urged to put down idolatry and heresy by the civil sword. Jesus had indeed forbidden his disciples to draw the sword in his cause, or to call down fire from heaven on those who rejected Him; and had declared his kingdom to be "not of this world;" and his first followers had propagated his religion by gentle persuasion, "not rendering evil for evil," but "in meekness instructing them that oppose themselves:" but then, it was replied, that such a procedure was suited only to the first beginnings of Christianity; that the earliest disciples had no power, when as yet magistrates and kings were not arrayed on their side, forcibly to suppress idolatry;—and

e "Not more than twenty years after Constantine's entire possession of the empire, Julius Firmicus Maternus calls upon the Emperors Constantius and Constans to extirpate the relics of the ancient religion; . . . . modicum tantum superest, ut legibus vestris. . . . extincta idololatriæ pereat funesta contagio."-PALEY's Evidences, Part II. chap. 9.

f "Non invenitur exemplum in evangelicis et apostolicis literis, aliquid petitum a regibus terræ pro ecclesia, contra inimicos ecclesiæ: quis negat non inveniri? Sed nondum implebatur illa prophetia, et nunc reges intelligite, erudimini, qui judicatis terram; servite Domino in timore. Adhuc enim illud implebatur quod in eodem psalmo paullo superius dicitur; Quare fremuerunt gentes, et populi meditati sunt inania? &c." -AUGUSTINE Epist. 93, chap. iii. § 9.

The

that our Lord's language to Pilate, and his rejection of the attempts to make Him a king, had reference to the then prevailing expectations of a temporal Messiah. Now there was undoubtedly this expectation of an anointed Son of David, who should reign in bodily person over the Jews, and should bestow on his followers not only the spiritual blessings relating to a future state, but also, worldly power and splendour. And, doubtless, his disclaimer had reference to these expectations: but the question is, was this the cause of Christ's kingdom actually being of such a character as He described it, or, merely of his insisting on this, in those particular expressions, and on those particular occasions? Are his rebukes to his disciples, for offering to call down fire from heaven, and to

The remainder of the passage is curious, in which this Father goes on to represent the two opposite decrees of King Nebuchadnezzar, as types of the two conditions of the Church; the sentence of death passed on the three pious Jews who refused to worship the golden idol, being typical of the times of the Apostles and Martyrs; and the present time (Augustine's) being represented by the decree of the same king, that whosoever should "speak any thing amiss against the God of those Jews, should be cut in pieces."

fight in his cause,-rebukes which were evidently called forth by their mistaken zeal on each occasion; are these to be regarded as having reference to these occasions only, or as descriptive of the character of the religion universally?"

Now what has been said of the employment of force, may equally be applied to the employment of fraud, in the cause of Christianity. The Romanists and others, who have practised pious frauds in the cause of Christianity, probably committed (unknown to themselves) a similar error to the one just mentioned, in their view of those passages of Scripture which insist on "truth" as a characteristic feature of the religion: those expressions, indeed, were probably called forth in many instances by the peculiar circumstances attending the first promulgation of the Gospel; but the character of the Gospel itself is "the same yesterday, and to-day, and for ever."

§ 2. But how, it may be said, do these considerations affect us Christians of the present

8 See "Origin of Romish Errors," chap. v. § 4.

day? We, it is to be hoped, are not chargeable with that culpable carelessness about truth, especially in religious matters, which characterised the ancients. We do believe in Jesus

as the Way, and the Truth, and the

Life."

Let it be remembered, however, that, as the ancient heathen are not the standard by which we are to be measured; so, it is not our superiority to them that will at once acquit us. They had many excuses of which we have none, for their disregard of truth: in particular, they knew not (as we do) of any religion that did challenge inquiry, and appeal to evidence, and demand well-grounded and firm belief; that taught them to "prove all things, and hold fast that which is right," and to be "ready to give a reason of their hope." Do Christians, then, in this respect show themselves worthy of their peculiar advantages? Do they speak and act altogether consistently with a religion which is built on Faith in the Truth? The professors of such a religion ought not merely to believe it in sincerity, but to adhere scrupulously to Truth in the means employed on every occasion,

as well as in the ends proposed; and to follow fearlessly wherever Truth may lead.

Now we should recollect that most of the pretended miracles, the "pious frauds," as they are called, perpetrated by many, are, or at least were, in the first instance, the work of men who were sincere believers in the truth of their religion; it is, indeed, on this ground alone that a pious fraud can be so called: but they were men who knew "not what manner of spirit they were of;" they sought to promote, by means of falsehood, the cause of Him who lived and died for the Truth: they believed the Gospel to have come from God, but wanted faith in his power and care to support and prosper it; and turned aside from the straight path of sincerity, to seek for the expedient, by the crooked roads of worldly policy. But still, though most unchristian in their spirit, though they had "neither part nor lot in this matter, but were in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity," their general belief in Christianity was doubtless, in most instances, sincere; and I have adverted to their case for the very purpose of pointing out the important circumstance, that the fullest