3. Powers and Duties of Bishops—First and Second Century.—We may define in a few words the narrow limits of their [the bishops] original jurisdiction, which was chiefly of a spiritual, though in some instances of a temporal nature. It consisted in the administration of the sacraments and discipline of the church, the superintendency of religious ceremonies which imperceptibly increase in number and variety, the consecration of ecclesiastical ministers to whom the bishops assigned their respective functions, the management of the public fund, and the determination of all such differences as the faithful were unwilling to expose before the tribunal of an idolatrous judge. These powers, during a short period, were exercised according to the advice of the presbyteral college [the Elders of the church], and with the consent and approbation of the assembly of Christians. The primitive bishops were considered only as the first of their equals, and the honorable servants of a free people. Whenever the Episcopal chair became vacant by death, a new president was chosen among the presbyters [elders] by the suffrage of the whole congregation, every member of which supposed himself invested with a sacred and sacerdotal character.—Gibbon (Decline and Fall, ch. xv).
4. Usurpation of Provincial Councils.—As the legislative authority of the particular churches was insensibly superseded by the use of councils, the bishops obtained by their alliance a much larger share of executive and arbitrary power; and as soon as they were connected by a sense of their common interest, they were enabled to attack, with united vigor, the original rights of their clergy [the elders and deacons] and people. The prelates of the third century imperceptibly changed the language of exhortation into that of command, scattered the seeds of future usurpations, and supplied, by scripture allegories and declamatory rhetoric, their deficiency of force and reason. They exalted the unity and power of the church as it was represented in the episcopal office, of which every bishop enjoyed an equal and undivided portion.—Gibbon (Decline and Fall, ch. xv).
5. Cyprian's Opposition to the Bishop of Rome.—Rome experienced from the nations of Asia and Africa a more vigorous resistance to her spiritual than she had formerly done to her temporal dominion. The patriotic Cyprian, who ruled with the most absolute sway the church of Carthage and the provincial synods, opposed with resolution and success the ambition of the Roman pontiff, artfully connected his own cause with that of the eastern bishops, and, like Hannibal, sought out new allies in the heart of Asia. If this punic war was carried on without any effusion of blood, it was owing much less to the moderation than to the weakness of the contending prelates. Invectives and excommunication were then the only weapons; and these, during the progress of the whole controversy, they hurled against each other with equal fury and devotion.—Gibbon (Decline and Fall, Vol. I, ch. xv).
6. Reverence of the Barbarians for the Popes.—That these pagan nations had been accustomed to treat their idolatrous priests with extraordinary reverence is a fact well known. When they became Christians they supposed they must show the same reverence to the Christian priests. Of course they honored their bishops and clergy, as they had before honored their druids; and this reverence disposed them to bear patiently their vices. Every druid was accounted a very great character, and was feared by every one; but the chief druid was actually worshiped. When these people became Christians, they supposed that the bishop of Rome was such a chief druid; and that the must be honored accordingly. And this was one cause why the Roman pontiff obtained in process of time such an ascendency in the western countries. The patriarch of Constantinople rose indeed to a great elevation; but he never attained the high rank and authority of the Roman patriarch. The reason was that the people of the east had not the same ideas of the dignity of a chief priest as the people of the west had.—Schlegel.
7. Grant of the Roman Dukedom to the Popes.—Charles [Charlemagne], being made emperor and sovereign of Rome and its territory, reserved indeed to himself, the supreme power, and the prerogatives of sovereignty; but the beneficial dominion, as it is called, and subordinate authority over the city and its territory, he seems to have conferred on the Romish church. This plan was undoubtedly suggested to him by the Roman pontiff; who persuaded the emperor, perhaps by showing him some ancient though forged papers and documents, that Constantine the Great (to whose place and authority Charles now succeeded) when he removed the seat of empire to Constantinople, committed the old seat of empire, Rome and the adjacent territories or Roman dukedom, to the possession and government of the church, reserving, however, his imperial prerogatives over it; and that, from this arrangement and ordinance of Constantine, Charles could not depart, without incurring the wrath of God and St. Peter.—Mosheim.
8. Copy of an Indulgence.—May our Lord Jesus Christ have mercy on thee, N. N., and absolve thee by the merits of his passion! And I in virtue of the apostolic power that has been confided in me, absolve thee from all ecclesiastical censures, judgments, and penalties which thou mayst have incurred; moreover, from all excesses, sins and crimes that thou mayst have committed, however great and enormous they may be, and from whatsoever cause, were they even reserved for our most holy father the pope and for the apostolic see. I blot out all the stains of inability and all marks of infamy that thou mayst have drawn upon thyself on this occasion. I remit the penalties that thou shouldst have endured in purgatory. I restore thee anew to participation in the sacraments of the church. I incorporate thee afresh in the communion of saints, and re-establish thee in the purity and innocence which thou hadst at thy baptism. So that in the hour of death, the gate by which sinners enter the place of torments and punishments will be closed against thee, and, on the contrary, the gate leading to the paradise of joy shall be open. And if thou shouldst not die for long years, this grace shall remain unalterable until thy last hour shall arrive. In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Amen. (Friar John Tetzel, Commissary, has signed this with his own hand)—D'Aubugne's Hist. Ref., book III, ch. i.
9. The Absolute Power of the Popes (13th century).—All who had any share in the government of the church, were alike sovereign lords; at least in their feelings and dispositions they stiffly maintained with violence and threats, with both wiles and weapons, those fundamental principles of the popish canon law, that the Roman pontiff is the sovereign lord of the whole world, and that all other rulers in church and state have so much power and authority as he sees fit to allow them to have. Resting on this eternal principle as they conceive it to be, the pontiffs arrogate to themselves the absolute power, not only of conferring sacred offices or benefices as they are called, but also of giving away empires, and of divesting kings and princes of their crowns and authority. The more intelligent indeed, for the most part considered [general] councils as superior to the pontiffs; and such of the kings as were not blinded by superstition, restrained the pontiffs from intermeddling with worldly or civil affairs, bid them be contented with the regulation of things sacred, maintained their power to the utmost of their ability and even claimed for themselves supremacy over the church in their respective territories. But they had to do these things cautiously, if they would not learn by experience that the pontiffs had very long arms.—Mosheim.
10. Character of Language Employed by the Popes Against Kings (8th century).—[As a sample of the arrogant language employed by the popes toward kings and emperors, we present the following taken from an epistle of Pope Gregory III, addressed to the eastern emperor Leo III. Leo at the time was opposing with commendable zeal the use of images in divine worship]: "Because you are unlearned and ignorant, we are obliged to write to you rude discourses, but full of sense and the word of God. We conjure you to quit your pride, and hear us with humility. You say that we adore stones, walls and boards. It is not so, my lord; but those symbols make us recollect the persons whose names they bear, and exalt our grovelling minds. We do not look upon them as gods; but if it be the image of Jesus, we say, 'Lord help us.' If it be his mother, we say, 'pray to your Son to save us.' If it be a martyr, we say, 'St. Stephen, pray for us.' We might as having the power of St. Peter, pronounce punishments against you, but as you have pronounced the curse upon yourself, let it stick to you. You write to us to assemble a general council; of which there is no need. Do you cease to persecute images, and all will be quiet. We fear not your threats; for if we go a league from Rome toward Campania, we are secure."—Certainly this is the language of anti-Christ supporting idolatry by pretenses to infallibility, and despising both civil magistrates and ecclesiastical councils.—Milner (Church History, Vol. III, Page 159).
REVIEW.
1. Was the early church organization perpetuated?
2. What reasons can you assign for the failure to do so?
3. What can you say of the early apostasy in the church? (Notes 1, 2).
4. What course was pursued by the apostles in respect to organizing churches?
5. In what light were the apostles regarded by the saints?
6. In what condition were the churches left at the death of the apostles?
7. Was there such a thing as subordination among the churches, or rank among the bishops?
8. What was the manner of electing bishops?
9. What was the nature of the bishop's duties in the early churches? (Note 3).
10. Describe the growth of iniquity among the bishops.
11. Give an account of the origin of metropolitan bishops.
12. Describe the rise and influence of councils. (Note 4).
13. What was the conduct of the lower officials in the church?
14. What was the moral status of the church officials in the 2nd and 3rd centuries?
15. Tell what important change was made in the form of church government in the 4th century?
16. Describe the outlines of Roman government under Constantine.
17. Tell how the church government was made somewhat to correspond with it.
18. What circumstances led to the pre-eminence of the bishop of Rome?
19. What reasons can be urged against the idea that the bishop of Rome succeeded to the apostleship of Peter and the presidency of the universal church?
20. What is the scriptural basis of the claims of the bishops of Rome to pre-eminence?
21. Refute the idea that Jesus built his church upon Peter.
22. Refute the argument that the bishops of Rome must have succeeded to the apostleship of Peter, because Jesus promised to be with the apostles unto the end of the world.
23. To what extent did the early Christian fathers admit a primacy to the bishops of Rome?
24. State the controversy which arose between the bishop of Rome and the bishop of Constantinople.
25. Through what cause did the Roman pontiffs finally force an acknowledgment of their independency? (Note 6).
26. What led to the great division of the church in the 9th century?
27. By what means did the Roman pontiffs outstrip their eastern rivals? (Note 7).
28. What of the sale of indulgences? (Note).
29. What was the climax of papal power?
SECTION V.
1. Simplicity of Public Worship Changed.—The public worship of the primitive Christians, as we have seen,[67] was very simple, but its simplicity was soon corrupted. The bishops and other public teachers in the third century, framed their discourses and exhortations according to the rules of Grecian eloquence; "and were better adapted," says a learned writer,[68] "to call forth the admiration of the rude multitude who love display, than to amend the heart. And that no folly and no senseless custom might be omitted in their public assemblies, the people were allowed to applaud their orators, as had been practiced in the forums and theaters; nay, they were instructed to applaud the preachers."
2. This was a wide departure from that spirit of meekness and humility enjoined by Messiah upon his ministers. And when to these customs was added the splendid vestments of the clergy, the magnificence of the temples, with all the pageantry of altars, surrounded with burning tapers, clouds of incense, beautiful images, the chanting of choirs, processions and other mummeries without number—one sees but little left of that simple worship instituted by the Messiah and his apostles. (See note 1, end of section).
3. About the third century incense began to be used. The Christians of the first and second centuries abhorred the use of incense in public worship, as being a part of the worship of idols.[69] It first became a custom to use it at funerals, against offensive smells; then in public worship, to disguise the bad air of crowded assemblies; then at the consecration of bishops and magistrates, and by these steps at last degenerated into a superstitious rite.
4. In the fourth century matters became still worse. "The public supplications by which the pagans were accustomed to appease their gods, were borrowed from them, and were celebrated in many places with great pomp. To the temples, to water consecrated in due form, and the images of holy men, the same efficacy was ascribed to the pagan temples, statues and lustrations before the advent of Christ."[70]
5. The Worship of Martyrs.—In the third century also arose the worship of martyrs. It is true that worship or adoration was relative, and a distinction was made between the worship of martyrs and the worship paid to God; but by degrees the worship of the martyrs was made to conform with that which the pagans had in former times paid to their gods.[71] This was done out of indiscreet eagerness to allure the pagans to embrace Christianity.[72] (See note 2, end of section).
6. Decline of Spiritual Gifts.—While pagan ceremonies and rites were increasing in the church, the gifts and graces characteristic of apostolic times, seemed to have gradually departed from it. Protestant writers insist that the age of miracles closed with the fourth or fifth century, and that after that the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost must not be looked for. Catholic writers, on the other hand, insist that the power to perform miracles has always continued in the church; yet those spiritual manifestations which they describe after the fourth and fifth centuries savor of invention on the part of the priests and childish credulity on the part of the people; or else what is claimed to be miraculous falls far short of the power and dignity of those spiritual manifestations which the primitive church was wont to witness.
7. The virtues and prodigies ascribed to the bones and other relics of the martyrs and saints are puerile in comparison with the healings, by the anointing with oil and the laying on of hands, speaking in tongues, interpretations, prophecies, revelations, casting out devils in the name of Jesus Christ; to say nothing of the gifts of faith, wisdom, knowledge, discernment of spirits, etc.,—common in the church in the days of the days of the apostles.[73]
8. Nor is there anything in the scriptures or in reason that would lead one to believe that they were to be discontinued. Still this plea is made by modern Christians—explaining the absence of these spiritual powers among them—that the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were only intended to accompany the proclamation of the gospel during the first few centuries until the church was able to make its way without them, and then they were to be done away. It is sufficient to remark upon this that it is assumption pure and simple, and stands without warrant either of scripture or right reason; and proves that men had so far changed the religion of Jesus Christ that it became a form of godliness without the power thereof. (See notes 3 and 4, end of section).
9. Causes and Manner of Excommunications.—It appears to have been the custom of the apostles in the case of members of the church grievously transgressing the moral law of the gospel to require repentance and confession before the church; and in the event of a stubborn adherence to sin the offender was excommunicated, that is, he was excluded from the communion of the church and the fellowship of the saints. For the crimes of murder, idolatry and adultery, some of the churches excommunicated those guilty of them forever; in other churches they were received back, but only after long and painful probation.
10. The manner in which excommunication was performed in apostolic times is not clear, but there is every reason to believe the process was very simple. In the course of time, however, this simple order of excommunication was changed, by being burdened with many rites and ceremonies borrowed from pagan sources.[74] It was not enough that the fellowship of the saints be withdrawn from the offender and he left to the mercy of God, or the buffetings of Satan, according as he was worthy of the one or the other; but the church must load him down with anathemas too terrible to contemplate. The power of excommunication, too, eventually, passed from the body of the church into the hands of the bishops, and finally into those of the pope. At first excommunication meant the loss of the fellowship of the saints, and such other punishments as God himself might see fit to inflict; the church leaving the Lord to be the minister of his own vengeance. But gradually it came to mean in some instances banishment from home and country, the confiscation of property, the loss not only of religious fellowship with the saints, but the loss of civil rights; and the rights of Christian burial. In the case of a monarch excommunication absolved his subjects from their allegiance; and in the case of a subject, it robbed him of the protection of his sovereign. No anathema was so terrible but it was pronounced against the excommunicated, until the sweet mercies of God were overshadowed by the black pall of man's inhumanity.
11. Admixture of Pagan Philosophy with the Christian Religion.—The thing which contributed most to the subversion of the Christian religion was the employment of pagan philosophy to explain Christian doctrine. This brought about an admixture of these two discordant elements that while it failed to purge pagan philosophy of its errors, corrupted the doctrines of Christ and laid the foundations for those false notions in respect of God which obtain in the so-called Christian world unto this day.
12. Christian Doctrine Respecting God.—The scriptural doctrine in regard to God—and of course, that is the true Christian doctrine—is this: There is a being of infinite goodness and power, in form like man—for man was created in his image[75]—who, with his Son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost, constitute the great creative, and governing power or grand Presidency of the heavens and the earth. As persons, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are separate and distinct, yet one in attributes, one in purpose; the mind of one being the mind of the others.
13. That they are distinct and separate as persons was plainly manifested at the baptism of Jesus. On that occasion, as Jesus came up out of the water, John saw the Holy Ghost descend upon him, and at the same time the voice of the Father was heard speaking from heaven, saying: "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."[76] Here we have the persons of the Godhead present but distinct from each other. Stephen, the martyr, in the presence of the angry crowd which took his life, saw the heavens open and "Jesus standing on the right hand of God."[77] Here, too, the Father and Son are seen and, according to the testimony of the holy man, they are distinct personalities.
14. Yet Jesus said to the Jews: "I and my Father are one. * * * Believe that the Father is in me and I in him."[78] But this oneness cannot have reference to the persons of the Father and of the Son, which we have seen are distinct. Their oneness, therefore, must consist in a unity of attributes, purposes, glory, power. Jesus in his great prayer just previous to his betrayal, said, in praying for his disciples: "Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one. * * * That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us."[79] Clearly it is not the uniting of the persons of his disciples into one person or body that Jesus prayed for; but he would have them of one mind and one spirit, as he and the Father are one. So also he had no wish that the person of one of his disciples should be crowded into that of another, and so on until they all became one person or body—but "as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee." That is, while remaining distinct as persons, Messiah would have the mind or Spirit of God in his disciples as it was in him, and as his was in the Father, that God might be all in all—the Father to be honored as the head and worshiped in the name of the Son; and the Holy Ghost to be revered as the witness and messenger of both the Father and the Son[80]—the bond of union between God and men, as it is between the Father and the Son; in one word to be God in man.
15. Each of these persons in scripture is called God; and taken together they are God, or constitute the grand Presidency of heaven and earth, and as such are one, as well as in attributes. (See note 5, end of section).
16. The spirit of the Son had an existence with the Father before he was born in the flesh;[81] and indeed it was by him, and through him—under the direction of the Father—that the worlds were made;[82] "and without him was not anything made that was made."[83]
17. Such is the simple doctrine of the Godhead taught to the primitive Saints by the apostles. It was implicitly believed as God's revelation to them upon the subject, and they were content to allow the revelation to excite their reverence without arousing their curiosity to the point where men of finite minds attempt to grasp the infinite, or circumscribe God in their understandings. In a short time, however, a change came, and men sought to explain the revelation that God had given of himself by the vain babblings of pagan science; and that led not only to much contention within the church, but to the adoption in the Christian creed of erroneous ideas in respect of Deity.
18. Gnostic and "New Platonic" Philosophy.—In order to give a clear explanation of this matter, it will be necessary to invite the attention of the student to Gnosticism and the Eclectic or "New Platonic" philosophy which arose in the early Christian centuries. First, then, as to Gnosticism. The Gnostics taught there existed from eternity a Being that embodied within himself all the virtues; a Being who is the purest light and is diffused throughout boundless space, which they called Pleroma. This Being, after dwelling alone and in absolute repose for an infinite period, by an operation purely mental, or by acting upon himself, produced two spirits[84] of different sexes. By the marriage of these two spirits others of similar nature were produced, who, in their turn, produced others. Thus a celestial family was formed in the pleroma. These emanations from Deity, whether directly or from those spirits first begotten by Deity acting upon himself, were called Aeons, a term which was doubtless employed to signify their eternal duration, and perhaps the mode of their production.
19. Beyond this pleroma where God and his family dwelt, existed a rude and unformed mass of matter, heaving itself continually in wild commotion.[85] This mass of the Aeons, wandering beyond the pleroma, discovered and reduced to order and beauty and then peopled it with human beings and with animals of different species. This builder of the world the Gnostics called the Demiurge [Dem-i-urge].[86] Though possessed of many shining qualities, the Demiurge was by nature arrogant and domineering, hence he claims absolute authority over the new world to the exclusion altogether of the authority of the supreme God, and requires mankind to pay divine honors exclusively to him.
20. Man, according to the Gnostic philosophy, is composed of a terrestial, and therefore a vicious body; and of a celestial spirit, which in some sense is a particle of the Deity himself. The spirit is oppressed by the body, which is supposed to be the seat of all the lusts and other evils that flesh is heir to, and by the spirit of man is drawn away from the knowledge and worship of the true God, and led to pay reverence to the Demiurge and his associates. From this wretched bondage of evil God labors to rescue his offspring. But the Demiurge and his associates, eager to retain their power, resist the divine purpose and labor to efface all knowledge of the supreme Deity. The philosophy maintained, however, that God would ultimately prevail; and having restored to liberty most of the spirits now imprisoned in bodies, he will dissolve the fabric of the world. Then the primitive tranquility will return, and God will reign with the redeemed spirits in perfect happiness to all eternity.[87]
21. When the followers of this philosophy became converted to Christianity, they looked upon Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost as the latest Aeons or emanations from the Deity, sent forth to emancipate men from the tyranny of matter by revealing to them the true God; to fit them, though perfect knowledge to enter the sacred pleroma. In connection with this, however, some of these Christian Gnostics held that Jesus had no body at all, but was an unsubstantial phantom that constantly deceived the senses of those who thought they associated with him. Others of them said there doubtless was a man called Jesus born of human parents, upon whom one of the Aeons, called Christ, descended at his baptism, having quitted the pleroma for that purpose; but who, previous to the crucifixion of the man Jesus, withdrew from him and returned to the Deity. [See note 7, end of section.]
22. The Two Modes of Life to which Gnosticism led.—The Gnostic philosophy led to two widely different methods of life; one extremely ascetic and the other as extremely profligate. Gnostics believed matter to be utterly malignant, the source of all evil, therefore it was recommended by one party that the body should be weakened by fastings and the practice of other austerities, that the spirit might enjoy the greater liberty and be better able to contemplate heavenly things. The other party, on the contrary, maintained that men could safely indulge all their appetites and lustful desires, and that there was no moral difference in human actions. One leader of this persuasion—Carpocrates of Alexandria, who flourished in the second century—not only gave his disciples license to sin, but imposed on them the necessity of sinning, by teaching them the way to eternal salvation was open to those souls only which committed all kinds of enormity and wickedness. Such were the errors that grew out of Gnosticism, and which contributed to the corruption of the gospel soon after it was founded by the preaching of the apostles.
23. The New Platonic Philosophy.—The Eclectic or "New Platonic" philosophy which came into existence in the early Christian centuries, was compounded from all the systems which had preceded it, though following Plato more closely than any other teacher, for which reason its disciples assumed the name of New Platonics. The founders of this philosophy professed simply to follow truth, gathering up whatever was accordant with it, regardless of its source, or in what school it was taught—hence the name eclectic. Still the teachings of Plato formed the basis of their doctrines, and they embraced most of his dogmas concerning God, the human soul and the universe. We shall therefore learn the fundamental principles of the Eclectics by considering what the Athenian sage taught on these subjects.
24. Plato held that God and matter existed from all eternity—that they were co-eternal. Before the creation of the world matter had in itself a principle of motion, but without end or laws. This principle of motion Plato called the immortal soul of the universe. God wished to give form to this mass of eternal matter, regulate its motion, subject it to some end and to certain laws. Everything which exists in heaven or in earth, except Deity and unorganized matter, according to Plato's philosophy, had a beginning—there was a time when it did not exist; but there never was a time when the idea, that is, the form or plan of the thing, did not exist in the mind of Deity. This idea or intelligence existing with God from all eternity, is what Plato called the Logos—the word or intelligence of Deity. Many in the age of which we write saw in these doctrines a threefold expression of the divine nature—viz., the First Cause, the Reason or Logos, and the Spirit of the Universe; while others saw in these three principles three Gods, united with each other by a mysterious and ineffable generation; in which the Logos is regarded in the character of the Son of an Eternal Father, and the creator and governor of the work.[88]
25. Plato's Logos, John's Word Considered Identical.—In the introduction of St. John's gospel, commencing—"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"—in this Word, which the Apostle in another verse of his opening chapter declares was "made flesh and dwelt among men,"—plainly alluding to the pre-existence and birth of Messiah—the New Platonics saw the incarnation of the Logos of Plato, and according to the fashion of the times attempted to harmonize the revelations of God with the philosophy of men. (See note 8, end of section).
26. The Rank of the Logos in the Trinity.—It was trying to harmonize the revelations of God with these systems of philosophy which created the agitation in respect to the rank of the Logos, or Son of God, in the divine trinity; and the nature of the Trinity itself—that is, whether the three persons, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are distinct and separate though of the same substance, or merely the same substance under different aspects.
27. The Orthodox View.—The view held to be orthodox was that in God there are three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit; each really distinct yet so united as to constitute but one personal God—of the same substance, and equal as to their eternity, power, and glory and all other perfections.
28. Sabellian Theory.—On one side of this orthodox theory stood the doctrine of Sabellius [Sa-bel-i-us], who held that there was but one divine person in the Godhead, and that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were but different aspects of the same God, and that the Trinity was one of names, merely, not of distinct persons.[89] The Logos, in hi theory, is an attribute of Deity rather than a person; and its incarnation is reduced to an energy or inspiration of the Divine wisdom which filled the soul and directed all the actions of the man Jesus.
29. The Arian Theory.—On the other side of the orthodox line stood the theory of Arius [A-ri-us], who while he maintained a real distinction in the persons of the Divine Trinity, taught that the Son was created out of nothing by the will of the Father; and though the longest astronomical periods would not measure the time of his duration, yet there had been a time when he was not. Upon the Son thus created the Father bestowed great glory, yet he shone only by a reflected light, and governed the universe only in obedience to the will of the Father; in other words, the Son was subordinate to the Father, unequal as to eternity, power and glory.
30. The Nicene Council.—It was to still the rising commotion which arose in the church through the violent discussion of these several theories that the Emperor Constantine assembled the Council of Nice [Nes]. A. D. 325. In that council the theories of Arius were condemned and the orthodox creed stated thus:
We believe in one God, the Father, Almighty, the maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, only begotten, (that is) of the substance of the Father; God of God, Light of Light; Very God of Very God; begotten not made; of the same substance with the Father, by whom all things were made, that are in heaven and that are in earth: who for us men, and for our salvation, descended and was incarnate, and became man; suffered and rose again the third day, ascended into the heavens and will come to judge the living and the dead, and in the Holy Spirit. But those who say there was a time when he [the Son] was not, and that he was not before he was begotten, and that he was made out of nothing, or affirm that he is of any other substance or essence, of that the Son of God was created, and mutable, or changeable, the Catholic Church doth pronounce accursed.[90]
31. Athanasius [Ath-a-na-shi-us], who was the most active opponent of Arius, thus explains the Nicene doctrine, in what is commonly known as the creed of Athanasius.[91]
We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity and Unity, neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost is all one: the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate; and the Holy Ghost uncreate. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible. The Father eternal the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet these are not three eternals; but one eternal. As also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated; but one uncreated and one incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty; and yet they are not three Almighties, but one Almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, and yet they are not three Gods but one God.[92] (See note 7, end of section.)
32. Immateriality of God.—The evil which grew out of these contentions in respect to Deity is found in the conclusion arrived at that God is an incorporeal, that is to say, an immaterial being; without body, without parts, without passions. The following is the Roman Catholic belief in respect to God:
There is but one God, the creator of heaven and earth, the supreme, incorporeal, uncreated being, who exists of himself, and is infinite in all his attributes, etc.[93]
The Church of England teaches in her articles of faith:
There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts or passions; of infinite power, wisdom and goodness,[94] etc.
This plainly teaches the great error of the immateriality of God; and, indeed, that is the orthodox notion in respect to Deity, notwithstanding it finds so many express contradictions in the scriptures.
33. In the work of creation, God proposed to make man in his own image and likeness, and the proposition was executed.[95] Moreover, Jesus is said to be the brightness of God's glory, "and the express image of his person."[96] Again it is said, that Jesus "being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God."[97] All this teaches that God has a form similar to that of man's; that he has organs, dimensions, proportions; that he occupies space and has relation to other objects in space; that he moves from place to place; and that so far as his actual person is concerned he cannot be in two places at one and the same instant. The question here arises as to those passages of scripture which declare the omnipresence of God, a thing which is impossible—speaking of his person—if what is here contended for be true. But God may be and is omnipresent by his influence, by his power, if not in his person. While his person is confined to one place at a time, as other substances are, his influence extends throughout the universe, as does also his power, and through this means he is omnipotent and omnipresent.
34. To assert the immateriality of God is not only to deny his personality, but his very existence; for an immaterial substance cannot exist. It can have no relation to time or space, no form, no extension, no parts. An immaterial substance is simply no substance at all; it is a contradiction of terms to say a substance is immaterial—it is the description of an infinite vacuum; and the difference between the atheist and the orthodox Christian is one of terms, not of fact; the former says, "There is no God;" the latter in his creed says, "God is nothing."[98] (See note 10, end of section.)
35. Such were the absurdities into which the vain philosophies of the pagan led the Christian even in the early centuries of the Christian era; so that through these errors they even denied the Lord who bought them.[99]
NOTES.
1. Christian Worship in the Fifth Century.—Public worship everywhere assumed a form more calculated for show and for the gratification of the eye. Various ornaments were added to the sacerdotal garments in order to increase the veneration of the people for the clerical order. The new forms of hymns, prayers and public fasts, are not easily enumerated. * * * In some places it was appointed, that the praises of God should be sung perpetually, day and night, the singers succeeding each other without interruption; as if the Supreme Being took pleasure in clamor and noise, and in the flatteries of men. The magnificence of the temples had no bounds. Splendid images were placed in them; and among these * * * the image of the Virgin Mary, holding her infant in her arms, occupied the most conspicuous place. Altars and repositories for relics, made of solid silver if possible, were procured in various places; from which may easily be conjectured, what must have been the splendor and the expense of the other sacred utensils.—Mosheim.
2. Martyr Worship (3rd century).—When Gregory [surnamed Thaumaturgus on account of the numerous miracles he is said to have wrought—born in Pontus, in the second decade of the third century] perceived that the ignorant and simple multitude persisted in their idolatry, on account of the sensitive pleasures and delights it afforded, he allowed them in celebrating the memory of the holy martyrs, to indulge themselves, and give a loose to pleasure, (i.e., as the thing itself, and both what precedes and what follows, place beyond all controversy, he allowed them at the sepulchres of the martyrs on their fast days, to dance, to use sports, to indulge in conviviality, and do all things that the worshipers of idols were accustomed to do in their temples, on their festival days), hoping that in process of time, they would spontaneously come over to a more becoming and more correct manner of life.—Nyssen's Life of Gregory Thaumaturgus.
3. On the Continuance of Spiritual Gifts.—The affliction of devils, the confusion of tongues, deadly poisons and sickness [all of which were to be overcome by the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit] are all curses which have been introduced into the world by the wickedness of man. The blessings of the gospel are bestowed to counteract these curses. Therefore, as long as these curses exist, the promised signs [Mark xvi: 17, 18] are needed to counteract their evil consequences. If Jesus had not intended that the blessings should be as extensive and unlimited in point of time as the curses, he would have intimated something to that effect in his word. But when he makes a universal promise of certain powers, to enable every believer in the gospel throughout the world to overcome certain curses, entailed upon man, because of wickedness, it would be the rankest kind of infidelity not to believe the promised blessing necessary, as long as the curses abound among men.—Orson Pratt.
4. When and Why the Spiritual Gifts Ceased in the Church.—It does not appear that these extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit [speaking of I Cor. xii] were common in the church for more than two or three centuries. We seldom hear of them after that fatal period when the Emperor Constantine called himself a Christian; and from a vain imagination of promoting the Christian cause thereby heaped riches, and power, and honor upon Christians in general, but in particular upon the Christian clergy. From this time they [the spiritual gifts] almost totally ceased; very few instances of the kind were found. The cause of this was not (as has been supposed) because there was no more occasion for them, because all the world was become Christians. This is a miserable mistake; not a twentieth part of it was then nominally Christian. The real cause of it was the love of many, almost all Christians, so-called, was waxed cold. The Christians had no more of the Spirit of Christ than the other heathens. The Son of Man when he came to examine his church, could hardly find faith upon the earth. This was the real cause why the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were no longer to be found in the Christian Church—because the Christians were turned heathens again and only had a dead form left.—John Wesley (Wesley's Works, Vol. vii. Sermon 89, Pages 26, 27.)
5. Illustration of the Oneness of the Godhead.—The Godhead may be further illustrated by a council, composed of three men—all possessing equal wisdom, knowledge and truth, together with equal qualifications in every respect. Each person would be a separate, distinct person or substance from the other two, and yet the three would form but one council. Each alone possesses, by supposition, the same wisdom and truth that the three united or the one council possesses. The union of the three men in one council would not increase the knowledge of wisdom of either. Each man would be one part of the council when reference is made to his person; but the wisdom and truth of each man would be the whole wisdom and truth of the council, and not a part. If it were possible to divide truth, and other qualities of a similar nature into fractions, so that the Father should have the third part of truth, the third part of wisdom, the third part of knowledge, the third part of love, while the Son and the Holy Spirit possessed the other two-thirds of these qualities or affections, then neither of these persons could make "one God," "but only a part of a God." But because the divisibility of wisdom, truth or love is impossible, the whole of these qualities dwell in the Father—the whole dwells in the Son—the whole is possessed by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is one part of the Godhead in essence; but the whole of God in wisdom, truth, and other similar qualities. If a truth could become three truths, distinct from each other, by dwelling in three substances, then there would be three Gods instead of one. But as it is, the trinity is three in essence, but one in truth and other similar principles. The oneness of the Godhead, as described in the scriptures, never was intended to apply to the essence, but only to the perfections and other attributes.—Orson Pratt.
6. Messiah the Author of the Gospel and Creator of the World.—Christ is the author of this gospel, of this earth, of men and women, of all the posterity of Adam and Eve, and of every living creature that lives upon the face of the earth, that flies in the heavens, that swims in the waters, or dwells in the field. Christ is the author of salvation to all this creation, to all things pertaining to this terrestial globe we occupy.—Brigham Young (Discourse, August 8, 1852).
7. The Phantom Theory of the Gnostics.—While the blood of Christ yet smoked on Mount Calvary, the Docetus [the name given to the Gnostic Christians] invented the impious and extravagant hypothesis, that, instead of issuing from the womb of the virgin, he had descended on the banks of the Jordan in the form of perfect manhood; that he had imposed on the senses of his enemies, and of his disciples; and that the ministers of Pilate had wasted their impotent rage on an airy phantom, who seemed to expire on the cross, and, after three days, to rise from the dead.—Gibbon.
8. The Fashion of Uniting Discordant Elements in Philosophy and Religion.—When we come to consider the state of philosophy at that time [the early Christian centuries], and the fashion which prevailed of catching at anything new, and of uniting discordant elements into fanciful systems, we shall not be surprised to find the doctrines of the gospel disguised and altered, and that, according to the language of that age, many new heresies were formed.—Burton's Brampton Lectures.
9. The Mysteries of Religion Deepened Through Attempted Explanation.—That devout and reverential simplicity of the first ages of the church, which taught men to believe when God speaks, and obey when God commands, appeared to most of the doctors of this age [the fifth century] to be unphilosophical and becoming only in the vulgar. Many of those, however, who attempted to explain and illustrate these doctrines, opened the way rather to disputation than for a rational faith and a holy life; for they did not so much explain, as involve in greater obscurity, and darken with ambiguous terms and incomprehensible distinctions the deep mysteries of revealed religion. And hence arose abundant matter for difficulties, contentions and animosities which flowed down to succeeding ages, and which can scarcely be removed by the efforts of human power. It hardly need be remarked, that some, while pressing their adversaries, incautiously fell into errors of an opposite character which were no less dangerous.—Mosheim.
10. Immaterialists are Atheists.—There are two classes of atheists in the world. One class denies the existence of God in the most positive language; the other denies his existence in duration or space. One says, "There is no God;" the other says "God is not here or there, any more than he exists now and then." The infidel says, "There is no such a substance as God." The immaterialist says, "There is such a substance as God, but it is 'without parts.'" The atheist says, "There is no such substance as spirit." The immaterialist says, "A spirit, though he lives and acts, occupies no room and fills no space, in the same way and after the same manner as matter not even so much as does the minutest grain of sand." The atheist does not seek to hide his infidelity; but the immaterialist, whose declared belief amounts to the same thing as the atheist's endeavors to hide his infidelity under the shallow covering of a few words.—Orson Pratt (Absurdities of Immaterialism, page 11).
REVIEW.
1. Describe the simplicity of public worship in early Christian times. (Note 2, end of section III.)
2. What changes in the public worship were gradually introduced? (Note 1).
3. What was the object in introducing these changes?
4. In what manner was incense introduced into public worship?
5. What especially obnoxious practice became prevalent in the 4th century?
6. What can you say of the worship of martyrs? (Note 2).
7. Give an account of the decline of spiritual gifts in the church.
8. On this point what difference exists between Catholics and Protestants?
9. What can you say of Protestant excuses for the absence of the spiritual gifts of the gospel? (Notes 3 and 4).
10. What does the absence of spiritual gifts prove?
11. In what way were grievous offenses punished by the church?
12. What ceremonies finally became associated with excommunication?
13. What temporal punishments were sometimes associated with excommunication?
14. What can you say of the mingling of pagan philosophy with the Christian religion?
15. Give the scriptural doctrine respecting God.
16. Give an instance from scripture where the personages of the Godhead are seen to be distinct.
17. In what does the oneness of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost consist? (Note 5.)
18. How did the early Christians regard the scriptural doctrine of the Godhead?
19. By what means did men at last try to explain the revelation?
20. Give the Gnostic idea respecting God.
21. How did the Gnostics account for the creation of the world?
22. In what way did the Gnostics avoid making God the author of evil?
23. What is the nature of man according to the Gnostic philosophy?
24. What did the Gnostic philosophy look to as the culmination between the struggle of man with evil?
25. In what light did the Gnostics look upon Jesus Christ?
26. What fanciful theory did some of them hold respecting him? (Note 7).
27. To what two modes of life did the Gnostic philosophy lead?
28. What was the new Platonic philosophy?
29. What was Plato's idea of God?
30. In what way was there an attempt to harmonize the philosophy of Plato with the writings of St John?
31. State the "orthodox" doctrine respecting Deity in those times.
32. State the Sabellian theory.
33. Give an illustration of it.
34. State the Arian theory.
35. In what way did the Nicene Council decide the trinity controversy?
36. What confession did Athanasius make as to his inability to comprehend the Nicene creed?
37. What great error resulted from the controversy on the nature of Deity?
38. What passages of scripture refute the "orthodox" Christian notion that God is immaterial?
39. How from reason would you refute the notion that God is an immaterial Being?
SECTION VI.
1. Departure from Moral Precepts of the Gospel.—There was as wide a departure from the moral precepts of the gospel among the Christians as there was from the doctrines, ordinances and government of the church. From the nature of the reproofs, the admonitions and warnings to be found in the epistles of the apostles to the churches, one may see that while they yet lived the saints were prone to wickedness, and great errors in regard to moral conduct crept into the churches. The writings of the early fathers of the church who succeeded the apostles also bear witness to the continuance and increase of these errors.
2. Double Rule of Life.—As early as the second century the idea became prevalent that messiah had prescribed a twofold rule of moral conduct; the one ordinary, the other extraordinary; one for those engaged in ordinary affairs of life, the other for persons of leisure and such as desired a higher glory in the future life. This led the early Christian doctors to divide whatsoever had been taught by the apostles in respect to Christian life and morals, into precepts and counsels. The precepts were those laws which were equally binding on all men the counsels were binding only on those who aspired to a closer union with God.
3. Of course there soon appeared a class of persons who sought to attain to this closer union; and they adopted the method of life practiced among the pagan philosophers who wished to excel in virtue. They considered many things forbidden to them which were proper for ordinary Christians to indulge in; such as wine, flesh, matrimony, and secular business. They thought the holiness of life they aspired to could sooner be attained by emaciating the body by fastings, watchings, excessive toil, hunger, insufficient and coarse raiment. In short, they "thought to merit heaven by making earth a hell." Those who engaged in this kind of life soom came to distinguish themselves by their dress as well as by the austerity of their lives. They soon began to withdraw themselves from association with their fellow Christians and the world and retire to the deserts and the wilderness, where by severe meditation they sought to abstract their minds from external objects and those things which minister to sensual delights. They sometimes lived alone but oftener in association with those devoted to the same manner of life.
4. When peace was assured to the Christian church, early in the fourth century, the number of those who became ambitious for this austere righteousness greatly increased, until vast multitudes of monk and sacred virgins spread with remarkable rapidity throughout Christendom. About the year 305, A. D., the practice of collecting these people into associated communities and regulating their mode of living by fixed rules was introduced. St Anthony of Egypt was the prime mover in this work. Thus monasteries and nunneries were established; and in a short time the east, especially, swarmed with persons who abandoned the conveniences, associations and business of ordinary life, to pine away in these institutions and hardships and sufferings, in order to attain a closer communion with God and a more excellent salvation.
5. Origin of the False Idea of Moral Life.—"The Christian church would have remained free from these numerous tortures of the mond and body," remarks Dr. Mosheim, "had not that great and fascinating doctrine of the ancient philosophy gained credence among Christians that to attain to happiness and communion with God, the soul must be freed from the influence of the body, and for this purpose the body must be subdued."[100]
6. As a further evidence that these false notions of life and virtue came from the pagan philosophy rather than from the Christian religion, we quote again from Mosheim:
The causes of this institution [austere method of life] are at hand. First, the Christians did not like to appear inferior to the Greeks, the Romans, and the other people; among whom were many philosophers and sages, who were distinguished from the vulgar by their dress and their whole mode of life, and who were held in high honor. Now among these philosopher (as is well known), none better pleased the Christians than the Platonists and Pythagoreans [Pyth-a-go-re-ans]; who are known to have recommended two modes of living, the one for philosophers who wished to excel in virtue, and the other for the people engaged in the common affairs of life.[101]
The Platonists prescribed the following rules for philosophers:
The mind of a wise man must be withdrawn, as far as possible, from the contagious influence of the body, and as the oppressive load of the body and social intercourse are most adverse to this design, therefore all sensual gratifications are to be avoided; the body is to be sustained or rather mortified, with coarse and slender fare; solitude is to be sought for; and the mind is to be self-collected, and absorbed in contemplation, so as to be detached as much as possible from the body. Whoever lives in this manner, shall in the present life have converse with God; and when freed from the load of the body, shall ascend without delay to the celestial mansions and shall not need, like the souls of other men, to undergo purgation.[102]
7. It will be remembered that the Christians adopted the pagan philosophy—of which the teachings of Plato were the basis—and employed it to explain the Christian religion. It is not surprising, therefore, that they adopted its moral precepts, and by so doing corrupted that reasonable and healthy moral life enjoined upon all alike in the gospel of Jesus Christ.
8. Celibacy of the Clergy.—From the same source came the celibacy of the clergy. It was considered that those who lived in wedlock were more subject to the assaults of evil spirits than those who lived in celibacy; hence those who were appointed to teach and govern others were supposed to be all the better qualified for their work if they had nothing to do with conjugal life. It was a matter, however, which during the first centuries was not strictly enjoined by any formal regulations of the church; it was left for Pope Gregory VII in the eleventh century to bind such a wicked regulation upon the clergy by express law. In the third century the most shameful abuses arose out of this doctrine; for men sought to fulfill its requirements with the least violence to their inclinations, and many of those who had taken upon themselves vows of chastity, took to their houses and even to their beds some one of those holy females under like vows of chastity, yet maintained that there was no improper relations between them. It is but just to say that many bishops condemned this shameful practice but it was some time before the church was rid of it, and the scandal it created, and even when such practices did cease openly it may well be doubted if it really ceased among those forced into such unnatural conditions.
9. Deceiving and Lying Accounted Virtues.—Another evil which went far toward corrupting the church was the idea that to deceive and lie are virtues when religion can be promoted by them. This pernicious doctrine was accepted early in the first centuries and it accounts for the existence and circulation of that great mass of childish fable and falsehood respecting the infancy and youth of Messiah and the miraculous, wonder-working power of the relics of the saints and martyrs, from which the cause of the Christian religion has suffered so much. "If some inquisitive person were to examine the conduct and the writings of the greatest and most pious teachers of this century" [the fourth], writes Dr. Mosheim, "I fear he would find about all of them infected with this leprosy. I cannot except Ambrose, nor Hilary, nor Augustine, nor Gregory Nazianzen nor Jerome."[103]
10. Immoral Condition of the Church in General.—The wickedness of the clergy in the last centuries, the ambition of the bishops and their imitating in their lives the voluptuousness of princes, we have already noted in section four of part II, and therefore little need be said here further than to remark that those vices very rapidly increased. As time rolled on worldly prosperity seemed to relax the nerves of discipline. "Fraud, envy and malice prevailed in every congregation. The presbyters aspired to the episcopal office, which every day became an object more worthy their ambition. The bishops who contended with each other for ecclesiastical pre-eminence, appeared by their conduct to claim a secular and tyrannical power in the church; and the lively faith which still distinguished the Christians from the Gentiles was shown much less in their lives than in their controversial writings."[104]
11. Sometimes these struggles for place and power resulted in war and bloodshed. Such was the case in the fourth century when a new pope was to be elected to succeed Liberius [Li-be-ri-us]. One party in Rome was for one Damasus [Dam-a-sus], and another party for Ursicinus [Ur-si-ci-nus]. The contest resulted in a bloody conflict, houses were burned and many lost their lives. In one church alone one morning after the conflict there were found one hundred and thirty-seven corpses to bear witness to the violence of the struggle for what was claimed to be the office of viceregent of God on earth.
12. Moral Condition of the Church in the Fourth Century.—In the fourth century—"If we look at the lives and morals of the Christians—we shal find, as heretofore, that good men were commingled with bad, yet the number of the bad began gradually to increase, so that the truly pious and godly appeared more rare. when there was no more to fear from enemies from without; when the character of most bishops was tarnished with arrogance, luxury, effeminacy, animosity, resentments, and other defects; when the lower clergy neglected their proper duties, and were more attentive to controversies, than to the promotion of piety and the instruction of the people; when vast numbers were induced not by a rational conviction, but by the fear of punishment and the hope of worldly advantage to enroll themselves as Christians, how can it surprise us, that on all sides the vicious appeared a host, and the pious a little band almost overpowered by them. Against the flagitious and those guilty of heinous offenses, the same rules for penance were prescribed, as before the reign of Constantine. But as the times continually waxed worse and worse, the more honorable and powerful could sin with impunity, and only the poor and the unfortunate felt the severity of the laws."[105]
13. Moral Condition of the Church in the Fifth Century.—About the middle of the fifth century we have Salvian [Sal-vi-an] saying:
The very church which should be the body to appease the anger of God, alas! what reigns there but disorders calculated to incense the Most High? It is more common to meet with Christians who are guilty of the greatest abominations than with those who are wholly exempt from crime. So that today it is a sort of sanctity among us to be less vicious than the generality of Christians. We insult the majesty of the Most High at the foot of his altars. Men, the most steeped in crime enter the holy places without respect for them. True all men ought to pay their vows to God, but why should they seek his temples to propitiate him, only to go forth to provoke him? Why enter the church to deplore their former sins, and upon going forth—what do I say?—in those very courts the commit fresh sins, their mouths and their hearts contradict one another. Their prayers are criminal meditations rather than vows of expiation. Scarcely is the service ended before each returns to his old practices. Some go to their wine, others to their impurities, still others to robbing and brigandage, so that we cannot doubt that these things had been occupying them while they were in the church. Nor is it the lowest of the people who are thus guilty. There is no rank whatever in the church which does not commit all sorts of crimes.
14. It may be urged that we are at heart better than the barbarians who oppose us. Suppose this to be granted; we ought to be better than they. But as a matter of fact, they are more virtuous than we. The mass of Christians are below the barbarians in probity. True, all kinds of sins are found among them but what one is not found among us? The several nations have their peculiar sin; the Saxons are cruel; the Franks perfidious; the Gepidae inhuman; the Huns lewd. But we, having the law of God to restrain us, are given over to all these offenses. Then to confine ourselves to the single sin of swearing, can many be found among the faithful who have not the name of Jesus Christ constantly upon their lips in support of their perjuries? This practice coming down from the higher to the lower classes, has so prevailed that Christians might be deemed pagans. This, although the law of God expressly forbids to take his name in vain. We read this law but we do not practice it; as a consequence the pagans taunt us that we boast ourselves the sole possessors of God's law, and of the rules of truth and of what that law enjoins. Christians, indeed, to the shame of Jesus Christ! say they.[106]
15. In book VI on The Providence of God, Salvian continues his arraignment:
We rush from the churches to the theatres, even in the midst of our perils. In Carthage the theatres were thronged while the enemy were before the walls, and the cries of those perishing outside under the sword mingled with the shouts of the spectators in the circus. Nor are we better here in Gaul (France). Treves [Trevz] has been taken four times, and has only increased in wickedness under her misfortunes. The same state of things exists in Cologne [Ko-lon]—deplorable wickedness among young and old, low and high. The smaller cities have been blind and insensible to the dangers threatening, until they have overwhelmed them. It seems to be the destiny of the Roman empire to perish rather than reform; they must cease to be, in order to cease to be vicious. A part of the inhabitants of Treves, having escaped from the ruins, petitions the emperor for—what? A theatre, spectacles, public shows! A city which thrice overthrown could not correct itself, well deserved to suffer a fourth destruction. * * * Would that my voice might be heard by all Romans! I would cry: Let us all blush that today the only cities where impurity does not reign are those which have submitted to the barbarians. Think not, then, that they conquer and we yield by the simple force of nature. Rather let us admit that we succumb through the dissoluteness of our morals of which our calamities are the just punishment.[107]