there never was a time when some of her faithless members had not left "their first love." Instances were continually occurring of whole churches becoming negligent and apathetic, during a season of repose, and of their being cleansed and restored to their original purity only when the fires of persecution had been lighted up amongst them. This, indeed, is the frequent complaint of the early fathers. St. Cyprian utters it when reminding the Christians in Africa how they had relapsed during thirtyeightyears of peace, and how useful the dreadful afflictions they suffered under Decius had been to them. "It has pleased the Lord to prove his family," says he, "and, as long repose had corrupted the discipline which had come down to us from him, the divine judgment awakened our faith from a declining, and, should I so speak, an almost slumbering state." Eusebius also utters the same complaint, after the persecution of Diocletian. Indeed, the temptations of Satan were carried on in two ways at this time, both perfectly distinct, but both peculiarly effective the one open, the other insidious - the one by persecution, the other by the indulgence of repose. In answer to all this, Usher tells us that in spite of these gathering tempests, and in spite of the rise of fresh heresies, piety was on the increase, and the minds of good men could never be diverted from their belief in the gospel of Jesus Christ.3 But this looks too much like the evasive arugments of special pleading. He invents a theory and then brings circumstantial evidence to prove it; but surely the more regular way would be to build his theory upon his evidence. Without acknowledging it, he has followed in the wake of Augustin, who, as may be seen from a passage quoted below, so far qualifies the meaning of the prophecy in the Apocalypse as to explain it away altogether. Towards the end of this first period of six hundred years, we behold a sad picture of the church's degradation. The first three hundred years, which composed the golden age, beheld a succession of schisms and heresies, as we have already shown; but the history of the next three hundred, or of the silver age, contains a shocking catalogue of vices, resulting not only from the pernicious dogmas of separatists, but also from the pride and ambition of those who remained within the fold, and which no subsequent misfortunes of the church could entirely remove. "Et quo crevit possessionibus, decrevit virtutibus," says Jerome. We close the period of the joyful (?) millennium, and of the pretended binding of Satan, by a quotation from one of the letters written by Gregory, Bishop of Rome, to the patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria. The scene makes a grand finale, on which we would gladly let the curtain fall for ever-O! tempora! ô mores! Ecce cuncta in Europæ partibus barbarorum juri sunt tradita. Destructæ urbes, eversa castra, depopulatæ provinciæ; nullus terram cultor inhabitat: sæviunt et dominantur quotidie in necem fidelium cultores idolorum et tamen sacerdotes quiin pavimento et cinere flentes jacere debuerunt, vanitatis sibi nomina expetunt, et novis ac prophanis vocabulis gloriantur." 'Cyrian de Lapsis, sec. iv. 2 Eusebius Hist. Ecc.: Lib. viii. cap. 1. 3 Cap. I. sec. iv. 4 Non itaque per totum hoc tempus, quod liber iste complectitur, a primo scilicet adventu Christi usque in seculi finem, quo erit secundus ejus adventus, ita diabolus alligatur, ut ejus hæc ipsa sit alligatio, per hoc intervallum, quod mille annorum numero appellat, non seducere Ecclesiam . sed alligatio diaboli est non permitti exercere totam tentationem, &c.-De Civ. Dei.: Lib. xx. cap. 8, The second period, or iron age, opens with the establishment of the supremacy of the Roman see. The agent in this case was worthy of the cause in which he was engaged. The Emperor Phocas, a monster of tyranny, and all iniquity, and a second Zimri, "who slew his master," at the request of Pope Boniface III., made a decree, to the effect that the Church of Rome should be considered the head of all churches. Hence we are taught to date the rise of antichrist, for then did "the faithful city become an 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." We shall not now enter into a character of antichrist, but, hereafter, perhaps, make it the subject of inquiry, and for the present, not dispute the opinion of Usher, who takes it for granted, that the papal power is spoken of under that name. indeed, a fearful epoch in ecclesiastical history:-Rome usurping supremacy in the West, Mahomet gaining unprecedented victories in the East, and the Saracens extending their empire and imposture over Egypt, Arabia, Phoenicia, Palestine, Syria, and Mesopotamia. Here were two mighty engines, which the "old serpent," was employing, for the purpose of undermining the foundations which the holy Apostles had laid. But, although antichrist had sprung up at Rome, he was but yet in his infancy, and, consequently, his powers of doing evil were extremely limited. This was, Many churches, both in the East, and in the West, still adhered to evangelical doctrines; grounding their hopes of salvation only on the mercies of God, and looking for justification through the merits of Christ alone. The power of the popes was as yet by no means generally acknowledged. Image-worship, transubstantiation, and what was consequent upon this latter-bread-worship-were still unknown. But then commenced the downfal of Christianity. At a council of Constantinople, A.D. 754, one image was allowed, viz., the bread and the wine of the Eucharist. Again, in A.D. 794, Charlemagne despatched a synodal decree to Britain, imperatively ordering image-worship, but a strong remonstrance was published against this unscriptural and arbitrary proceeding, by Alcuin, under the patronage of the British prelacy. And the bishops of Germany and France, in a council assembled at Frankfort-on-the Mayne, approved the conduct of their brethren in Britain. In the reign of Louis the Pious, son of Charlemagne, the "mystery of iniquity” was rapidly increasing, although, in a synod convened by him, image-worship was condemned, and several remonstrances were from time to time made against the Pope's usurped authority. Gregory IV., who was then pope, took the part of his rebellious subjects who had taken up arms against this emperor, and he even went so far as to threaten to make an expedition, for the purpose of excommunicating him in form. But the bishops of Louis's party made a spirited and memorable reply. "We have no intention, whatever," said they, "of submitting ourselves to your will and pleasure, and, if you come here to excommunicate us, you shall go away excommunicated yourself, since you would be acting contrary to the authority of the ancient canons." On a similar occasion, A. D. 863, the Archbishop of Treves replied to 1 Isaiah, i. 21. Rev. xvii. 2. Pope Nicholas I., condemning him, in no measured terms, and concluding, by assuring him that he did not act in that manner from any private pique, but from his zeal for the church, and because he respected the whole of his order, which the Bishop of Rome was endeavouring to assail. In a like spirit was the reply of the Archbishop of Rheims to the letter of Pope Hadrian II., written A.D. 870, and commanding him not to allow Charles the Bald to communicate, unless he should cede his brother Lothaire's kingdom to his son Louis. Lastly, in the year 963, Otho the Great, and a synod of bishops, expelled John XII. from the papal chair, and seated Leo VIII. in his place. From this statement of facts, it is evident that the Pope's pretensions to universal power were not undisputed during the whole of the first thousand years after Christ. We now proceed to show that certain other distinguishing errors of the Church of Rome were not as yet generally received. ance. The monstrous doctrine of Transubstantiation, which may justly be styled "the gangrene of the Church," met still with considerable resistRabanus Maurus, A. D. 856, asserted that the Sacrament of the altar afforded nutriment to the body, and on this account, William of Malmesbury, four hundred years subsequently, cautioned his readers against him."1 About this time, Paschasius Radbert claimed the credit of having made people understand the mystery of the corporal presence; however he met with strong opposition from Ratramn and Johannes Scotus. The treatise of the latter was condemned in a council held at Versailles, when Leo IX. was Pope, and that of the former is to be found amongst the list of books prohibited by the council of Trent. That the British Church was as yet free from this error, we know from a homily of Paschals, which at this time used to be read publicly amongst them, wherein it is stated that there is a considerable difference between that body of Christ which suffered on the cross and the spiritual one which is called the Host, and farther on appear the words, "This mystery is merely a pledge and a figure.' That our Church held the true doctrine appears also from circular letters sent by Wolfin, Bishop of Sherburn, and Walfstan, Archbishop of York, about the year A. D. 974. This brings us again to the end of the thousand years, and shows us that the Church was not altogether contaminated. Erroneous opinions began to be held with regard to Justification and Free Grace, but many were still found who bore testimony to the truth on these points. In the works of the venerable Bede, and of Alcuin, are many passages, in which it is distinctly stated that we are justified by faith only.' So that the words of Scripture could not yet be applied to the Church. "The light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the Bridegroom, and the bride, shall be heard no "2 1 Admonitum te volo, ut unum ex his qui de talibus disputaverunt fugiendum scias, Rabanum nomine; qui in libro De Officiis Ecclesiasticis dicit Sacramenta Altaris proficere ad saginam corporis, &c." From a MS. in the library of All Soul's College, Oxford. 2 To select one passage from many. Bede, in Psalm 77, writes, "per justitiam factorum nullus salvabitur, sed per solam justitiam fidei." And Alcuin, in Psalm 50, "Sordidare me potui, sed emundare nequco; nisi tu, Domine Jesu, sancti sanguinis tui aspersione mundum me facias." more at all in thee; for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived."1 Neither was the worship of images generally adopted. A. D. 728, the Emperor Leo Isaurus was violently opposed to it, and on this account, Gregory the younger absolved his subjects from their allegiance. In a council held at Constantinople, at the end of the ninth century, which is called the eighth general council, many things were decreed contrary to the ancient canons on this subject, and contrary to a former council held also at Constantinople, which, in the year 754, decided against this idolatry. 2 To take a short review of this hasty sketch of the rise and progress of error in this millennium. 1. The supremacy of the Popes was so far from being thought of, even at Rome, that Gregory the Great expressed his hatred of the name of Universal Bishop. 2. Rome and the Pope were in subordination to the emperor. 3. Image worship was rejected. But, 4. The worship of images were established by what they call the eighth general council, and the privileges of the Bishop of Rome were confirmed. Alas! what a rapid and total transformation the Church underwent. Then comes an almost universal defection. Werner, a Carthusian monk, says, that piety was lost, and truth had departed from amongst the children of men. Others have said that all heretics had fled away, and had found concealment and refuge amongst the prelates and priests of the Romish Church. 3 In brief, heresy was the Church's faith-charity was cold; the reins of avarice and ambition were loosened; the clergy were profane; antichrists were everywhere, and their power was unrestrained. It was the bad, the iron age. "Protinus irrumpit venæ pejoris in ævum Omne nefas fugêre pudor, verumque, fidesque : "Hæc erant tempora," says Usher, "hi mores." Such are the facts which are brought in attestation of the Archbishop's theory; they are to prove that Satan was bound during the first thousand years of the Christian æra, and that he was only loosed at the expiration of that period. They will scarcely bear a close examination, and a short scrutiny will suffice. (To be continued.) 1 Rev. xviii. 23. 2 Ego fidenter dico, quod quisquis se Universalem Sacerdotem vocat, vel vocari desiderat, in elatione suâ antichristum præcurrit, quia superbiendo se cæteris præponit. Gregor. in Regist. T. IV. Ep. 38. 3 Magdeburg: Centur. x. c. 11." Fugisse hæreticos, atque in prælatos ac pontificios sese abdidisse. THE CLEANSING OF THE SANCTUARY. TO THE EDITOR OF THE EPISCOPAL MAGAZINE. SIR,-In your March number, the letter of a W. J. D. W. is quoted to show that the "time of the end" is so near as the year 1847. "Our first object," says that writer, "is to know when Daniel had the vision, as, whatever might happen in the interim, one end of the period is there. There can be no question that the 3rd of Belshazzar would fall within a year or two of B.c. 550: our Bible gives 553. 'From the whole period then Deduct the years before Christ. Gives you the cleansing of the Sanctuary . . .2400 553 .1847." "The secret things" of unaccomplished prophecies "belong unto the Lord our God;" to some, among the many gifts of the Spirit, the gift of "prophecy" has been given, and of late years much has been written on that dark, but interesting, subject. There is no doubt one end of the period is at the time of Daniel's vision; but I think W. J. D. W has not pitched upon the right time. The margin of the Bible gives the date of Daniel's vision 553 sure enough; but there was no extraordinary circumstance at that time except Belshazzar's "impious feast" to rest on as a point of departure so to speak. Daniel thus describes "The cleansing of the sanctuary. “Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake. How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden underfoot? And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed."1 66 Most commentators seem to be agreed that the three is wrong, and should be four, therefore, if 1847 years are added to 553 they just make up the 2400 mentioned by the “ certain saint" as the period when the sanctuary shall begin to be cleansed. Still the year pitched upon by W. J. D. W. is merely a circumstance, without any positive certainty. Again a man clothed in linen, swore by Him who liveth for ever" that to the time of the end shall be " a time, times, and half a time," or 1260 prophetic days. The heavenly messenger assured Daniel that the period of which he prophesied "should be a time of trouble, such as never was, since there was a nation, even to that same time." 2 The signs of the times seem to indicate that the cleansing of the sanctuary is drawing near; for the present is pre-eminently a time of rebuke and blasphemy, such as has never been equalled in any former period. But the 1260 days also reach to the time of the end, that is, when the cleansing shall begin. I venture, with submission, to assume that the treading under-foot of the sanctuary means that, during the last time, or the two thousand years under the gospel, the church has been subject to |