures after the incarnation to be tolerated?" Aloud the council replied: "Accursed be he who says so." Again Dioscorus cried: "I have your voices, I must have your hands. He that can not cry loud enough to be heard, let him lift up his hands." Then with uplifted hands the council unanimously bellowed: Whoever admits the two natures, let him be accursed; let him be driven out, torn in pieces, massacred." 16
ECE	151	2	Eutyches was then unanimously pronounced orthodox and declared restored to the communion of the Church, to the government of his monastery, and to all his former privileges; and he was exalted as a hero for "his courage in daring to teach, and his firmness in daring to defend, the true and genuine doctrine of the Fathers. And on this occasion, those distinguished themselves the most by their panegyrics, who had most distinguished themselves by their invectives before"--Bower. 17
ECE	151	3	Dioscorus having everything in his own power, now determined to visit vengeance upon the archbishop of Constantinople. Under pretense that it was for the instruction of his colleagues, he directed that the acts of the previous Council of Ephesus concerning the Nicene Creed, etc., should be read. As soon as the reading was finished, he said: "You have now heard that the first Synod of Ephesus threatens every one who teaches otherwise than the Nicene Creed, or makes alterations in it, and raises new or further questions. Every one must now give his opinion in writing as to whether those who, in their theological inquiries, go beyond the Nicene Creed, are to be punished or not." 18
ECE	151	4	This was aimed directly at Flavianus and Eusebius of Dorylaeum, as they had expressed the wish that the expression "two natures" might be inserted in the Nicene Creed. To the statement of Dioscorus, several bishops responded at once: "Whoever goes beyond the Nicene Creed is not to be received as a Catholic." Then Dioscorus continued: "As then the first Synod of Ephesus threatens every one who alters anything in the Nicene faith, it follows that Flavianus of Constantinople and Eusebius of Dorylaeum must be deposed from their ecclesiastical dignity. I pronounce, therefore, their deposition, and every one of those present shall communicate his view of this matter. Moreover everything will be brought to the knowledge of the emperor."
ECE	152	1	Flavianus replied: "I except against you," and, to take time by the forelock, placed a written appeal in the hands of the legates of Leo. Several of the friends of Flavianus left their seats, and prostrating themselves before the throne of Dioscorus, begged him not to inflict such a sentence, and above all that he would not ask them to sign it. He replied, "Though my tongue were to be cut out, I would not alter a single syllable of it." Trembling for their own fate if they should refuse to subscribe, the pleading bishops now embraced his knees, and entreated him to spare them; but he angrily exclaimed: "What! do you think to raise a tumult? Where are the counts?"
ECE	152	2	At this the counts ordered the doors to be thrown open and the proconsul of Asia entered with a strong body of armed troops, followed by a confused multitude of furious monks, armed with chains, and clubs, and stones. Then there was a general scramble of the "holy bishops" to find a refuge. Some took shelter behind the throne of Dioscorus, others crawled under the benches--all concealed themselves as best they could. Dioscorus declared: "The sentence must be signed. If any one objects to it, let him take care; for it is with me he has to deal." The bishops, when they found that they were not to be massacred at once, crept out from under the benches and from other places of concealment, and returned trembling to their seats.
ECE	152	3	Then Dioscorus took a blank paper, and accompanied by the bishop of Jerusalem, and attended by an armed guard, passed through the assembly and had each bishop in succession to sign it. All signed but the legates of the bishop of Rome. Then the blank was filled up by Dioscorus with a charge of heresy against Flavianus, and with the sentence which he had just pronounced upon Flavianus and Eusebius. When the sentence was written, Flavianus again said: "I except against you;" upon which Dioscorus with some other bishops rushed upon him, and with Barsumas crying out, "Strike him! strike him dead!" they beat him and banged him about, and then threw him down and kicked him and tramped upon him until he was nearly dead; then sent him off immediately to prison, and the next morning ordered him into exile. At the end of the second day's journey he died of the ill usage he had received in the council. 19
ECE	153	1	All these proceedings, up to the murder of Flavianus, were carried out on the first day. The council continued three days longer, during which Dioscorus secured the condemnation and deposition of Domnus of Antioch, and several other principal bishops, although they had signed his blank paper, for having formerly opposed Cyril and Eutyches. He then put an end to the council, and returned to Alexandria.
ECE	153	2	The emperor Theodosius, whom Leo had praised as having the heart of a priest, issued an edict in which he approved and confirmed the decrees of the council, and commanded that all the bishops of the empire should immediately subscribe to the Nicene Creed. He involved in the heresy of Nestorius, all who were opposed to Eutyches, and commanded that no adherent of Nestorius or Flavianus should ever be raised to a bishopric. "By the same edict, persons of all ranks and conditions were forbidden, on pain of perpetual banishment, to harbor or conceal any who taught, held, or favored, the tenets of Nestorius, Flavianus, and the deposed bishops; and the books, comments, homilies, and other works, written by them or passing under their names, were ordered to be publicly burnt." 20 He then wrote to Valentinian III, that by the deposition of the turbulent prelate Flavianus, "peace had in the end been happily restored to all the churches in his dominions."
ECE	153	3	As the doctrine which the council had established was contrary to that which Leo had published in his letter, he denounced the council as a "synod of robbers," refused to recognize it at all, and called for another general council. But in every respect this council was just as legitimate and as orthodox as any other one that had been held from the Council of Nice to that day. It was regularly called; it was regularly opened; the proceedings were all perfectly regular; and when it was over, the proceedings were regularly approved and confirmed by the imperial authority. In short, there is no element lacking to make the second Council of Ephesus as thoroughly regular and orthodox as was the first Council of Ephesus, which is held by the Church of Rome to be entirely orthodox; or even as orthodox as was the Council of Nice itself.
------------------------Chapter 11 - Theological Controversy--Council of Chalcedon
ECE	155	1	Leo persisted in his refusal to recognize the validity of the acts of the second Council of Ephesus, and insisted that another general council should be called. As it was the will of Leo alone that made, or could now make, the late council anything else than strictly regular and orthodox according to the Catholic system of discipline and doctrine, it is evident that if another general council were called, it would have to be subject to the will of Leo; and its decision upon questions of the faith would be but the expression of the will of Leo. This is precisely what Leo aimed at, and nothing less than this would satisfy him.
ECE	155	2	Leo had now been bishop of Rome eleven years. He was a fullblooded Roman in all that that term implies. "All that survived of Rome, of her unbounded ambition, her inflexible perseverance, her dignity in defeat, her haughtiness of language, her belief in her own eternity, and in her indefeasible title to universal dominion, her respect for traditionary and written law, and of unchangeable custom, might seem concentrated in him alone."--Milman. 1
ECE	155	3	Yet Leo was not the first one in whom this spirit was manifested. His aspirations were but the culmination of the arrogance of the bishopric of Rome which had been constantly growing. To trace the subtle, silent, often violent, yet always constant, growth of this spirit of supremacy and encroachment of absolute authority, is one of the most curious studies in all history. Not only was there never an opportunity lost, but opportunities were created, for the bishop of Rome to assert authority and to magnify his power. Supremacy in discipline and in jurisdiction was asserted by Victor and Stephen; but it was not until the union of Church and State that the field was fully opened to the arrogance of the bishopric of Rome. A glance at the successive bishops from the union of Church and State to the accession of Leo, will give a better understanding of the position and pretensions of Leo than could be obtained in any other way.
ECE	156	1	MELCHIADES - was bishop of Rome from July 2, A. D. 311, to December, 314, and therefore, as already related, was in the papal chair when the union of Church and State was formed, and took a leading part in that evil intrigue. And soon the bishopric of Rome began to receive its reward in imperial favors. "The bishop of Rome sits by the imperial authority at the head of a synod of Italian bishops, to judge the disputes of the African Donatists."--Milman. 2 Melchiades was succeeded by--SYLVESTER, A. D. 314-336.
ECE	156	2	In the very year of his accession, the Council of Arles bestowed upon the bishopric of Rome the distinction and the office of notifying all the churches of the proper time to celebrate Easter. And in 325 the general Council of Nice recognized the bishop of Rome the first bishop of the empire. Under him the organization of the Church was formed upon the model of the organization of the State. He was succeeded by--MARK, A. D. 336, whose term continued only from January till October, and was therefore so short that nothing occurred worthy of record in this connection. He was succeeded by--JULIUS, OCTOBER, 336-352, under whom the Council of Sardica--347--made the bishop of Rome the source of appeal, upon which "single precedent" the bishopric of Rome built "a universal right."--Schaff. 3 Julius was succeeded by--LIBERIUS, 352-366, who excommunicated Athanasius and then approved his doctrine, and carried on the contest with Constantius, in which he incurred banishment for the Catholic faith; and then became Arian, then Semi-Arian, and then Catholic again. He was succeeded by-- DAMASUS, 366-384.
ECE	157	1	In his episcopate, Valentinian I enacted a law making the bishop of Rome the judge of other bishops. A council in Rome, A. D. 378, enlarged his powers of judging, and petitioned the emperor Gratian to exempt the bishop of Rome from all civil jurisdiction except that of the emperor alone; to order that he be judged by none except a council, or the emperor direct; and that the imperial power should be exerted to compel obedience to the judgment of the bishop of Rome concerning other bishops. Gratian granted part of their request, and it was made to count for all.
ECE	157	2	Damasus was succeeded by--SIRICIUS, 384-389, who issued the first decretal. A decretal is "an answer sent by the pope to applications to him as head of the Church, for guidance in cases involving points of doctrine or discipline." The directions of Siricius in this decretal were to be strictly observed under penalty of excommunication. It was dated Feb. 11, A. D. 385. He convened a council in Rome, which decreed that "no one should presume to ordain a bishop without the knowledge of the apostolic see."--Bower. 4 He was succeeded by--ANASTASIUS I, 389-402, who, though very zealous to maintain all that his predecessors had asserted or claimed, added nothing in particular himself. He condemned as a heretic, Origen, who had been dead one hundred and fifty years, and who is now a Catholic saint. He was succeeded by--INNOCENT I, 402-417.
ECE	157	3	Innocent was an indefatigable disciplinarian, and kept up a constant correspondence with all the West, as well as with the principal bishoprics of the East, establishing rules, dictating to councils, and issuing decretals upon all the affairs of the Church. Hitherto the dignity of the bishopric of Rome had been derived from the dignity of the city of Rome. Innocent now asserted that the superior dignity of the bishopric of Rome was derived from Peter, whom he designated the Prince of the Apostles; and that in this respect it took precedence of that of Antioch because that in Rome Peter had accomplished what he had only begun in Antioch. He demanded the absolute obedience of all churches in the West, because, as he declared, Peter was the only apostle that ever preached in the West; and that all the churches in the West had been founded by Peter, or by some successor of his. This was utterly untrue, and he knew it, but that made no difference to him; he unblushingly asserted it, and then, upon that, asserted that "all ecclesiastical matters throughout the world are, by divine right, to be referred to the apostolic see, before they are finally decided in the provinces."--Bower. 5 At the invasion of Alaric and his siege of Rome, Innocent headed an embassy to the emperor Honorius to mediate for a treaty of peace between Alaric and the emperor. "Upon the mind of Innocent appears first distinctly to have dawned the vast conception of Rome's universal ecclesiastical supremacy, dim as yet, and shadowy, yet full and comprehensive in its outline."--Milman. 6
ECE	158	1	Innocent I was succeeded by--ZOSIMUS, MARCH 18, A. D. 417, TO DEC. 26, 418, who asserted with all the arrogance of Innocent, all that Innocent had claimed. He not only boasted with Innocent that to him belonged the power to judge all causes, but that the judgment "is irrevocable;" and accordingly established the use of the dictatorial expression, "For so it has pleased the apostolic see," as sufficient authority for all things that he might choose to command. And upon this assumption, those canons of the Council of Sardica which made the bishop of Rome the source of appeal, he passed off upon the bishops of Africa as the canons of the Council of Nice, in which he was actually followed by Leo, and put tradition upon a level with the Scriptures.
ECE	158	2	Zosimus was succeeded by--BONIFACE I, 419-422, who added nothing to the power or authority of the bishopric of Rome, but diligently and "conscientiously" maintained all that his predecessors had asserted, in behalf of what he called "the just rights of the see," in which he had been placed. He was succeeded by-- CELESTINE I, 422-432, who in a letter written A. D. 438, plainly declared: "As I am appointed by God to watch over His Church, it is incumbent upon me everywhere to root out evil practices, and introduce good ones in their room, for my pastoral vigilance is restrained by no bounds, but extends to all places where Christ is known and adored."--Bower. 7 It was he who appointed the terrible Cyril his vicegerent to condemn Nestorius, and to establish the doctrine that Mary was the mother of God. He was succeeded by--SIXTUS III, 432-440, who, as others before, added nothing specially to the papal claims, yet yielded not an iota of the claims already made. He was succeeded by--LEO I, "THE GREAT," A. D. 440-461.
ECE	159	1	Such was the heritage bequeathed to Leo by his predecessors, and the arrogance of his own native disposition, with the grand opportunities which offered during his long rule, added to it a thousandfold. At the very moment of his election he was absent in Gaul on a mission as mediator to reconcile a dispute between two of the principal men of the empire. He succeeded in his mission, and was hailed as "the Angel of Peace," and the "Deliverer of the Empire." In a sermon, he showed what his ambition embraced. He portrayed the powers and glories of the former Rome as they were reproduced in Catholic Rome. The conquests and universal sway of heathen Rome were but the promise of the conquests and universal sway of Catholic Rome. Romulus and Remus were but the precursors of Peter and Paul. Rome of former days had by her armies conquered the earth and sea: now again, by the see of the holy blessed Peter as head of the world, Rome through her divine religion would dominate the earth. 8
ECE	159	2	In A. D. 445, "at the avowed instance of Leo" and at the dictation, if not in the actual writing of Leo, Valentinian III issued a "perpetual edict" "commanding all bishops to pay an entire obedience and submission to the orders of the apostolic see;" "to observe, as law, whatever it should please the bishop of Rome to command;" "that the bishop of Rome had a right to command what he pleased;" and "whoever refused to obey the citation of the Roman pontiff should be compelled to do so by the moderator of the province" in which the recalcitrant bishop might dwell. 9
ECE	160	1	This made his authority absolute over all the West, and now he determined to extend it over the East, and so make it universal. As soon as he learned of the decision of the Council of Ephesus, he called a council in Rome, and by it rejected all that had been done by the council at Ephesus, and wrote to the emperor, Theodosius II, "entreating him in the name of the holy Trinity to declare null what had been done there," and set everything back as it was before that council was called, and so let the matter remain until a general council could be held in Italy.
ECE	160	2	Leo addressed not the emperor Theodosius alone, to have another council called. He wrote to Pulcheria, appointing her a legate of St. Peter, and entreated her "to employ all her interest with the emperor to obtain the assembling of an ecumenical council, and all her authority to prevent the evils that would be otherwise occasioned by the war which had been lately declared against the faith of the Church."--Bower. 10
ECE	160	3	In February 450, the emperor Valentinian III, with his mother Placidia and his wife Eudocia, who was the daughter of Theodosius II, made a visit to Rome. The next day after their arrival, they went to the church of St. Peter, where they were received by Leo, who, as soon as he met them, put on all the agony he could, and with sobs, and tears, and sighs, he addressed them; but on account of his great excess of grief, his words were so mumbled that nothing could be made of them.
ECE	160	4	Presently the two women began to cry. This somewhat relieved the stress upon Leo, so that with much eloquence, he represented the great danger that threatened the Church. Then he mustered up his tears again, and mixed them with more sighs and sobs, and begged the emperor and empress, by the apostle Peter to whom they were about to pay their respects, by their own salvation and by the salvation of Theodosius, to write to the emperor, and spare no pains to persuade him to nullify the proceedings of the second Council of Ephesus, and call another general council, this time in Italy.
ECE	161	1	As soon as it was learned in the East what strenuous efforts Leo was making to have another general council called, many of the bishops who had condemned Flavianus began to make overtures to the party of Leo, so that if another council should be called, they might escape condemnation. Dioscorus learning this, called a synod of ten bishops in Alexandria, and solemnly excommunicated Leo, bishop of Rome, for presuming to judge anew, and annul what had already been judged and finally determined by a general council.
ECE	161	2	Leo finally sent four legates to the court of Theodosius, to urge upon him the necessity of another general council, but before they reached Constantinople, Theodosius was dead; and having left no heir to his throne, Pulcheria, Leo's legate, became empress. As there was no precedent in Roman history to sanction the rule of a woman alone, she married a senator by the name of Marcian, and invested him with the imperial robes, while she retained and exercised the imperial authority. The first thing they did was to burn Chrysaphius. The new authority received Leo's legates with great respect, and returned answer that they had nothing so much at heart as the unity of the Church and the extirpation of heresies, and that therefore they would call a general council. Not long afterward they wrote to Leo, inviting him to assist in person at the proposed council.
ECE	161	3	No sooner was it known that Theodosius was dead, and Pulcheria and Marcian in power, than the bishops who had indorsed and praised Eutyches, changed their opinions and condemned him and all who held with him. Anatolius, an ardent defender of Eutyches, who had succeeded Flavianus as archbishop of Constantinople, and had been ordained by Dioscorus himself, "assembled in great haste all the bishops, abbots, presbyters, and deacons, who were then in Constantinople, and in their presence not only received and signed the famous letter of Leo to Flavianus, concerning the incarnation, but at the same time anathematized Nestorius and Eutyches, their doctrine, and all their followers, declaring that he professed no other faith but what was held and professed by the Roman Church and by Leo."--Bower. 11 The example of Anatolius was followed by other bishops who had favored Eutyches, and by most of those who had acted in the late council, "and nothing was heard but anathemas against Eutyches, whom most of those who uttered them, had but a few months before, honored as new apostle, and as the true interpreter of the doctrine of the Church and the Fathers."--Bower. 12
ECE	162	1	By an imperial message dated May 17, A. D. 451, a general council was summoned to meet at Nice in Bithynia, the first of September. The council met there accordingly, but an invasion of the Huns from Illyricum made it necessary for Marcian to remain in the capital; and therefore the council was removed from Nice to Chalcedon. Accordingly at Chalcedon there assembled the largest council ever yet held, the number of bishops being six hundred and thirty.
ECE	162	2	Marcian, not being able to be present at the opening, appointed six of the chief officers of the empire, and fourteen men of the Senate as commissioners to represent him at the council. Leo's legates presided, their names were Paschasinus, Lucentius, and Boniface.
                        First Session, October 8
ECE	162	3	When all the bishops were seated, Leo's legates arose, and advanced to the middle of the assembly, and Paschasinus, holding a paper in his hand, said:--
ECE	162	4	"We have here an order from the most blessed and apostolic pope, of the city of Rome, which is the head of all churches, by which his apostleship has been pleased to command that Dioscorus, bishop of Alexandria, should not be allowed to sit in the council. Let him therefore be ordered to withdraw, else we must withdraw."
ECE	162	5	The commissioners.--" What have you to object against Dioscorus in particular?"
ECE	162	6	No answer. The question was repeated.
ECE	162	7	Lucentius.--"He must be called to account for the judgment he gave at Ephesus, where he presumed to assemble a council without the consent of the apostolic see, which has never been thought lawful, which has never been done; as he is therefore to be judged, he ought not to sit as a judge."
ECE	162	8	The commissioners.--"Neither ought you to sit as a judge, since you take it upon you to act as a party. However, let us know what crime you lay to the charge of Dioscorus, for it is not agreeable to justice or reason, that he alone should be charged with a crime of which many others are no less guilty than he."
ECE	163	1	The legates.--" Leo will by no means suffer Dioscorus to sit or act in this assembly as a judge, and if he does, then we must withdraw, agreeably to our instructions." 13
ECE	163	2	The commissioners finding the legates immovable, yielded at last, and ordered Dioscorus to leave his seat, and put himself in the midst of the assembly, in the place of one accused.
ECE	163	3	Then Eusebius of Dorylaeum, the original accuser of Eutyches, stepped forward as the accuser of Dioscorus, and declared: "I have been wronged by Dioscorus; the faith has been wronged; the bishop Flavian was murdered, and, together with myself, unjustly deposed by him. Give directions that my petition be read." This petition was a memorial to the emperors, and was to the effect that at the late council at Ephesus, Dioscorus "having gathered a disorderly rabble, and procured an overbearing influence by bribes, made havoc, as far as lay in his power, of the pious religion of the orthodox, and established the erroneous doctrine of Eutyches the monk, which had from the first been repudiated by the holy Fathers;" that the emperors should therefore command Dioscorus to answer the accusation which he now made; and that the acts of the late Council of Ephesus should be read in the present council, because from these he could show that Dioscorus was "estranged from the orthodox faith, that he strengthened a heresy utterly impious,"and that he had "wrongfully deposed" and "cruelly outraged" him. 14
ECE	163	4	The late council at Ephesus had excommunicated Theodoret, bishop of Cyrus. Theodoret had appealed to Leo. Leo had reinstated him, and the emperor Marcian had specially summoned him to this council. Theodoret had arrived, and at this point in the proceedings, the imperial commissioners directed that he should be admitted to the council. "The actual introduction of Theodoret caused a frightful storm."--Hefele. 15 A faint estimate of this frightful storm may be formed from the following account of it, which is copied bodily from the report of the council:--
ECE	164	1	"And when the most reverend bishop Theodoret entered, the most reverend the bishops of Egypt, Illyria, and Palestine [the party of Dioscorus] shouted out, 'Mercy upon us! the faith is destroyed. The canons of the Church excommunicate him. Turn him out! turn out the teacher of Nestorius.'
ECE	164	2	"On the other hand, the most reverend the bishops of the East, of Thrace, of Pontus, and of Asia, shouted out, 'We were compelled [at the former council] to subscribe our names to blank papers; we were scourged into submission. Turn out the Manichaeans! Turn out the enemies of Flavian; turn out the adversaries of the faith!'
ECE	164	3	"Dioscorus, the most reverend bishop of Alexandria, said, 'Why is Cyril to be turned out? It is he whom Theodoret has condemned.'
ECE	164	4	"The most reverend the bishops of the East shouted out, 'Turn out the murderer Dioscorus. Who knows not the deeds of Dioscorus?'
ECE	164	5	"The most reverend the bishops of Egypt, Illyria, and Palestine shouted out, 'Long life to the empress!'
ECE	164	6	"The most reverend the bishops of the East shouted out, 'Turn out the murderers!'
ECE	164	7	"The most reverend the bishops of Egypt shouted out, 'The empress turned out Nestorius; long life to the Catholic empress! The orthodox synod refuses to admit Theodoret.'"
ECE	164	8	Here there was a "momentary" lull in the storm, of which Theodoret instantly took advantage, and stepped forward to the commissioners with "a petition to the emperors," which was really a complaint against Dioscorus, and asked that it be read. The commissioners said that the regular business should be proceeded with, but that Theodoret should be admitted to a seat in the council, because the bishop of Antioch had vouched for his orthodoxy. Then the storm again raged:--
ECE	164	9	"The most reverend the bishops of the East shouted out, 'He is worthy--worthy!'
ECE	164	10	"The most reverend the bishops of Egypt shouted out, 'Don't call him bishop, he is no bishop. Turn out the fighter against God; turn out the Jew!'
ECE	164	11	"The most reverend the bishops of the East shouted out, 'The orthodox for the synod! Turn out the rebels; turn out the murderers!'
ECE	164	12	"The most reverend the bishops of Egypt, 'Turn out the enemy of God. Turn out the defamer of Christ. Long life to the empress! Long life to the emperor! Long life to the Catholic emperor! Theodoret condemned Cyril. If we receive Theodoret, we excommunicate Cyril.'" 16
ECE	164	13	At this stage the commissioners were enabled by a special exertion of their authority to allay the storm. They plainly told the loudmouthed bishops, "Such vulgar shouts are not becoming in bishops, and can do no good to either party." 17 When the tumult had been subdued, the council proceeded to business. First there were read all the proceedings from the beginning of the Synod of Constantinople against Eutyches clear down to the end of the late Council of Ephesus; during which there was much shouting and counter-shouting after the manner of that over the introduction of Theodoret, but which need not be repeated.
ECE	165	1	The first act of the council after the reading of the foregoing minutes was to annul the sentence which Dioscorus had pronounced against Flavianus and Eusebius. "Many of the bishops expressed their penitence at their concurrence in these acts; some saying that they were compelled by force to subscribe--others to subscribe a blank paper."--Milman. 18 Then a resolution was framed charging Dioscorus with having approved the doctrine of one nature in Christ; with having condemned the doctrine of two natures, and having opposed Flavianus in maintaining it; and with having forced all the bishops at Ephesus to sign the sentence which he had pronounced.
ECE	165	2	Dioscorus was not afraid of anything, not even the terrors of an orthodox Church council, and without the least sign of intimidation or fear, he boldly confronted the whole host of his adversaries. In answer to their charges--
ECE	165	3	Dioscorus said.--" I have condemned, still do, and always will, condemn the doctrine of two natures in Christ, and all who maintain it. I hold no other doctrine but what I have learned of the Fathers, especially Athanasius, Nazianzen, and Cyril. I have chosen rather to condemn Flavianus than them. Those who do not like my doctrine may use me as they please, now they are uppermost and have the power in their hands; but in what manner soever they think fit to use me, I am unalterably determined, my soul being at stake, to live and die in the faith which I have hitherto professed. As to my having forced the bishops to sign the condemnation of Flavianus, I answer that the constancy of every Christian, and much more of a bishop, ought to be proof against all kinds of violence and death itself. The charge brought by Eusebius lays heavier against them than it does against me, and therefore it is incumbent upon them to answer that, as they are the more guilty."--Bower. 19
ECE	166	1	Night had now come. Dioscorus demanded an adjournment. It was refused. Torches were brought in. The night was made hideous by the wild cries of acclamation to the emperor and the Senate, of appeals to God and curses upon Dioscorus. When the resolution was finally put upon its passage, it was announced as follows by--
ECE	166	2	The imperial commissioners.--"As it has now been shown by the reading of the acts and by the avowal of many bishops who confess that they fell into error at Ephesus, that Flavianus and others were unjustly deposed, it seems right that, if it so pleases the emperor, the same punishment should be inflicted upon the heads of the previous synod. Dioscorus of Alexandria, Juvenal of Jerusalem, Thalassius of Caesarea, Eusebius of Ancyra, Eustathius of Berytus, and Basil of Seleucia, and that their deposition from the episcopal dignity should be pronounced by the council."
ECE	166	3	The Orientals.--"That is quite right."
ECE	166	4	Many of the party of Dioscorus now abandoned him and his cause, and went over to the other side, exclaiming; "We have all erred, we all ask for pardon." Upon this there was an almost unanimous demand that only Dioscorus should be deposed.
ECE	166	5	Dioscorus.--"They are condemning not me alone, but Athanasius and Cyril. They forbid us to assert the two natures after the incarnation."
ECE	166	6	The Orientals, and other opponents of Dioscorus, all together.--"Many years to the Senate! holy God, holy Almighty, holy Immortal, have mercy upon us! Many years to the emperors! The impious must ever be subdued! Dioscorus the murderer, Christ had deposed! This is a righteous judgment, a righteous Senate, a righteous council."
ECE	166	7	Amid such cries as these, and, "Christ has deposed Dioscorus, Christ has deposed the murderer, God has avenged his martyrs," the resolution was adopted. Then the council adjourned. 20
                        The Second Session, October 10
ECE	166	8	As soon as the council had been opened, the direction was given by--
ECE	167	1	The imperial commissioners.--"Let the synod now declare what the true faith is, so that the erring may be brought back to the right way."
ECE	167	2	The bishops protesting.--No one can venture to draw up a new formula of the faith, but that which has already been laid down by the Fathers [at Nice, Constantinople, and the first of Ephesus] is to be held fast. This must not be departed from."
ECE	167	3	Cecropius, bishop of Sebastopol.--"On the Eutychian question a test has already been given by the Roman archbishop, which we [that is, he and his nearest colleagues] have all signed."
ECE	167	4	All the bishops, with acclamation.--"That we also say, the explanation already given by Leo suffices; another declaration of faith must not be put forth."
ECE	167	5	The imperial commissioners.--"Let all the patriarchs [the chief bishops] come together, along with one or two bishops of their province, and take common counsel respecting the faith, and communicate the result, so that, by its universal acceptance, every doubt in regard to the faith may be removed, or if any believe otherwise, which we do not expect, these may immediately be made manifest."
ECE	167	6	The bishops.--"A written declaration of faith we do not bring forward. This is contrary to the rule" [referring to the command of the first Council of Ephesus].
ECE	167	7	Florentius, bishop of Sardes.--"As those who have been taught to follow the Nicene Synod, and also the regularly and piously assembled synod at Ephesus, in accordance with the faith of the holy fathers Cyril and Celestine, and also with the letter of the most holy Leo, can not possibly draw up at once a formula of the faith, we therefore ask for a longer delay; but I, for my part, believe that the letter of Leo is sufficient."
ECE	167	8	Cecropius.--"Let the formulas be read in which the true faith has already been set forth."
ECE	167	9	This suggestion was adopted. First the Nicene Creed, with its curse against the Arian heresy, was read, at the close of which,--
ECE	167	10	The bishops, unanimously.--"That is the orthodox faith, that we all believe, into that we were baptized, into that we also baptize; thus Cyril taught, thus believes Pope Leo."
ECE	167	11	Next was read the Creed of Constantinople, and with similar acclamations it was unanimously indorsed. Then were read the two letters which Cyril had written, and which were a part of the record of the Inquisition upon Eutyches. Lastly there was read the letter of Leo. When Leo's letter was read, it was cheered to the echo, and again roared--
ECE	167	12	The bishops.--"It is the belief of the Fathers--of the apostles--so believe we all! Accursed be he that admits not that Peter has spoken by the mouth of Leo! Leo has taught what is righteous and true, and so taught Cyril. Eternal be the memory of Cyril! Why was not this read at Ephesus! It was suppressed by Dioscorus!"
ECE	168	1	The bishops of Illyricum and Palestine, however, said that there were some passages--three, it proved--in the letter of Leo of which they had some doubts. The truth of those passages was confirmed by statements which Cyril had made to the same effect.
ECE	168	2	The imperial commissioners.--"Has any one still a doubt?"
ECE	168	3	The bishops, by acclamation.--"No one doubts."
ECE	168	4	Still there was one bishop who hesitated, and requested that there might be a few days' delay that the question might be quietly considered and settled; and as the letter of Leo had been read, that they might have a copy of the letter of Cyril to Nestorius, that they might examine them together.
ECE	168	5	The council--If we are to have delay, we must request that all the bishops in common shall take part in the desired consultation."
ECE	168	6	The commissioners.--"The assembly is put off for five days, and the bishops shall, during that time, meet with Anatolius of Constantinople, and take counsel together concerning the faith, so that the doubting may be instructed."
ECE	168	7	38. As the council was about to be dismissed, some bishops entered a request that the bishops who had taken a leading part in the late Council of Ephesus, should be forgiven!
ECE	168	8	The petitioning bishops.--"We petition for the Fathers that they may be allowed again to enter the synod. The emperor and the empress should hear of this petition. We have all erred; let all be forgiven!"
ECE	168	9	Upon this "a great commotion again arose, similar to that at the beginning of the council over the introduction of Theodoret:"--
ECE	168	10	The clergy of Constantinople shouted.--"Only a few cry for this, the synod itself says not a syllable."
ECE	168	11	The Orientals cried out.--"Exile to the Egyptian!"
ECE	168	12	The illyrians.--"We beseech you, pardon all!"
ECE	168	13	The Orientals.--"Exile to the Egyptian!"
ECE	168	14	The Illyrians.--"We have all erred; have mercy on us all! These words to the orthodox emperor! The churches are rent in pieces."
ECE	168	15	The clergy of Constantinople.--"To exile with Dioscorus; God has rejected him. Whoever has communion with him is a Jew."
ECE	169	1	In the midst of this uproar, the imperial commissioners put an end to the session. The recess continued only two days instead of five, for THE THIRD SESSION WAS HELD OCTOBER 13.
ECE	169	2	The first step taken at this session was by Eusebius of Dorylaeum, who proudly stepped forward to secure by the council his vindication as the champion of orthodoxy. He presented a petition to the council in which, after repeating his accusation against Dioscorus, he said:--
ECE	169	3	"I therefore pray that you will have pity upon me, and decree that all which was done against me be declared null, and do me no harm, but that I be again restored to my spiritual dignity. At the same time anathematize his evil doctrine, and punish him for his insolence according to his deserts."
ECE	169	4	Following this, Dioscorus was charged with enormous crimes, with lewdness and debauchery to the great scandal of his flock; with styling himself the king of Egypt, and attempting to usurp the sovereignty. Dioscorus was not present, and after being summoned three times without appearing, Leo's legates gave a recapitulation of the crimes charged against him, and then pronounced the following sentence:--
ECE	169	5	"Leo, archbishop of the great and ancient Rome, by us and the present synod, with the authority of St. Peter, on whom the Catholic Church and orthodox faith are founded, divests Dioscorus of the episcopal dignity, and declares him henceforth incapable of exercising any sacerdotal or episcopal functions." 21
                        The Fourth Session, October 17
ECE	169	6	At this session, the discussion of the faith was resumed. First, there was read the act of the second session, ordering a recess of five days for the consideration of the faith.
ECE	169	7	The commissioners.--"What has the reverend synod now decreed concerning the faith?"
ECE	169	8	The papal legate, Paschasinus--"The holy synod holds fast the rule of faith which was ratified by the Fathers at Nicaea and by those at Constantinople. Moreover, in the second place, it acknowledges that exposition of this creed which was given by Cyril at Ephesus. In the third place, the letter of the most holy man Leo, archbishop of all churches, who condemned the heresy of Nestorius and Eutyches, shows quite clearly what is the true faith, and this faith the synod also holds, and allows nothing to be added to it or taken from it."
ECE	170	1	The bishops altogether.--"We also all believe thus, into that we were baptize, into that we baptize thus we believe."
ECE	170	2	In the midst of the assembly was the throne upon which lay the Gospels. The imperial commissioners now required that all the bishops should swear by the Gospels whether or not they agreed with the faith expressed in the creeds of Nice and Constantinople, and in Leo's letter. The first to swear was Anatolius, archbishop of Constantinople, next, the three legates of Leo, and after them, one by one, others came, until one hundred and sixty-one votes had been thus taken; whereupon the imperial commissioners asked the remaining bishops to give their votes all at once.
ECE	170	3	The bishops, unanimously and vociferously.--"We are all agreed, we all believe thus; he who agrees, belongs to the synod! Many years to the emperors, many years to the empress! Even the five bishops [who had been deposed with Dioscorus] have subscribed, and believed as Leo does! They also belong to the synod!"
ECE	170	4	The imperial commissioners and others.--"We have written on their [the five bishops'] account to the emperor, and await his commands. You, however, are responsible to God for these five for whom you intercede, and for all the proceedings of this synod."
ECE	170	5	The bishops.--"God has deposed Dioscorus; Dioscorus is rightly condemned; Christ has deposed him."
ECE	170	6	After this the council waited to receive word from the emperor respecting the five bishops. After several hours the message came, saying that the council itself should decide as to their admission. As the council was already agreed upon it, and had called for it, the five bishops were called in at once. As they came in and took their places, again cried loudly--
ECE	170	7	The bishops.--"God has done this! Many years to the emperors, to the Senate, to the commissioners! The union is complete, and peace given to the churches!"
ECE	170	8	The commissioners next announced that the day before, a number of Egyptian bishops had handed in a confession of faith to the emperor, who wished that it should be read to the council. The bishops were called in and took their places, and their confession was read. The confession was signed by thirteen bishops, but it was presented in the name of "all the bishops of Egypt." It declared that they agreed with the orthodox faith and cursed all heresy, particularly that of Arius, and a number of others, but did not name Eutyches among the heretics. As soon as this was noticed, the council accused the Egyptians of dishonesty. Leo's legates demanded whether or not they would agree with the letter of Leo, and pronounce a curse on Eutyches.
ECE	171	1	The Egyptians.--"If any one teaches differently from what we have indicated, whether it be Eutyches, or whoever it be, let him be anathema. As to the letter of Leo, however, we can not express ourselves, for you all know that in accordance with the prescription of the Nicene Council, we are united with the archbishop of Alexandria, and therefore must await his judgment in this matter."
ECE	171	2	This caused such an outcry in the council against them, that the thirteen yielded so far as to pronounce openly and positively a curse upon Eutyches. Again the legates called upon them to subscribe to the letter of Leo.
ECE	171	3	The Egyptians.--"Without the consent of our archbishop we can not subscribe."
ECE	171	4	Acacius, bishop of Ariarathia.--"It is inadmissible to allow more weight to one single person who is to hold the bishopric of Alexandria, than to the whole synod. The Egyptians only wish to throw everything into confusion here as at Ephesus. They must subscribe Leo's letter or be excommunicated."
ECE	171	5	The Egyptians.--"In comparison with the great number of the bishops of Egypt, there are only a few of us present, and we have no right to act in their name, to do what is here required. We therefore pray for mercy, and that we may be allowed to follow our archbishop. Otherwise all the provinces of Egypt will rise up against us."
ECE	171	6	Cecropius of Sebastopol.--[Again reproaching them with heresy] "It is from yourselves alone that assent is demanded to the letter of Leo, and not in the name of the rest of the Egyptian bishops."
ECE	171	7	The Egyptians.--"We can no longer live at home if we do this."
ECE	171	8	Leo's legate, Lucentius.--"Ten individual men can occasion no prejudice to a synod of six hundred bishops and to the Catholic faith."
ECE	171	9	The Egyptians.--"We shall be killed, we shall be killed, if we do it. We will rather be made away with here by you than there. Let an archbishop for Egypt be here appointed, and then we will subscribe and assent. Have mercy on our gray hairs! Anatolius of Constantinople knows that in Egypt all the bishops must obey the archbishop of Alexandria. Have pity upon us; we would rather die by the hands of the emperor, and by yours than at home. Take our bishoprics, if you will, elect an archbishop of Alexandria, we do not object."
ECE	172	1	Many bishops.--"The Egyptians are heretics; they must subscribe the condemnation of Dioscorus."
ECE	172	2	The imperial commissioners.--"Let them remain at Constantinople until an archbishop is elected for Alexandria."
ECE	172	3	The legate, Paschasinus.--[Agreeing] "They must give security not to leave Constantinople in the meantime."
ECE	172	4	During the rest of the session matters were discussed which had no direct bearing upon the establishment of the faith.
                        The Fifth Session, October 22
ECE	172	5	The object of this session was the establishment of the faith; and the object was accomplished. The first thing was the reading of a form of doctrine which, according to arrangement made in the second session, had been framed, and also the day before had been "unanimously approved." As soon as it was read, however, there was an objection made against it:--
ECE	172	6	John bishop of Germanicia--"This formula is not good; it must be improved."
ECE	172	7	Anatolius.--"Did it not yesterday give universal satisfaction?"
ECE	172	8	The bishops in acclamation.--"It is excellent, and contains the Catholic faith. Away with the Nestorians! The expression 'Theotokos' [Mother of God] must be received into the creed."
ECE	172	9	Leo's legates.--"If the letter of Leo is not agreed to, we demand our papers, so that we may return home, and that a synod may be held in the West."
ECE	172	10	The imperial commissioners then suggested that a commission composed of six bishops from the East, three from Asia, three from Illyria, three from Pontus, and three from Thrace, with the archbishop of Constantinople and the Roman legates, should meet in the presence of the commissioners, and decide upon a formula of the faith, and bring it before the council. The majority of the bishops, however, loudly demanded that the one just presented should be accepted and subscribed by all, and charged John of Germanicia with being a Nestorian:--
ECE	172	11	The commissioners.--"Dioscorus asserts that he condemned Flavianus for having maintained that there are two natures in Christ; in the new doctrinal formula, however, it stands, 'Christ is of two natures.'"
ECE	172	12	Anatolius.--"Dioscorus has been deposed not on account of false doctrine, but because he excommunicated the pope, and did not obey the synod."
ECE	173	1	The commissioners.--"The synod has already approved of Leo's letter. As that has been done, then that which is contained in the letter must be confessed."
ECE	173	2	The majority of the council, however, insisted upon adopting the formula already before them. The commissioners informed the emperor of the situation. Immediately the answer came:--
ECE	173	3	The emperor's message.--"Either the proposed commission of bishops must be accepted, or the bishops must individually declare their faith through their metropolitans, so that all doubt may be dispelled, and all discord removed. If they will do neither of these things, a synod must be held in the West, since they refuse here to give a definite and stable declaration respecting the faith."
ECE	173	4	The majority.--"We abide by the formula, or we go!"
ECE	173	5	Cecropius of Sebastopol.--"Whoever will not subscribe it can go [to a Western council]."
ECE	173	6	The Illyrians.--"Whoever opposes it is a Nestorian, these can go to Rome!"
ECE	173	7	The commissioners.--"Dioscorus has rejected the expression, 'There are two natures in Christ, and on the contrary has accepted 'of two natures;' Leo on the other hand says, 'In Christ there are two natures united:' which will you follow, the most holy Leo, or Dioscorus?"
ECE	173	8	The whole council.--"We believe with Leo, not with Dioscorus; whoever opposes this is a Eutychian."
ECE	173	9	The commissioners.--"Then you must also receive into the creed, the doctrine of Leo, which has been stated."
ECE	173	10	The council now asked for the appointment of the commission which the commissioners had suggested. Among those who were made members of the commission were a number of bishops who had not only "vehemently supported" the doctrine of Eutyches, but had also actually taken a leading part with Dioscorus in the second Council of Ephesus. The commission met at once in the oratory of the church in which the council was held, and after consulting together not a great while, they returned to the council and presented the following preamble:--
ECE	173	11	"The holy and great Ecumenical Synod, ...at Chalcedon in Bithynia.... has defined as follows: Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, when confirming the faith in his disciples, declared: 'Peace I leave with you; my peace I give unto you,' so that no one might be separated from his neighbor in the doctrines of religion, but that the preaching of the truth should be made known to all alike. As, however, the evil one does not cease by his cares to hinder the seed of religion, and is ever inventing something new in opposition to the truth, therefore has God, in His care for the human race, stirred up zeal in this pious and orthodox emperor, so that he has convoked the heads of the priesthood in order to remove all the plague of falsehood from the sheep of Christ, and to nourish them with the tender plants of truth. This we have also done in truth, since we have expelled, by our common judgment, the doctrines of error, and have renewed the right faith of the Fathers, have proclaimed the creed of the three hundred and eighteen to all, and have acknowledged the one hundred and fifty of Constantinople who accepted it, as our own. While we now receive the regulations of the earlier Ephesine Synod, under Celestine and Cyril, and its prescriptions concerning the faith, we decree that the confession of the three hundred and eighteen Fathers at Nicaea is a light to the right and unblemished faith, and that that is also valid which was decreed by the one hundred and fifty Fathers at Constantinople for the confirmation of the Catholic and apostolic faith."
ECE	174	1	Here they inserted bodily the creed of the Council of Nice and that of Constantinople; and then the preamble continued as follows:--
ECE	174	2	"This wise and wholesome symbol of divine grace would indeed suffice for a complete knowledge and confirmation of religion, for it teaches everything with reference to the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, and declares the incarnation of the Lord to those who receive it in faith; as, however, those who would do away with the preaching of the truth devised vain expressions through their own heresies, and, on the one side, dared to destroy the mystery of the incarnation of our Lord and rejected the designation of God-bearer, and, on the other side, introduced a mixture and confusion [of the natures], and, contrary to reason, imagined only one nature of the flesh and of the Godhead, and rashly maintained that the divine nature of the Only-begotten was, by the mixture, become possible, therefore the holy, great, and Ecumenical Synod decrees that the faith of the three hundred and eighteen Fathers shall remain inviolate, and that the doctrine afterward promulgated by the one hundred and fifty Fathers at Constantinople, on account of the Pneumatomachi shall have equal validity, being put forth by them, not in order to add to the creed of Nicaea anything that was lacking, but in order to make known in writing their consciousness concerning the Holy Ghost against the deniers of His glory.
ECE	174	3	"On account of those, however, who endeavored to destroy the mystery of the incarnation, and who boldly insulted him who was born of the holy Mary, affirmed that he was a mere man, the holy synod has accepted as valid the synodal letter of St. Cyril to Nestorius and to the Orientals in opposition to Nestorianism, and has added to them the letter of the holy archbishop Leo of Rome, written to Flavian for the overthrow of the Eutychian errors, as agreeing with the doctrine of St. Peter and as a pillar against all heretics, for the confirmation of the orthodox dogmas. The synod opposes those who seek to rend the mystery of the incarnation into a duality of sons, and excludes from holy communion those who venture to declare the Godhead of the Only-begotten as capable of suffering, and opposes those who imagine a mingling and a confusion of the two natures of Christ, and drives away those who foolishly maintain that the servant-form of the Son, assumed from us, is from a heavenly substance, or any other [than ours], and anathematizes those who fable that before the union there were two natures of our Lord, but after the union only one."
ECE	175	1	Having thus paved the way, they presented for the present occasion, for all people, and for all time, the following creed:--
ECE	175	2	"Following, accordingly, the holy Fathers, we confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, and we all with one voice declare Him to be at the same time perfect in Godhead, and perfect in manhood, very God, and at the same time very man, consisting of a reasonable soul and a body, being consubstantial with the Father as respects His Godhead, and at the same time consubstantial with ourselves as respects his manhood; resembling us in all things, independently of sin; begotten before the ages, of the Father, according to his Godhead, but born, in the last of the days, of Mary, the virgin and mother of God, for our sakes and for our salvation; being one and the same Jesus Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, made known in two natures without confusion, without conversion, without severance, without separation inasmuch as the difference of the natures is in no way annulled by their union, but the peculiar essence of each nature is rather preserved, and conspires in one person and in one subsistence, not as though he were parted or severed into two persons, but is one and the same Son, Only-begotten, Divine Word, Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets declared concerning him, and Christ himself has fully instructed us, and the symbol of the Fathers has conveyed to us. Since then, these matters have been defined by us with all accuracy and diligence, the holy and universal synod has determined that no one shall be at liberty to put forth another faith, whether in writing, or by framing, or devising, or teaching it to others. And that those who shall presume to frame, or publish, or teach another faith, or to communicate another symbol to those who are disposed to turn to the knowledge of the truth from heathenism, or Judaism, or any other sect--that they, if they be bishops or clerks, shall suffer deprivation, the bishops of their episcopal, the clerks of their clerical office; and if monks or laics, shall be anathematized." 22
ECE	175	3	When the reading of this report of the commission was finished, the council adjourned.
                        The Sixth Session, October 25
ECE	175	4	At this session the emperor Marcian and the empress Pulcheria, came with their whole court to ratify the decision which the council in the previous session had reached concerning the faith. Marcian opened the session in a speech, spoken first in Latin and repeated in Greek, which was as follows:--
ECE	176	1	"From the beginning of our reign we have had the purity of the faith peculiarly at heart. As now, through the avarice or perversity of some, many have been seduced to error, we summoned the present synod so that all error and all obscurity might be dispelled, that religion might shine forth from the power of its light, and that no one should in future venture further to maintain concerning the incarnation of our Lord and Saviour, anything else than that which the apostolic preaching and the decree, in accordance therewith, of the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers have handed down to posterity, and which is also testified by the letter of the holy pope Leo of Rome to Flavian. In order to strengthen the faith, but not at all to exercise violence, we have wished, after the example of Constantine, to be personally present at the synod, so that the nations may not be still more widely separated by false opinions. Our efforts were directed to this, that all, becoming one in the true doctrine, may return to the same religion, and honor the true Catholic faith. May God grant this."
ECE	176	2	As soon as he had finished the speech in Latin,--
ECE	176	3	The bishops unanimously exclaimed.--"Many years to the emperor many years to the empress; he is the only son of Constantine. Prosperity to Marcian, the new Constantine!"
ECE	176	4	After he had repeated the speech in Greek, the bishops repeated their shouts of adulation. Then the whole declaration, preamble and all, concerning the faith, was read, at the close of which--
ECE	176	5	The emperor Marcian.--"Does this formula of the faith express the view of all?"
ECE	177	6	The six hundred bishops all shouting at once.--"We all believe thus; there is one faith, one will; we are all unanimous, and have unanimously subscribed; we are all orthodox! This is the faith of the Fathers, the faith of the apostles, the faith of the orthodox; this faith has saved the world. Prosperity to Marcian, the new Constantine, the new Paul, the new David! long years to our sovereign lord David! You are the peace of the world, long life! Your faith will defend you. Thou honorest Christ. He will defend thee. Thou hast established orthodoxy.... To the august empress, many years! You are the lights of orthodoxy.... .Orthodox from her birth, God will defend her. Defender of the faith, may God defend her. Thou hast persecuted all the heretics. May the evil eye be averted from your empire! Worthy of the faith, worthy of Christ! So are the faithful sovereigns honored.... Marcian is the new Constantine, Pulcheria is the new Helena!...Your life is the safety of all; your faith is the glory of the churches. By thee the world is at peace; by thee the orthodox faith is established; by thee heresy ceases to be. Long life to the emperor and empress!" 23
ECE	177	1	The emperor then "gave thanks to Christ that unity in religion had again been restored, and threatened all, as well private men and soldiers as the clergy, with heavy punishment if they should again stir up controversies respecting the faith," and proposed certain ordinances which were made a part of the canons established in future sessions. As soon as he had ceased speaking, the bishops again shouted, "Thou art priest and emperor together, conqueror in war and teacher of the faith."
ECE	177	2	The council was sitting in the church of St. Euphemia, and Marcian now announced that in honor of St. Euphemia and the council, he bestowed upon the city of Chalcedon the title and dignity of "metropolis;" and in return the bishops all unanimously exclaimed, "This is just; an Easter be over the whole world; the holy Trinity will protect thee. We pray dismiss us."
ECE	177	3	Instead of dismissing them, however, the emperor commanded them to remain "three or four days longer," and to continue the proceedings. The council continued until November 1, during which time ten sessions were held, in which there was much splitting of theological hairs, pronouncing curses, and giving the lie; and an immense amount of hooting and yelling in approval or condemnation. None of it, however, is worthy of any further notice except to say that twenty-eight canons were established, the last of which confirmed to the archbishopric of Constantinople the dignity which had been bestowed by the Council of Constantinople seventy years before, and set at rest all dispute on the matter of jurisdiction by decreeing that in its privileges and ecclesiastical relations it should be exalted to, and hold, the first place after that of Old Rome. Against this, however, Leo's legates protested at the time; and Leo himself, in three letters--one to Marcian, one to Pulcheria, and one to Anatolius--denounced it in his own imperious way.
ECE	177	4	Having closed its labors, the council drew up and sent to Leo a memorial beginning with the words of Psalm 126:2, which read in substance as follows:--
ECE	178	1	"Our mouth was filled with laughter, and our tongue with joy.'
ECE	178	2	"The reason of this joy is the confirmation of the faith which has been preserved by your Holiness and the blissful contents of which have been translated by you as interpreter of the voice of Peter. You the bishops of Chalcedon have taken as their guide, in order to show to the sons of the Church the inheritance of the truth. Your letter has been for us a spiritual, imperial banquet, and we believe we have had the heavenly Bridegroom present at it in our midst. As the head over the members, so have you, by your representatives, had the predominance among us. In order that everything might proceed in the most orderly manner, however, the faithful emperors have had the presidency. The wild beast Dioscorus, having in his madness attacked even him who is by the Saviour a keeper of the divine vineyard, and having dared to excommunicate him whose vocation it is to unite the body of the Church, the synod has inflicted meet punishment upon him because he has not repented and appeared in answer to our exhortation. All our other business has been prosperously conducted by God's grace and through St. Euphemia, who has crowned the assembly held in her bridal chamber, and has transmitted its doctrinal decree as her own to her bridegroom Christ by the hand of the emperor and the empress.... We have also confirmed the canon of the synod of the one hundred and fifty Fathers, by which the second rank is assigned to the see of Constantinople, immediately after thy holy and apostolic see. We have done it with confidence, because you have so often allowed the apostolic ray which shines by you to appear to the church at Constantinople, and because you are accustomed ungrudgingly to enrich those who belong to you by allowing them participation in your own possessions. Be pleased, therefore, to embrace this decree as though it were thine own, most holy and most blessed father. Thy legates have strongly opposed it, probably because they thought that this good regulation, like the declaration of the faith, should proceed from thyself. But we were of an opinion that it belonged to the Ecumenical Synod to confirm its prerogatives to the imperial city in accordance with the wish of the emperor, assuming that when thou hadst heard it, thou wouldst regard it as thine own act. For all that the sons have done, which is good, conduces to the honor of the Fathers. We pray thee, honor our decree also by thine assent; and as we have assented to thy good decree, so may thy loftiness accomplish that which is meet toward the sons. This will also please the emperors, who have sanctioned thy judgment in the faith as law; and the see of Constantinople may well receive a reward for the zeal with which it united itself with thee in the matter of religion. In order to show that we have done nothing from favor or dislike toward any one, we have brought the whole contents of what we have done to thy knowledge, and have communicated it to thee for confirmation and assent."
ECE	179	1	This was followed up December 18, by two letters to Leo from the emperor and the archbishop of Constantinople, Anatolius, saying that he had constantly done all for the honor of Leo and his legates, and from reverence for the pope, the council and himself had transmitted all to Leo for his approval and confirmation; Marcian expressing his gladness that the true faith had received its expression in accordance with the letter of Leo, and both praying him to approve and confirm the decrees of the council, and especially the canon in reference to the see of Constantinople. Leo steadily denounced that canon, however. But as Anatolius, in a letter, April, 454, acknowledged to Leo: "The whole force and confirmation of the decrees have been reserved for your Holiness:" this was to yield absolutely all to Leo, as far as it was possible for the council and its members to go.
ECE	179	2	February 7, A. D. 452, the emperor Marcian, in the name of himself and Valentinian III, issued the following edict confirming the creed of the council:--
ECE	179	3	"That which has been so greatly and universally desired is at last accomplished. The controversy respecting orthodoxy is over, and unity of opinion is restored among the nations. The bishops assembled in Chalcedon at my command from various exarchies, have taught with exactness in a doctrinal decree what is to be maintained in respect to religion. All unholy controversy must now cease, as he is certainly impious and sacrilegious who, after the declaration made by so many bishops, thinks that there still remains something for his own judgment to examine. For it is evidently a sign of extreme folly when a man seeks for a deceptive light in broad day. He who, after discovery has been made of the truth, still inquires after something else, seeks for falsehood. No cleric, no soldier, and generally no one, in whatever position he may be, must venture publicly to dispute concerning the faith, seeking to produce confusion, and to find pretexts for false doctrines. For it is an insult to the holy synod to subject that which it has decreed and fundamentally established, to new examinations and public disputes, since that which was recently defined concerning the Christian faith is in accordance with the doctrine of the three hundred and eighteen Fathers and the regulation of the one hundred and fifty Fathers. The punishment of the transgressors of this law shall not be delayed, since they are not only opponents of the lawfully established faith but also by their contentions betray the holy mysteries to the Jews and heathen. If a cleric ventures openly to dispute respecting religion, he shall be struck out of the catalogue of the clergy, the soldier shall be deprived of his belt, other persons shall be removed from the residence city, and shall have suitable punishments inflicted upon them, according to the pleasure of the courts of justice."
ECE	180	1	The following July 28, he issued a decree in which he forbade the Eutychians to have any clergy; and if anybody should attempt to appoint any, both they who should appoint and he who was appointed, should be punished with confiscation of goods and banishment for life. They were forbidden to hold any assemblies of any kind, or to build or to live in monasteries. If they should presume to hold any kind of meeting, then the place where it was held would be confiscated, if it was with the knowledge of the owner. But if, without the knowledge of the owner it was rented by some one for them, he who rented it should be punished with a beating, with confiscation of goods, and with banishment. They were declared incapable of inheriting anything by will, or of appointing any Eutychian an heir. If any were found in the army, they were to be expelled from it. Those of them who had formerly been in the orthodox faith, and also the monks of the monastery--he called it the "stable"--of Eutyches, were to be driven entirely beyond the boundaries of the Roman Empire. All their writings were to be burnt, whoever circulated them was to be banished, and all instruction in the Eutychian doctrine was to be "rigorously punished." And finally, all governors of provinces with their officials, and all judges in the cities who should be negligent in enforcing the law, were to be fined ten pounds of gold, as despisers of religion and the laws. At the same time that this last decree was issued, Eutyches and Dioscorus were sentenced to banishment. Eutyches died before the sentence was enforced, and Dioscorus died in exile at Gangra in Paphlagonia two years afterward.
ECE	180	2	As Leo had published his letters rejecting the canon concerning the see of Constantinople, and had not yet formally published any approval of the doctrinal decree of the council, the report went abroad throughout the East that he had repudiated all the decisions of the council. The report, therefore, was a new incentive to all who disagreed with the creed of the council, and "heresy" became again so prevalent that Feb. 15, A. D. 453, Marcian addressed a letter to Leo, earnestly beseeching him as soon as possible to issue a decree in confirmation of the decision of the Council of Chalcedon, "so that no one might have any further doubt as to the judgment of his Holiness." March 21, Leo responded in the following words:--
ECE	181	1	"I doubt not, brethren, that you all know how willingly I have confirmed the doctrinal decree of the Synod of Chalcedon. You would have been able to learn this not only from the assent of my legates, but also from my letters to Anatolius of Constantinople, if he had brought the answer of the apostolic see to your knowledge. But that no one may doubt my approving of that which was decreed at the Synod of Chalcedon by universal consent in regard to the faith, I have directed this letter to all my brethren and fellow-bishops who were present at the synod named, and the emperor will, at my request, send it to you, so that you may all know that, not merely by my legates, but also by my own confirmation of it, I have agreed with you in what was done at the synod; but only, as must always be repeated, in regard to the subject of the faith, on account of which the general council was assembled at the command of the emperors, in agreement with the apostolic see. But in regard to the regulations of the Fathers of Nicaea, I admonish you that the rights of the individual churches must remain unaltered, as they were there established by the inspired Fathers. No unlawful ambition must covet that which is not its own, and no one must increase by the diminution of others. And that which pride has obtained by enforced assent, and thinks to have confirmed by the name of a council, is invalid, if it is in opposition to the canons of the aforesaid Fathers[of Nicaea]. How reverentially the apostolic see maintains the rules of these Fathers, and that I by God's help shall be a guardian of the Catholic faith and of the ecclesiastical canons, you may see from the letter by which I have resisted the attempts of the bishop of Constantinople."
ECE	181	2	As the necessity for the Council of Chalcedon was created by the will of Leo alone; as the council when assembled was ruled from beginning to end by his legates in his name; as the documents presented in the council were addressed to "Leo, the most holy, blessed, and universal patriarch of the great city of Rome, and to the holy and Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon;" as the council distinctly acknowledged Leo as its head, and the members of the council as members of him; as the judgments were pronounced as his own; as his letter was made the test, and the expression of the faith, and with that all were required to agree; as the decisions of the council were submitted to him for approval, and were practically of little or no force until he had formally published his approval, and then only such portion as he did approve; as, in short, everything in connection with the council sprung from his will and returned in subjection to his will,--Leo, and in him the bishopric of Rome, thus became essentially the fountain of the Catholic faith.
ECE	182	1	It is not at all surprising, therefore, that Leo should officially declare that the doctrinal decrees of the Council of Chalcedon were inspired. This is precisely what he did. In a letter to Bishop Julian of Cos (Epistle 144), he said: "The decrees of Chalcedon are inspired by the Holy Spirit, and are to be received as the definition of the faith for the welfare of the whole world." And in a letter (Epistle 145) to the emperor Leo, who succeeded Marcian in A. D. 457, he said: "The Synod of Chalcedon was held by divine inspiration." As therefore, the doctrinal decrees of the Council of Chalcedon were the expression of the will of Leo; and as these decrees were published and held as of divine inspiration; by this turn, it was a very short cut to the infallibility of the bishop of Rome.
ECE	182	2	Now let the reader turn to pages 145, 183, and 185, and compare the Italicized words in the statement of Eutyches, in the statement of the commissioners in the council, and in the creed of Chalcedon. It will be seen that Leo and the council came so near to saying what Eutyches had said, that no difference can be perceived. Eutyches had been condemned as a heretic for saying that in Christ, after the incarnation, the two natures are one. Now Leo and the council express the orthodox faith by saying that in Christ there are two natures united in one. In other words, Eutyches was a condemned heretic for saying that Christ is "of two natures;" while Leo and the council were declared everlastingly orthodox for saying that Christ is "in two natures." In Greek, the difference was expressed in the two small words, ek and en; which like the two large words, Homoousion and Homoiousion, in the beginning of the controversy between Alexander and Arius, differed only in a single letter. And like that also, the meaning of the two words is so "essentially the same," that he who believes either, believes the other. "Such was the device of the envious and God-hating demon in the change of a single letter, that, while in reality the one expression was completely inductive of the notion of the other, still with the generality the discrepancy between them was held to be considerable, and the ideas conveyed by them to be clearly in diametric opposition, and exclusive of each other; whereas he who confesses Christ in two natures, clearly affirms him to be from two, ...and on the other hand, the position of one who affirms his origin from two natures, is completely inclusive of his existence in two...So that in this case by the expression, 'from two natures,' is aptly suggested the thought of the expression, in two,' and conversely; nor can there be a severance of the terms."--Evagrius. 24
ECE	183	1	And that is all that there was in this dispute, or in any of those before it, in itself. Yet out there came constant and universal violence, hypocrisy, bloodshed, and murder, which speedily wrought the utter ruin of the empire, and established a despotism over thought which remained supreme for ages, and which is yet asserted and far too largely assented to.
ECE	183	2	The whole world having been thus once more brought to the "unity of the faith," the controversy, the confusion, and the violence, went on worse than before. But as the faith of Leo which was established by the Council of Chalcedon, "substantially completes the orthodox Christology of the ancient Church," and has "passed into all the confessions of the Protestant churches" (Schaff 25); and as the work of these four general councils--Nice, Constantinople, first of Ephesus, and Chalcedon--was to put dead human formulas in the place of the living oracles of God; a woman in the place of Christ; and MAN IN THE PLACE OF GOD; it is not necessary to follow any farther that particular course of ambitious strife and theological contention.
------------------------Chapter 12 - The Papal Temporal Power Established
ECE	184	1	We have seen how that, by the arrogant ministry of Leo, the bishop of Rome was made the fountain of faith, and was elevated to a position of dignity and authority that the aspiring prelacy had never before attained. For Leo, as the typical pope, was one whose "ambition knew no bounds; and to gratify it, he stuck at nothing; made no distinction between right and wrong, between truth and falsehood; as if he had adopted the famous maxim of Julius Caesar,--"Be just, unless a kingdom tempts to break the laws, For sovereign power alone can justify the cause,' or thought the most criminal actions ceased to be criminal and became meritorious, when any ways subservient to the increase of his power or the exhaltation of his see."--Bower. 1
ECE	184	2	Nor was the force of any single point of his example ever lost upon his successors. His immediate successor,--HILARY, 461-467, was so glad to occupy the place which had been made so large by Leo, that shortly after his election he wrote a letter to the other bishops asking them to exult with him, taking particular care in the letter to tell them that he did not doubt that they all knew what respect and deference was paid "in the Spirit of God to St. Peter and his see." The bishops of Spain addressed him as "the successor of St. Peter, whose primacy ought to be loved and feared by all."
ECE	184	3	Hilary was succeeded by--SIMPLICIUS, 467-483, in whose pontificate the empire perished when the Heruli, under Odoacer, overran all Italy, deposed the last emperor of the West, appropriated to themselves one third of all the lands, and established the Herulian kingdom, with Odoacer as king of Italy. In fact, the more the imperial power faded, and the nearer the empire approached its fall, the more rapidly and the stronger grew the papal assumptions. Thus the very calamities which rapidly wrought the ruin of the empire, and which were hastened by the union of Church and State, were turned to the advantage of the bishopric of Rome. During the whole period of barbarian invasions from 400 to 476, the Catholic hierarchy everywhere adapted itself to the situation, and reaped power and influence from the calamities that were visited everywhere.
ECE	185	1	We have seen that Innocent I, upon whose mind there appears first to have dawned the vast conception of Rome's universal ecclesiastical supremacy, during the invasion of Italy and the siege of Rome by Alaric, headed an embassy to the emperor to mediate for a treaty of peace between the empire and the invading Goths. We have seen that at the moment of Leo's election to the papal see, he was absent on a like mission to reconcile the enmity of the two principal Roman officers, which was threatening the safety of the empire. Yet other and far more important occasions of the same kind fell to the lot of Leo during the term of his bishopric. In 453 Leo was made the head of an embassy to meet Attila as he was on his way to Rome, if possible to turn him back. The embassy was successful; a treaty was formed; Attila retired beyond the Danube, where he immediately died; and Italy was delivered. This redounded no less to the glory of Leo than any of the other remarkable things which he had accomplished. He was not so successful with Genseric two years afterward, yet even then he succeeded in mitigating the ravages of the Vandals, which were usually so dreadful.
ECE	185	2	Moreover, it was not against religion, as such, that the barbarians made war: as they themselves were religious. It was against that mighty empire of which they had seen much, and suffered much, and heard more, that they warred. It was as nations taking vengeance upon a nation which had been so great, and which had so proudly asserted lordship over all other nations, that they invaded the Roman Empire. And when they could plant themselves and remain, as absolute lords, in the dominions of those who had boasted of absolute and eternal dominion, and thus humble the pride of the mighty Rome, this was their supreme gratification.
ECE	186	1	As these invasions were not inflicted everywhere at once, but at intervals through a period of seventy-five years, the Church had ample time to adapt herself to the ways of such of the barbarians as were heathen, which, as ever, she readily did. The heathen barbarians were accustomed to pay the greatest respect to their own priesthood, and were willing to admit the Catholic priesthood to an equal or even a larger place in their estimation. Such of them as were already professedly Christian, were Arians, and not so savage as the Catholics; therefore, they, with the exception of the Vandals, were not so ready to persecute, and were willing to settle and make themselves homes in the territories of the vanished empire.
ECE	186	2	At the fall of the empire, the bishopric of Rome was the head and center of a strong and compactly organized power. And by deftly insinuating itself into the place of mediator between the barbarian invaders and the perishing imperial authority, it had attained a position where it was recognized by the invaders as the power which, though it claimed to be not temporal but spiritual was none the less real, had succeeded to the place of the vanished imperial authority of Rome. And in view of the history of the time, it is impossible to escape the conviction that in the bishopric of Rome there was at this time formed the determination to plant itself in the temporal dominion of Rome and Italy. So long had the emperors been absent from Rome, that the bishop of Rome had assumed their place there; and we have seen how the Church had usurped the place of the civil authority. The bishop of Rome was the head of the Church; and now, as the empire was perishing, he would exalt his throne upon its ruins, and out of the anarchy of the times would secure a place and a name among the powers and dominions of the earth.
ECE	186	3	The barbarians who took possession of Italy were Arians, which in the sight of the bishop of Rome was worse than all other crimes put together. In addition to this, the Herulian monarch, Odoacer, an Arian, presumed to assert civil authority over the papacy, which, on account of the riotous proceedings in the election of the pope, was necessary, but would not meekly be borne by the proud pontiffs. At the election of the first pope after the fall of the empire, the representative of Odoacer appeared and notified the assembly that without his direction nothing ought to be done; that all they had done was null and void; that the election must begin anew; and "that it belonged to the civil magistrate to prevent the disturbances that might arise on such occasions, lest from the Church they should pass to the State." And as these elections were carried not only by violence, but by bribery, in which the property of the Church played an important part, Odoacer, by his lieutenant at this same assembly, A. D. 483, "caused a law to be read, forbidding the bishop who should now be chosen, as well as his successors, to alienate any inheritance, possessions, or sacred utensils that now belonged, or should for the future, belong, to the Church; declaring all such bargains void, anathematizing both the seller and the buyer, and obliging the latter and his heirs to restore to the Church all lands and tenements thus purchased, how long soever they might have possessed them."--Bower. 2
ECE	187	1	By the law of Constantine which bestowed upon the Church the privilege of receiving donations, legacies, etc., by will, lands were included; and through nearly two hundred years of the working of this law, the Church of Rome had become enormously enriched in landed estates. And more especially "since the extinction of the Western Empire had emancipated the ecclesiastical potentate from secular control, the first and most abiding object of his schemes and prayers had been the acquisition of territorial wealth in the neighborhood of his capital."--Bryce. 3
ECE	187	2	The Church of Rome had also other lands, scattered in different parts of Italy, and even in Asia, for Celestine I addressed to Theodosius II a request that he extend his imperial protection over certain estates in Asia, which a woman named Proba had bequeathed to the Church of Rome. As the imperial power faded away in the West, the bishop of Rome, in his growing power, came more and more to assert his own power of protection over his lands in Italy. And when the imperial power was entirely gone, it was naturally held that this power fell absolutely to him. When, therefore, Odoacer, both a barbarian invader and a heretic, issued a decree forbidding the alienation of Church lands and possessions, this was represented as a presumptuous invasion of the rights of the bishop of Rome, not only to do what he would with his own, but above all as protector of the property and estates of the Church.
ECE	188	1	For this offense of Odoacer, there was no forgiveness by the bishop of Rome. Nothing short of the utter uprooting of the Herulian power could atone for it. The Catholic ecclesiastics of Italy began to plot for his overthrow, and it was soon accomplished. There were at that time in the dominions of the Eastern Empire, unsettled and wandering about with no certain dwelling place, the people of the Ostrogoths under King Theodoric. Although in the service of the empire, they were dissatisfied with their lot; and they were so savage and so powerful that the emperor was in constant dread of them. Why might not this force be employed to destroy the dominion of the Heruli, and deliver Rome from the interferences and oppression of Odoacer? The suggestion was made to Theodoric by the court, but as he was in the service of the empire, it was necessary that he should have permission to undertake the expedition. He accordingly addressed the emperor as follows:--
ECE	188	2	"Although your servant is maintained in affluence by your liberality, graciously listen to the wishes of my heart. Italy, the inheritance of your predecessors, and Rome itself, the head and mistress of the world, now fluctuates under the violence and oppression of Odoacer the mercenary. Direct me, with my national troops, to march against the tyrant. If I fall, you will be relieved from an expensive and troublesome friend: if, with the divine permission, I succeed, I shall govern in your name, and to your glory, the Roman Senate, and the part of the republic delivered from slavery by my victorious army." 4
ECE	188	3	Zeno, who was at this time emperor, had already "stirred up against Odoacer the nation of the Rugians;" and thus "it is important to note that already in the year 486 the friendly relations between Odoacer and Zeno had been replaced by scarcely veiled enmity; and thus the mind of the emperor was already tuned to harmony with that fierce harangue against the 'usurped authority of a king of Rugians and Turcilingians' which, according to Jordanes, Theodoric delivered before him some time in the year 488."--Hodgkin. 5 The proposition which had been suggested was gladly accepted by the emperor Zeno; Theodoric "received a commission to invade Italy," and in the winter of 489, the whole nation of the Ostrogoths took up its march of seven hundred miles to Italy. "The march of Theodoric must be considered as the emigration of an entire people: the wives and children of the Goths, their aged parents, and most precious effects, were carefully transported; ...and at length surmounting every obstacle by skillful conduct and persevering courage, he descended from the Julian Alps, and displayed his invincible banners on the confines of Italy."--Gibbon. 6
ECE	189	1	Theodoric defeated Odoacer in three engagements, A. D. 489-490, and "from the Alps to the extremity of Calabria, Theodoric reigned by right of conquest." Odoacer shut himself up in Ravenna, where he sustained himself against a close siege for three years. By the offices of the archbishop of Ravenna, and the clamors of the hungry people, Odoacer was brought to sign a treaty of peace: the archbishop himself "acting as mediator." Before Theodoric entered the surrendered city, by a "prearranged" plan "the archbishop went forth to meet him, 'with crosses and thuribles and the holy Gospels' and with a long train of priests and monks. Falling prostrate on the ground, while his followers sang a penitential psalm, he prayed that 'the new king from the East' would receive him in peace. The request was granted, not only for himself and the citizens of Ravenna, but for all the Roman inhabitants of Italy .... A ceremony like this, prearranged in all probability between the king and the archbishop, was judged proper, in order to impress vividly on the minds both of Italians and Ostrogoths that Theodoric came as the friend of the Catholic Church and of the vast population which, even in accepting a new master, still clung to the great name of Roman." Soon afterward at a solemn banquet, Odoacer was slain by the hand of Theodoric himself; and "at the same moment, and without resistance," his people "were universally massacred," March 5, 493: "a kind of 'Sicilian Vespers of the followers of Odoacer all over Italy; and, from the sanctimonious manner in which the bishop [Ennodius, Theodoric's panegyrist] claims Heaven as an accomplice in the bloody deed, we may perhaps infer that the Roman clergy generally were privy to the plot."--Hodgkin. 7
ECE	190	1	Thus was destroyed, "plucked up by the roots," the kingdom of Odoacer and the Heruli. And that it was in no small degree the work of the Catholic Church is certain from the further fact that "throughout the conquest and establishment of the Gothic kingdom, the increasing power and importance of the Catholic ecclesiastics, forces itself upon the attention. They are ambassadors, mediators in treaties; [they] decide the wavering loyalty or instigate the revolt of cities."--Milman. 8 The bishop of Pavia bore to Theodoric at Milan the surrender and offer of allegiance of that great city.
ECE	190	2	Another thing which makes this view most certainly true, is the fact that no sooner was order restored in Italy and in Rome, and the Church once more felt itself secure, than a council of eighty bishops, thirty-seven presbyters, and four deacons, was called in Rome by the pope, A. D. 499, the very first act of which was to repeal the law enacted by Odoacer on the subject of the Church possessions. Nor was the law repealed in order to get rid of it; for it was immediately re-enacted by the same council. This was plainly to declare that the estates of the Church were no longer subject in any way to the authority of the civil power, but were to be held under the jurisdiction of the Church alone. In fact, it was tantamount to a declaration of the independence of the papacy and her possessions.
ECE	190	3	This transaction also conclusively proves that the resentment of the bishopric of Rome, which had been aroused by the law of Odoacer, was never allayed until Odoacer and the law, so far as it represented the authority of the civil power, were both out of the way. And this is the secret of the destruction of the Herulian kingdom of Italy.
ECE	190	4	It is no argument against this to say that the Ostrogoths were Arians too. Because (1) as we shall presently see, Theodoric, though an Arian, did not interfere with Church affairs; and (2) the Church of Rome, in destroying one opponent never hesitates at the prospect that it is to be done by another; nor that another will arise in the place of the one destroyed. Upon the principle that it is better to have one enemy than two, she will use one to destroy another, and will never miss an opportunity to destroy one for fear that another will arise in its place.
ECE	190	5	Theodoric ruled Italy thirty-eight years, A. D. 493-526, during which time Italy enjoyed such peace and quietness and absolute security as had never been known there before, and has never been known since until 1870: an "emphatic contrast to the century of creeping paralysis which preceded, and to the ghastly cycle of wars and barbarous revenges which followed that peaceful time."--Hodgkin. 9 The people of his own nation numbered two hundred thousand men, which with the proportionate number of women and children, formed a population of nearly one million. His troops, formerly so wild and given to plunder, were restored to such discipline that in a battle in Dacia, in which they were completely victorious, "the rich spoils of the enemy lay untouched at their feet," because their leader had given no signal of pillage. When such discipline prevailed in the excitement of a victory and in an enemy's country, it is easy to understand the peaceful order that prevailed in their own new-gotten lands which the Herulians had held before them.
ECE	191	1	During the ages of violence and revolution which had passed, large tracts of land in Italy had become utterly desolate and uncultivated; almost the whole of the rest was under imperfect culture; but now "agriculture revived under the shadow of peace, and the number of husbandmen multiplied by the redemption of captives;" and Italy, which had so long been fed from other countries, now actually began to export grain. Civil order was so thoroughly maintained that "the city gates were never shut either by day or by night, and the common saying that a purse of gold might be safely left in the fields, was expressive of the conscious security of the inhabitants."--Gibbon. 10 Merchants and other lovers of the blessings of peace thronged from all parts. This they could easily do, because his protective power reached even the Burgundians, the Visigoths, and the Alemanni; for "the Gothic sovereignty was established from Sicily to the Danube, from Sirmium or Belgrade to the Atlantic Ocean; and the Greeks themselves have acknowledged that Theodoric reigned over the fairest portion of the Western Empire." 11
ECE	191	2	But not alone did civil peace reign. Above all, there was perfect freedom in the exercise of religion. In fact, the measure of civil liberty and peace always depends upon that of religious liberty. Theodoric and his people were Arians, yet at the close of a fifty-years' rule of Italy, the Ostrogoths could safely challenge their enemies to present a single authentic case in which they had ever persecuted the Catholics. Even the mother of Theodoric and some of his favorite Goths had embraced the Catholic faith with perfect freedom from any molestation whatever. The separation between Church and State, between civil and religious powers, was clear and distinct. Church property was protected in common with other property, while at the same time it was taxed in common with all other property. The clergy were protected in common with all other people, and they were likewise, in common with all other people, cited before the civil courts to answer for all civil offenses. In all ecclesiastical matters they were left entirely to themselves. Even the papal elections Theodoric left entirely to themselves, and though often solicited by both parties to interfere, he refused to have anything at all to do with them, except to keep the peace, which in fact was of itself no small task. He declined even to confirm the papal elections, an office which had been exercised by Odoacer.
ECE	192	1	Nor was this merely a matter of toleration; it was in genuine recognition of the rights of conscience. In a letter to the emperor Justin, A. D. 524, Theodoric announced the genuine principle of the rights of conscience, and the relationship that should exist between religion and the State, in the following words, worthy to be graven in letters of gold:--
ECE	192	2	"To pretend to a dominion over the conscience, is to usurp the prerogative of God. By the nature of things, the power of sovereigns is confined to political government. They have no right of punishment but over those who disturb the public peace. The most dangerous heresy is that of a sovereign who separates himself from part of his subjects, because they believe not according to his belief." 12
ECE	192	3	Similar pleas had before been made by the parties oppressed, but never before had the principle been announced by the party in power. The enunciation and defense of a principle by the party who holds the power to violate it, is the surest pledge that the principle is held in genuine sincerity.
ECE	192	4	The description of the state of peace and quietness in Italy above given, applies to Italy, but not to Rome; to the dominions of Theodoric and the Ostrogoths, but not to the city of the pope and the Catholics. In A. D. 499, there was a papal election. As there were as usual rival candidates--Symmachus and Laurentius--there was a civil war. "The two factions encountered with the fiercest hostility; the clergy, the Senate, and the populace were divided;" the streets of the city "ran with blood, as in the days of republican strife."--Milman. 13
ECE	193	1	The contestants were so evenly matched, and the violent strife continued so long, that the leading men of both parties persuaded the candidates to go to Theodoric at Ravenna, and submit to his judgment their claims. Theodoric's love of justice and of the rights of the people, readily and simply enough decided that the candidate who had the most votes should be counted elected; and if the votes were evenly divided, then the candidate who had been first ordained. Symmachus secured the office. A council was held by Symmachus, which met the first of March, 499, and passed a decree "almost in the terms of the old Roman law, severely condemning all ecclesiastical ambition, all canvassing either to obtain subscriptions, or administration of oaths, or promises, for the papacy" during the lifetime of a pope. But such election methods as these were now so prevalent that this law was of as little value in controlling the methods of the aspiring candidates for the bishopric, as in the days of the republic the same kind of laws were for the candidates to the consulship.
ECE	193	2	Laurentius, though defeated at this time, did not discontinue his efforts to obtain the office. For four years he watched for opportunities, and carried on an intrigue to displace Symmachus, and in 503 brought a series of heavy charges against him. "The accusation was brought before the judgment-seat of Theodoric, supported by certain Roman females of rank, who had been suborned, it was said, by the enemies of Symmachus. Symmachus was summoned to Ravenna and confined at Rimini," but escaped and returned to Rome. Meantime, Laurentius had entered the city, and when Symmachus returned, "the sanguinary tumults between the two parties broke out with greater fury;" priests were slain, monasteries set on fire, and nuns treated with the utmost indignity.
ECE	194	1	The Senate petitioned Theodoric to send a visitor to judge the cause of Symmachus in the crimes laid against him. The king finding that the matter was only a Church quarrel, appointed one of their own number, the bishop of Altimo, who so clearly favored Laurentius that his partisanship only made the contention worse. Again Theodoric was petitioned to interfere, but he declined to assume any jurisdiction, and told them to settle it among themselves; but as there was so much disturbance of the peace, and it was so long continued, Theodoric commanded them to reach some sort of settlement that would stop their fighting, and restore public order. A council was therefore called. As Symmachus was on his way to the council, "he was attacked by the adverse party; showers of stones fell around him; many presbyters and others of his followers were severely wounded; the pontiff himself only escaped under the protection of the Gothic guard" (Milman 14), and took refuge in the church of St. Peter. The danger to which he was then exposed he made an excuse for not appearing at the council.
ECE	194	2	The most of the council were favorable to Symmachus and to the pretensions of the bishop of Rome at this time, and therefore were glad of any excuse that would relieve them from judging him. However, they went through the form of summoning him three times; all of which he declined. Then the council sent deputies to state to Theodoric the condition of affairs, "saying to him that the authority of the king might compel Symmachus to appear, but that the council had not such authority." Theodoric replied: "That is your affair, not mine. Had it been my business, I and my good chiefs would have settled it long ago." 15 Further "with respect to the cause of Symmachus, he had assembled them to judge him, but yet left them at full liberty to judge him or not, providing they could by any other means put a stop to the present calamities, and restore the wished-for tranquillity to the city of Rome."
ECE	194	3	The majority of the council declared Symmachus "absolved in the sight of men, whether guilty or innocent in the sight of God," for the reason that "no assembly of bishops has power to judge the pope; he is accountable for his actions to God alone."--Bower. 16 They then commanded all, under penalty of excommunication, to accept this judgment, and submit to the authority of Symmachus, and acknowledge him "for lawful bishop of the holy city of Rome." Symmachus was not slow to assert all the merit that the council had thus recognized in the bishop of Rome. He wrote to the emperor of the East that "a bishop is as much above an emperor as heavenly things, which the bishop administers and dispenses, are above all the trash of the earth, which alone the greatest among the emperors have the power to dispose of."--Bower. 17 He declared that the higher powers referred to in Romans 13:1, mean the spiritual powers, and that to these it is that every soul must be subject.
ECE	195	1	At another council held in Rome in 504, at the direction of Symmachus, a decree was enacted "anathematizing and excluding from the communion of the faithful, all who had seized or in the future should seize, hold, or appropriate to themselves, the goods or estates of the Church; and this decree was declared to extend even to those who held such estates by grants from the crown."--Bower. 18 This was explicitly to put the authority of the Church of Rome above that of any State.
ECE	195	2	Justin was emperor of the East A. D. 518-527. He was violently orthodox, and was supported by his nephew, the more violently orthodox Justinian. It was the ambition of both, together and in succession, to make the Catholic religion alone prevalent everywhere. They therefore entered with genuine Catholic zeal upon the pious work of clearing their dominions of heretics. The first edict, issued in 523, commanded all Manichaeans to leave the empire under penalty of death; and all other heretics were to be ranked with pagans and Jews, and excluded from all public offices. This edict was no sooner learned of in the West, than mutterings were heard in Rome, of hopes of liberty from the "Gothic yoke." The next step was violence.
ECE	195	3	Under the just administration of Theodoric, and the safety assured by the Gothic power, many Jews had established themselves in Rome, Genoa, Milan, and other cities, for the purposes of trade. They were permitted by express laws to dwell there. As soon as the imperial edict was known, which commanded all remaining heretics to be ranked as pagans and Jews, as the Catholics did not dare to attack the Gothic heretics, they, at Rome and Ravenna especially, riotously attacked the Jews, abused them, robbed them, and burnt their synagogues. A legal investigation was attempted, but the leaders in the riots could not be discovered. Then Theodoric levied a tax upon the whole community of the guilty cities, with which to settle the damages. Some of the Catholics refused to pay the tax. They were punished. This at once brought a cry from the Catholics everywhere, that they were persecuted. Those who had been punished were glorified as confessors of the faith, and "three hundred pulpits deplored the persecution of the Church."--Gibbon. 19
ECE	196	1	The edict of 523 was followed in 524 by another, this time commanding the Arians of the East to deliver up to the Catholic bishops all their churches, which the Catholic bishops were commanded to consecrate anew. Theodoric addressed an earnest letter to Justin, in which he pleaded for toleration for the Arians from the Eastern Empire. This was the letter in which was stated the principle of the rights of conscience, which we have already quoted on page 192. To this noble plea, however, "Justin coolly answered:--
ECE	196	2	"I pretend to no authority over men's consciences, but it is my prerogative to intrust the public offices to those in whom I have confidence; and public order demanding uniformity of worship, I have full right to command the churches to be open to those alone who shall conform to the religion of the State." 20
ECE	196	3	Accordingly, while pretending to no authority over men's consciences, the Arians of his dominions were by Justin "stripped of all offices of honor or emolument, were not only expelled from the Catholic churches, but their own were closed against them; and they were exposed to all insults, vexations, and persecutions of their adversaries, who were not likely to enjoy their triumph with moderation, or to repress their conscientiously intolerant zeal."--Milman. 21 Many of them conformed to the State religion; but those of firm faith sent to Theodoric earnest appeals for protection.
ECE	196	4	Theodoric did all that he could, but without avail. He was urged to retaliate by persecuting the Catholics in Italy, but he steadfastly refused. He determined to send an embassy to Justin, and most singularly sent the pope as his ambassador! "No two pieces on the political chessboard ought, for the safety of his kingdom, to have been kept farther apart from one another than the pope and the emperor: and now, by his own act, he brings these pieces close together."--Hodgkin. 22 "The pope, attended by five other bishops and four senators, set forth on a mission of which it was the ostensible object to obtain indulgence for heretics--heretics under the ban of his Church--heretics looked upon with the most profound detestation."--Milman. 23 This arrangement gave to the bishop of Rome the most perfect opportunity he could have asked, to form a compact with the imperial authority of the East, for the further destruction of the Ostrogothic kingdom.
ECE	197	1	The pope, John I, "was received in Constantinople with the most flattering honors, as though he had been St. Peter himself. The whole city, with the emperor at its head, came forth to meet him with tapers and torches, as far as ten miles beyond the gates. The emperor knelt at his feet, and implored his benediction. On Easter day, March 30, 525, he performed the service in the great church, Epiphanius, the bishop, ceding the first place to the holy stranger." 24 Such an embassy could have no other result than more than ever to endanger the kingdom of Theodoric. Before John's return, the conspiracy became more manifest; some senators and leading men were arrested. One of them, Boethius, though denying his guilt, boldly confessed, "Had there been any hopes of liberty, I should have freely indulged them; had I known of a conspiracy against the king, I should have answered in the words of a noble Roman to the frantic Caligula, You would not have known it from me." 25 Such a confession as that was almost a confession of the guilt which he denied. He and his father-in-law were executed. When the pope returned, he was received as a traitor, and put in prison, where he died, May 18, 526.
ECE	197	2	He was no sooner dead than violent commotion and disturbances again arose amongst rival candidates for the vacant chair. "Many candidates appeared for the vacant see, and the whole city, the Senate as well as the people and clergy, were divided into parties and factions, the papal dignity being now as eagerly sought for, and often obtained by the same methods and arts as the consular was in the times of the heathen."--Bower. 26 Theodoric, now seventy-four years old, fearing that these contentions would end in murder and bloodshed again, as they had at the election