29. Happily, the tree is known by its fruit: and therefore, we shall observe a little more particularly, the fruits of this great revolution; from which it will appear still more evident, that it was not Christ, but antichrist, who accepted of that temporal honor, power and preferment, by which he adjusted matters in his Catholic or universal church, so as to prepare for his unlimited ecclesiastical reign. 30. It may be instructive here to add the following from Milner's Chh. History, to show the causes which prepared the way for the corrupt dominion of CONSTANTINE, and for the ascendancy which the abominable power of antichrist attained during that period. 31. "DIOCLESIAN began to reign A. D. 284. For the space of eighteen years, he was extremely indulgent to Christians. His most important officers were Christians; their wives and families openly professed the Gospel. Christians held honorable offices in various parts of the kingdom. Innumerable crowds attended the Christian worship." What wonderful Christians these were! and what fine times they had! Were these the true descendants of the primitive Church? Let us look a little at the results. CHAP. chap. xvii. p. 232. been of this Mil. voli. But, on the dated in the 32. "If" (says Milner) "Christ's kingdom had world, we should here fix the era of its greatness. contrary, the era of its actual declension must be pacific part of Dioclesian's reign. During the whole century, the work of God, in purity and power, had been tending to decay. Its connection with philosophers was one of the principal causes. Outward peace, and secular [worldly] advantages completed the corruption. Bishops and people were in a state of malice; endless quarrels were fermented among contending parties, and ambition and covetousness had, in general, gained the ascendancy in the Christian Church." 33. Under the reign of Constantine," Milner says, "If we look at the external appearance of Christianity, nothing can be more splendid." Constantine "erects Churches exceedingly sumptuous and ornamented. He destroys idol temples, prohibits impious Pagan rites," &c. "How corrupt is human nature," (says Milner.) [Ah! but rather how corrupt is that church, falsely called Christian ?] 34. Bitter feuds, contentions, and the most unworthy spirit of avarice and ambition, appear very prevalent. Men were ripe for a perversion of doctrine. Origen gave the first handle; Eusebius, the historian, with cautious prudence, was fomenting the evils; "while the christian world at large was torn to pieces with violence, intrigue, and scandalous animosities." 35. What man of candor and reflection will say that the Church, under Constantine, was not a false and corrupt Church? Ibid. chap. ii. p. 274-5. CHAP. Yet this is represented, by ecclesiastical writers, as the most glorious reign of Christ that ever was on earth, and as the true Church, from which all orthodox churches claimed their descent. Eccl. His tory, vol. i. p. 312. Heb. xiii. 8. John, xviii. 36. Mat. v. 2, 9. CHAPTER VIII. THE TRUE CHARACTER OF CONSTANTINE AND HIS SUCCESSOR. ACCORDING to Mosheim and others, Constantine professed to be converted to the Christian faith, about the year 313, while on his march towards Rome, to decide by a bloody battle with Maxentius, which of them should be the greatest. And, having defeated his antagonist, he was instated on the imperial throne; soon after which, he repealed those laws which had been enacted against the Christians. 2. But, in all this, what evidence appears to prove that it was the true faith of the Son of God that he embraced? His followers say, that he saw the appearance of a cross in the heavens, and that Christ appeared to him in a dream, with the same cross in his hand, with this inscription on it: (Hac vince.) By this conquer. 3. But why did not Christ come to him with a sword in his hand, and tell him to conquer by that? Was it by the cross, or by the sword that he conquered? If by the sword, then he mistook the vision altogether. 4. But it seems he made a sign of that visionary cross, and set it up as a standard to fight under; and herein he manifested the very spirit of his Catholic Christianity, by establishing an outward sign of appearance of Christ, under which he could act in direct opposition to the nature and Spirit of the Lamb of God. 5. The fact is, if Christ Jesus appeared to Constantine, and gave him authority to draw the sword, and force his way to the throne, through scenes of blood and carnage; if he commissioned him to repeal civil laws and statutes, to pull down temples and build them again; to banish heretics, promote proud bishops, and so on, he must first have repealed all the laws he ever gave his disciples and contradicted all that he ever taught. 6. But if Christ is "the same yesterday, to-day, and forever;" if his kingdom is not of this world; if his servants will not fight; if they are poor in spirit, meek, merciful, peace-makers; and if the fruits of his spirit are love, joy, peace, and such like; then it follows, that it was neither Christ Jesus, nor any of his followers, that repealed or contradicted his doctrines, but cunning deceivers who crept in unawares. CHAP. VIII. 7. If there was any truth in the story of Constantine's seeing a vision, it was not Christ that appeared to him, to encourage him to the battle; but the father of deception "transformed into 2 Cor. xi. the appearance of an angel of light." 14. 8. It is readily granted, that Constantine effected a great revolution, by incorporating together the civil and ecclesiastical powers under the name of Christ; for which his followers exalt him above all that had been called God; yet they are greatly mistaken, when they suppose that his motley empire exceeded in temporal glory, the kingdom of Solomon.* The fact is, it fell 2 Chron. vastly short then with how much less propriety must it bear any comparison to the spiritual kingdom of the Prince of Peace! 9. Instead of being greater than Solomon, this great head of the orthodox churches must, in fact, appear less than the least in the kingdom of heaven; that is, such a one as in no case can enter into it, as is most strikingly evident from the following concession. 10. "It must indeed be confessed," (says Mosheim,) "that the life and actions of this prince, were not such as the Christian religion demands from those who profess to believe its sublime doctrines. It is also certain, that, from his conversion to the last period of his life, he continued in the state of a catechumen, and was not received by baptism into the number of the faithful, until a few days before his death, when that sacred rite was administered to him at Nicomedia, by Eusebius, bishop of that place. 11. "For it was a custom with many, in this century, to put off their baptism to the last hour, that thus immediately after receiving by this rite the remission of their sins, they might ascend pure and spotless to the mansions of life and immortality." 12. So far the principles and practices of this Catholic emperor are simply stated; the next thing then is to garnish over the whited sepulchre, and try to prove him a sincere Christian. And to effect this, his wicked life and actions are covered up in such false and unscriptural reasoning as the following: 13. Nor are the crimes of Constantine any proof of the insincerity of his profession, since nothing is more evident, though it be strange and unaccountable, than that many who believe, in the firmest manner, the truth and divinity of the Gospel, yet violate its laws by repeated transgressions, and live in contradiction to their own inward principles." 14. Was there ever a plainer mark of an antichrist? Who can be more justly entitled to that character than a man, who believes the truth and divinity of the Gospel, and yet lives in ch. ix. Mat. v. 19, 20. Eccl. His tory, vol. 1. p. 313, 314. CHAP. contradiction to his own inward principles? And because, under the doctrines of Christ, this had become common, therefore, it Isa. xxx. 1. must be used as an apology for Constantine's wickedness! "Woe to the rebellious children, saith the LORD, that take counsel, but not of me; and that cover with a covering, but not of my Spirit, that they may add sin to sin." 15. If it were granted that Christianity came to Constantine, through the mongrel bishops, in such a dress, and that neither he, nor his civil officers, ever heard the true Gospel from a living man of God, (which was most likely the case,) this might be some excuse for his professing to be a Christian, while his practice was directly contrary to his profession. 16. But, even admitting that his principles were formed, in any sense, according to the doctrine of Christ; yet if he lived in contradiction to his principles, it must have constituted him an antichrist; that is, having Christ in principle, and living against Titus, i. 16. him in practice. Heb vi. 6. & 1 John, iv. 5. 2 John, 7. Mat. xii. 25. Ec. Hist. vol. i. p. 317. 17. They that have not Christ in some sense or other, cannot crucify him. But apprehending him by faith, and living a life contrary to his life, is both crucifying him afresh, and putting him to an open shame. This is a deceiver and an antichrist; and this is the most prominent character of the GREAT CONSTANTINE, even as exhibited by his friends and followers. 18. It possibly was the inward principle of this great man to live in peace; but this he found to be impossible, at the head of an avaricious, contentious, and aspiring priesthood. He found it impossible to serve two masters; and therefore, when he set himself to honor and promote the bishops, he must of course, at the same time, set himself to dishonor the name of Jesus, and put away the true spirit of the Gospel. 19. Hence all his mighty works, which he wrought under the influence of these sanctimonious deceivers, are such as will be eternally disclaimed by every follower of the meek and lowly Saviour. Even while the corrupters of the Gospel were exulting in the great advancement of their Church, established under Christian Presidents, Christian Magistrates, and Christian Officers of every rank, there were many souls who viewed this event as a horrible prelude to the total overthrow of the pure doctrine and manners of the Apostolic Church. 20. Nor did those Catholic betrayers of the rights of conscience long enjoy their ill-founded confidence of universal empire; for a house divided against itself cannot stand. It was but a little while, before the chief promoters of the Catholic cause were up in arms against each other. 21. "The joy (says Mosheim) "with which the Christians were elated, on account of the favorable edicts of Constantine and Licinius, was soon interrupted by the war which broke out between these two princes." Here this great man-child, as they call him, enters the list with his own colleague, and in the year 314, by a pitched battle, they settle the point, which of them shall be the greatest. 22. Next, the character of Constantine must be built upon the ruins of that of Licinius, and even Julian, whom they call the apostate, is quoted to prove that Licinius was an infamous tyrant, a profligate, abandoned to all sorts of wickedness. It is easy to see how much honor is reflected on the Catholic cause from this character of one of its principal pillars. CHAP. VIII. Ibid. note [b.] vol. i. p. 23. But, if facts will demonstrate a character as clearly as words, then we may judge from the following, whether Licinius or Constantine was the most infamous tyrant. We find it stated, by Mosheim, that, "After several battles fought be- Ec. Hist. tween them, Licinius was reduced to the necessity of throwing 318. himself at the victor's feet, and imploring his clemency; which however, he did not long enjoy; for he was strangled by the orders of Constantine, in the year 325."* 24. Much has been said about David murdering Uriah, that he might enjoy his wife; David only had Uriah placed in the front of the battle, yet it is called murder; then what shall be said of the conduct of Constantine toward his former colleague, and now humble suppliant Licinius, in ordering him to be strangled? Truly it may be said that, Cain like, he slew his brother. According to Lardner, it appears that Licinius (to whom Constantine, In the time of their friendship, had given his sister Constantia in marriage) was put to death at Thessalonica, after Constantine had reduced him to a private condition, and promised him his life. Lardner observes that, "Many ancient writers charge Constantine with a breach of faith in this matter." Nor is this the only crime of the kind alleged against Constantine. He had already dispatched his father in law, Maximian, whose son, Maxentius, he was at war with, at the time of his pretended conversion. After this, (in 314, or 315,) he put to death Bassianus, to whom he had married his sister Anastasia. In the year 326, he put to death his son Crispus, and his nephew Licinianus, or Licinius the younger; the former about twenty-five years of age, and the latter about eleven. Next came Fausta his wife, the daughter of Maximian, who was put to death not long after the two last. After giving an account of these three last, Lardner adds, "These are the executions, which above all others, cast a reflection upon the reign of Constantine; though there are also hints of the death of some others about the same time, with whom Constantine had till then lived in friendship." See Lardner's Works, Vol. IV. p. 172–176. The causes which excited Constantine to put to death so many of his relations, appear to be veiled in obscurity; and perhaps designedly so, in order to conceal from the world crimes which the friends of Constantine could not justify, and dare not condemn. From the hints given by various writers, Lardner thinks it likely that the death of Licinius and his son was brought about by Constantine in order to secure the empire in his own family: and that the death of Crispus was probably occasioned by the instigation of his step-mother Fausta; who, for the same reasons that Constantine was desirous to secure the empire in his own family, was concerned to secure it to his issue by her, in preference to Crispus, who was his son by a former wife. Among the causes to which Fausta's death is attributed, the account given by Zosimus seems not unlikely: viz. "Helena, the mother of Constantine, being extremely grieved at the death of Crispus, excited Constantine to revenge it on Fausta, the adviser of it." It is asserted, by the same author, that he sent and had her suffocated in a bath. |