Historical Difficulties.

precise unvarying order of its occurrence.

481

We must indeed

But the truth

expect to find absolute truth in the narratives. of history does not consist in such minute niceties, any more than the truth of art consists in a reproduction, with the fidelity of a Chinese imitation, of the objects represented. So far from such a literal exactness being required, it would often be fatal to the end in view, and produce really false impressions. There is no historian who ever wrote who has not often occasion to use general expressions, or round numbers, or to narrate events in an order different from the actual one of their occurrence, for in fact this belongs to what may be called the perspective of history, and is the means by which a skilful writer brings out the relative magnitude and importance of the events that crowd on each other in his pages. All cannot be given with equal detail and exactness; some must be cast into the shade or into the background, as of secondary importance, that the main figures and actions may stand out in due prominence. If the method of criticism often adopted in the case of the sacred narratives, because of their claim to inspiration, were applied to any ordinary work of history, the most authentic narrative would be discredited as contradictory. What would any one make, for example, of Gibbon's Decline and Fall, who should make no allowance for transposition on the part of the author, but insist that he must have meant to represent everything as occurring in the exact order in which he narrates it? There is no violation of historical truth in an author using such liberties as these, even though he knows very well the exact truth of the case. It may very well be that to give an exact detailed account of such things would really convey a false, rather than a true impression. And how can it be asserted that it is impossible for a book to be divinely inspired without being written in an unnatural style, and one well fitted to mislead and convey false impressions? There is nothing in the inspiration of the sacred writers to warrant our applying to them a different standard of criticism from what we apply to ordinary writings of a similar kind. Let the same candour and fairness be shewn to Matthew and John as we do to Herodotus or Tacitus, or Macaulay. While we receive and reverence the Bible as the word of God, we need not be afraid to recognise fully and frankly its human character, or to admit that much in the form and dress of the divine truth is to be traced either to the general laws of the human mind, or to the special character and circumstances of the men through whom it has been communicated to us; provided we always remember that even this human dress has been selected by God, as being on the whole the most suitable to convey to men purely and fully his mind and will. The more fully, therefore, we recognise and enter into these human characteristics of the Bible, the better

will we get at its true meaning. For though every part of it, however different in style, is equally the Word of God, yet every part is not to be interpreted in the same way, but each according to its own style, and in the light of all that we can discover of the character and circumstances of its human authors. Thus, for example, the passage in which Joshua is represented as arresting the course of the sun will demand a very different explanation, according as we determine the question whether this is a plain narrative by the historian, or, as many think, a fragment of some older poem inserted by him in his work. The same method may be applied to other passages too, and we may proceed the more freely, the more firmly we believe that the result at which we arrive by a fair and comprehensive exegesis will be in each case the truth of God. And when Scripture is treated in this way, most of the difficulties that are so much insisted upon in certain quarters will be found to shrink to very small dimensions. We do, indeed, find not a little to perplex us, not a little obscurity and difficulty, in many parts of Scripture, but this is just what we would naturally expect in books of such antiquity as those of the Bible. We can even see many good purposes that such difficulties serve, as on the one hand affording a stimulus to study and investigation, which has proved most useful and profitable, and on the other hand, making the evidences of the truth of such a nature as to preserve for faith its moral character. But how paltry are all the difficulties which have been raised against the Bible compared with that effulgence of divine glory that shines from its every page! They are but as the spots on the sun. When we see men with apparently no eye for the divine glory of Scripture, but a morbid tendency to dwell on what spots they can find in it, we shall do well to remember-not, indeed, for judging others, but for directing ourselves to the true way in which faith in the word of God is increased and strengthened-the profound truth expressed in such noble language in the Westminster Confession of Faith: "We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scriptures; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet notwithstanding our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the word in our hearts."

J. C.

The Church under the Christian Emperors.

ART. III.—The Church under the Christian Emperors.

483

1. Histoire de la Destruction du Paganism en Occident. Par M. LE COMTE BEUGNOT. 2 vols. Paris.

2. Histoire de la Destruction du Paganisme dans l'Empire d'Orient (Ouvrage Couronné par l'Institut de France). Par E. CHASTEL. 1 vol. Paris.

1850.

3. Conferences sur l'Histoire du Christianisme. Par E. CHASTEL. 2 vols. Paris. 1839-1847.

4. De Constantin à Grégoire-le-Grand; ou l'esprit Chrétien et l'esprit politique dans l'Eglise. Par F. ROGET. Lausanne. 1863.

5. L'Eglise et l' Empire Romain au 4me Siècle. Par M. le PRINCE ALBERT DE BROGLIE. 4 vols. Paris. 1856.

THE works we have now mentioned, occupy a distinguished place in the present theological literature of France. The work of M. Roget had previously appeared in Le Semeur, a well known periodical, which is conducted by M. Lutteroth, and to which the late excellent M. Vinet was a frequent contributor. Of the four volumes of the Prince de Broglie, La Revue Chrétienne speaks in terms of the highest eulogy. The Prince, though a Roman Catholic, is esteemed by all as a man of decided piety; and as a proof of his liberality, we may be allowed to mention, that we have seen a letter of his written to a distinguished Protestant pastor, in which he encourages him to persevere in contending for the rights of truth and of conscience. As none of these works are likely to appear in English, we shall do little more than transfer to our pages a few extracts, thus allowing the writers to speak for themselves. These extracts chiefly refer to the history of the Christian Church under Constantine the Great.

The church had assuredly begun to degenerate, before Constantine resolved to take her under his imperial protection. Already was she rapidly developing into a political body, struggling to get herself recognised by the Cæsars. These again, aiming to reduce everything under their authority, came at last to perceive that the world's future was involved in the fortunes of the new religion, and that if they did not succeed in becoming masters of the church, she would soon become an imperium in imperio. And thus was the alliance consummated. That the Christians were favourable to the emperors, in spite of the cruel

The following article, from the pen of a valued Continental correspondent, is one of a series, intended to keep our readers au courant with the French theological literature of the day. A former contribution from the same quarter drew attention from some of our leading literary organs at the time; and we feel persuaded that this portion of our Foreign department, in the cultivation of which the British and Foreign Evangelical Review may be said to stand alone, will be duly estimated by all who would take a broad and comprehensive view of the field of Theology.-ED. B. & F. E. R

persecutions they had suffered under them, is a fact supported by the testimony of the fathers. M. Roget thus explains it:The faith of the Christians held them bound to combat the religion of the state, Roman polytheism, with all their might. But the religion and the civil constitution at Rome were united with a cohesion so close, that the one could not be attacked without the other. The struggle, therefore, was not only between polytheism and Christianity, but between Christianity and the republic, the senate of Rome. They were tempted too by the flattering idea of constituting the church on the pattern of the empire, of giving it the same vast extent, regularity, and dignity. All minds were dazzled with the grand image of Roman unity. They could form no conception of greatness apart from that mighty whole. Pagans and Christians were confronted with each other, and the strength of the two parties was becoming equalised. The latter were impatient to conquer. Let us gain over the sovereigns, and the people will follow." Constantine was the first emperor who was able to realise the ideal of supreme power vested entirely in his own person. Away from Rome, at the mouth of the Bosphorus, he built his magnificent capital at Constantinople, where, unfettered by republican forms and reminiscences, he reigned as an eastern despot. "The emperor ceased to be the first among the citizens, and became an Asiatic king, adorned with the diadem, covered with silk and gold, guarded by schola without, and by eunuchs within; inaccessible, unapproachable, silent, severe, a being more than human served upon bended knee, in a word, worshipped." It was as pontifex maximus, supreme head of all worship, that Constantine established the Christian religion. "The new law was established," says the Count of St Priest," in virtue of the old. In establishing the new religion, the emperors did not act under their titles of Augustine, of princes, consuls or perpetual tribunes, but solely as supreme pontiffs. It must not be imagined, that in applying an ancient right to the establishment of a new religion, and in making use of the prerogatives of the supreme pontificate of paganism to bring in the triumph of the true faith, Constantine meant for one moment to abdicate his spiritual supremacy. If such had been his intention, he would have flung from him, as did one of his successors (Gratian), the insignia of the supreme pontificate. In his quality of supreme pontiff, he had enthroned Christianity, and, in the same quality, he believed that he still remained the absolute head of religion. Not only had Constantine not the least doubt of his spiritual right, but no one

* Histoire de la royanté considérée dans ses origines, jusqu'à la formation des principales monarchies de l'Europe. Par M. le Comte A. de St Priest: Pair de France. 2 vols. in 8vo. Paris. 1842

Constantine was Pontifex Maximus.

485

contested it. To call in question his power, even over the church, was at that time neither the interest nor the intention of its members. Above all things, it was imperative to shew the successor of Diocletian at the foot of the cross." That Constantine still continued to discharge several of the functions of the ancient pontificate, is clearly proved by history. Count Beugnot quotes the following curious edict of Constantine from the Theodosian code, dated 321 :-"If our palace or any other public monument be struck by lightning, in conformity with the old ordinance, the aruspices are to be consulted, that it may be known what this event portends, and the acts are immediately to be sent for us to take cognisance of them." Again :-"As regards the report stating that the Amphitheatre had lately been struck by lightning, which thou hast sent to Heraclianus, tribune and master of the offices, know that they ought to have been transmitted to us" (vol. i. p. 90). In 322, after the defeat of the Sarmatians, Constantine instituted the Sarmatian games. "These games," says Count Beugnot, "were true pagan ceremonies, denounced as such by the Christians, and, in establishing them, the emperor certainly did so as pontifex maximus." There are also in existence medals on which Constantine is represented in the costume of the sovereign pontiff, that is, with the head covered.

So much for Constantine's headship over the Pagan system. As to the Christian Church, we need only mention the Arian controversy:-"At the Council of Nicæa," writes the Count de St Priest, "the fathers had the right to discuss without voting. But Constantine alone directed, summed up, published, and legalised the Assembly. It is true that, in the presence of that assembly, he bowed his head adorned with pearls and diamonds; that a religious awe seemed impressed upon his countenance; that he cast down his eyes with respect, and entered the hall with a modest step; and that, standing at the side of his seat, he only sat down at the urgent request of the bishops. But that seat was a throne, and, if the Council was able to act with full liberty, that liberty emanated from the prince; it was from him that it was asked, it was he who granted it, and it was he who allowed the bishops to speak." When the Council was ended and its acts published, Constantine issued a regular papal bull against Arius, commencing thus: "Constantine the Great, the august conqueror, to the bishops and people of Judea: Arius is to be branded with infamy, in the same way as the impious Dioscorus," &c.

But the emperor soon perceived that, if he allowed the doctrine of the church to become fixed, she would free herself from his power. He therefore recalled the Arians and wrote Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria: "My will being known to you, you