Corrupted Christianity Made a Persecuting Religion.

The edict of Milan, by which was intended no more than the establishment of religious liberty in the empire, and which was issued in 313 A. D., by Constantine and his colleague, Licinius, was well enough.  Freedom to teach and practice the truth is all the Christian church could ask or expect.  Had he stopped here, his action in this particular would have met with universal applause.  But he went beyond this.  He not only protected the Christians by his laws, but prohibited by express edicts the  free exercise of religion to the pagans.  His proscriptions were mild at first, going no further than to prohibit soothsaying and divination in

private houses or anywhere in secret.  Later, however, if we may believe the words of Eusebius, he placed the pagan religion under the ban of the laws.  Eusebius says:

The emperor proceeded to act with great vigor, gave the government of the provinces chiefly to Christians, and when any Gentiles were made governors they were prohibited to sacrifice.  Which law comprehended not only presidents of provinces but also higher officers and even the praeiorian praefects.  If they were Christians, they were required to act according to their principles.  If they were otherwise disposed, still the practice of idolatrous rites were forbidden. * * * *  And soon after that were two laws published at one and the same time, one prohibiting the detestable rites of idolatry hitherto practiced in cities and country places:  and that for the future none should erect statues to the gods, nor perform the vain arts of divination, nor offer up any sacrifices.  The other law was for enlarging Christian oratories and churches, or for rebuilding them more grand and splendid.

When contrasting the course of the first Christian emperor with the pagan emperors, Eusebius says, "They commanded the temples to be magnificently adorned:  he demolished them to the foundation, especially such as were most respected by superstitious people."  Later he expressly  says that throughout the whole Roman empire, the doors of idolatry were shut to the commonalty and to the soldiery, and that "every kind of sacrifice was prohibited."  Again, he says that there were several laws, published for these purposes, forbidding sacrifices, divinations, raising statues, and the secret mysteries or rites of initiation.  And he says further that "in Egypt a sort of priesthood, consecrated to the honor of the Nile, was entirely suppressed."  I am not unmindful that some respectable authorities question if Constantine really departed from the policy of toleration announced in his edict of Milan:  and that even Gibbon is inclined to believe in his toleration of paganism.  The statement here made by Eusebius, the contemporary and biographer of Constantine, however, together with reference to the edicts of suppression quoted by his son Constans in the succeeding reign, and which is quoted by Lardner, establishes beyond question the policy of intolerance of Constantine toward paganism, especially when what Eusebius has said is supplemented by the fact that the emperor destroyed a number of heathen temples, and peremptorily ordered the closing of the others.  Among the heathen temples destroyed was one at Aegae, in Cilieia, erected to Aesculapius, celebrated for the number of sick that had been healed there, and held in high esteem by men of the better class among the pagans and philosophers.  It is said that by its destruction and the public exhibition of certain images of the gods, many tricks of the priests were exposed and, became objects of sport to the populace.  But while this may have been the conduct of some insincere pagans, those who remained  heathens, as LeClerc has well said, "were no doubt extremely shocked at the manner in which the statues of their gods were treated; and could not consider the Christians as men of moderation.  For, in short, those statues were as dear to them, as anything, the most sacred, could be to the Christians."  Eusebius taunted the philosophers about the destruction of the temple, without any interference on the part of the god to whom it had been erected, apparently all unmindful of the fact that just such taunts had been hurled at the Christian martyrs in the days that the "kingdom of God suffered violence, and the violent took it by force."  "Had not Eusebius," remarked Lardner, "often heard with his own ears, and read in the history of ancient martyrs, the insults and triumphs of the heathens over the Christians, that they professed themselves the worshipers of the great and only true God, and yet everybody, that pleased, was able to molest and destroy them, as he saw good?"

The zeal of Christian writers has done all in its power to excuse or palliate the conduct of Constantine in his acts for the suppression of the pagan religion and worship; but after all is said by his apologists that can be said; after every allowance is conceded for the times in which he lived, and the previous conduct of the pagans through two centuries of violence towards the Christians, the fact remains that the first Christian emperor did by his edicts put the ancient religion of the empire under the ban of the law, and by acts of violence destroyed some of its temples and closed the rest by imperial decree, that the pagan gods might not be worshiped; and this, doubtless, with the approval--and it would not be difficult to believe, under all the circumstances, at the suggestion of Christian bishops who thronged his court.  On the foundation of intolerance thus laid by him, others hastened to build.  In the succeeding reign, among the first laws enacted was this one against pagan sacrifices:

Let superstition cease; let the madness of sacrificing he abolished.  For whoever shall presume contrary to the constitution of our father, a prince of blessed memory, and contrary to this command of our clemency, to

offer sacrifices, let a proper and convenient punishment be inflicted, and execution presently done upon him. This edict was supplemented a few years later by the following edict:

It is our pleasure that in all places and in all cities, the temples be immediately shut, and carefully guarded that none may have the power of offending.  It is likewise our pleasure, that all our subjects should abstain from sacrifices.  If any one should be guilty of such an act, let him feel the sword of vengeance; and after his execution, let his property be confiscated to the public use.  We denounce the same penalties against the governors of the provinces, if they neglect to punish the criminals.

It is not necessary to pursue the subject much further.  It will be sufficient to say that during the fourth century, by following the policy of suppression inaugurated by this first Christian emperor, Christianity was changed from a persecuted to a persecuting religion.  Without restraint from the ecclesiastical authorities, the Christian emperors issued edicts against the pagan religion, proscribed its followers, destroyed its temples, and confiscated its property to the uses of the rival religion.  Even Neander, speaking of this revolution, and constrained as he is to say all that he can for the honor of the Christian Church, is compelled to admit that "the relation of things had become reversed.  As in former times the observance of the pagan ceremonies, the religion of the state, had appeared in the light of a civil duty, and the profession of Christianity in that of a crime against the state; so now it was the case, not indeed that the outward profession of Christianity was commanded as a universal civil duty, for against this the spirit of Christianity too earnestly remonstrated; but that the exercise of the pagan religion was made politically dangerous."  In the pages of this eminent Christian historian one may read that before the close of the century which witnessed the elevation of Christianity to the dignity of the state religion of the empire, wild troops of Christian monks were undertaking campaigns, especially in the country, for the destruction of the heathen temples in which sacrifices were alleged to have been performed:  of bishops who not only superintended the destruction of heathen temples at the head of bands of soldiers and gladiators, but paraded through the streets of the cities the symbols of the heathen faith, provoking civil conflicts which Christian emperors did not hesitate to take advantage of for the more complete suppression of paganism.  Meantime a pagan apologist, Libanius, arises to plead the cause of religious toleration, and in the course of his address to the Christian emperor, Theodosius, he puts to shame the Christianity then in vogue, by showing the emperor how far the Church had departed from the spirit of the Christian religion, by saying:  "Force is said not to be permitted, even according to the laws of your own religion:  persuasion is said to be praised, but force condemned by them.  Why then, do you wreak your fury against the temples, when this surely is not to persuade, but to use force?  Thus, then, it is plain you would transgress even the laws of your own religion."  Lardner calls attention to the fact that as under pagan emperors previous to Constantine Christianity had been in a state of persecution, so now, after Constantine, he proceeds to show that paganism under Christian emperors was all along in a state of persecution--"However, I would hope, not so severe and vigorous as that of the Christians in the foregoing period of near three hundred years."  And so LeClerc, as quoted by Lardner:

Thus it was that the Christians continued to return to the pagans what they had suffered from them during the first three centuries instead of gaining them by patience and mildness, which they had so much recommended when they were the weakest.  This conduct was proper to make the pagans more obstinate, by teaching  them that the Christians affected to speak of humanity and moderation from interest only, and not from a principle of religion as they pretended.  At least it is certain, that thereby they lost the right to complain of the manner in which the pagans had treated them in times past, or to boast of the mildness of their religion, which they effectually disparaged by those persecutions, *  *  *  Nor ought we to imagine that the penalties laid by Christians upon the pagans were light.  If a sacrifice was offered in a private place, with the knowledge of the proprietor, the place was confiscated;  if not, they were to pay a fine of twenty pounds of gold, as much as if it had been done in a temple; and in some cases the penalty of death was appointed.  We may look into the oration of Libanius for the temples, where that orator sustains the same character before Theodosius as the Christians had formerly done before pagan emperors, I must acknowledge that this phenomenon, if I may so call it, gives me pain:  for I could wish that they who defended the truth had preserved to themselves the honor of being the only persons that were persecuted for religion. 

Persecution of "Heretics."

Once started upon the policy of suppressing by force those of a different religion, Christianity did not stop with the persecution of the pagans;  bad and un-Christian as that was, still more serious results occurred from the persecutions inflicted upon so called heretics in the Church, by those who were considered orthodox.  It is true that there were heretics in the Church before the days of Constantine:  much progress  had been made in the matter of paganizing Christianity, and more or less of intolerance was manifested by Christian sects towards one another; but it was the policy and example of this first Christian emperor that laid the real foundation for that monument of shame and disgrace to the Christian name which rises upon the plains of Christian discord and strife and war waged against heretics in the name and for the glory of Christ.  It is this which constitutes the most melancholy page of ecclesiastical history.

In his office of supreme pontiff in the old pagan religion, which he held by virtue of being emperor of Rome, Constantine may naturally have supposed that the supreme headship of the religion he had protected and

the Church he had elevated fell to him for the same reason; and with it the right to reconcile differences, compose factions, and determine what should be the orthodox faith.  At any rate we find him acting somewhat in this capacity.  When contending church parties appealed to him, he at first was indifferent to  their disputes, and tried to shame them into harmony by referring to the conduct of the Greek philosophers, who never discussed difficult questions before ignorant multitudes; who could maintain their arguments without losing their temper; and assert their freedom without violating any friendship."  His efforts at reconciling the differences that arose among Christians over what is known as the Arian controversy were of no avail; and after six years of bitter strife, the emperor summoned the bishops of the Church to Nicea in Bithynia. After long deliberation Arianism was condemned, and orthodox Christianity was established by decree of the council, ratified by the emperor, to which all Christians must conform.  Those who resisted the divine judgment of the synod must prepare themselves for immediate exile.  How effectual the argument, "belief or banishment," even among the bishops at the council, was, may be determined from the fact that "the opposition to the decision of the council was almost instantly reduced from seventeen to two."  In his zeal to enforce orthodoxy the emperor forgot his former moderation, and in 326 A.D.--the year following the council of Nicea—he issued a general edict against heretics, in which after condemning his own past forbearance as occasioning men's being seduced, he says to the various heretical parties:

Wherefore, since this your pernicious wickedness is no longer to be endured, we by this present law command you, that you no more presume to meet together.  And we have given orders that all those places where you are wont to hold assemblies should be taken away.  Yea, our concern for this matter is such, that we not only forbid you to assemble to any public place but we likewise forbid all assemblies of your foolish superstition in private houses, and in all private places whatever.  All of you, therefore, who have any sincere love of truth, come to the Catholic church.  And that this remedy may have its full effect, we ordain that all your superstitious conventicles, I mean oratories of all heretics, if it be fit to call such houses oratories, be forthwith taken away, and without any opposition delivered to the Catholic church:  and that the rest of your places be adjudged to the public.

"Thus the dens of heretics were laid open by the imperial edict," exultantly exclaims Eusebius, the Christian bishop, "and the wild beasts, the ring leaders of their impiety, were scattered."  And thus was the paganized Christian church launched upon that career of persecution of heretics within the church, as well as upon the policy of persecuting those of a different religion:  a policy that has filled the world with religious wars, and deeds of cruelty which would better become the reign of a Nero than Christian rulers of Christian nations.  It is a terrible arraignment which Gibbon draws against apostate Christendom in the concluding paragraph of his review of the persecutions which had been endured by the followers of Christ in the Christian centuries preceding Constantine, He says:

We shall conclude this chapter by a melancholy truth, which obtrudes itself on the reluctant mind; that, even admitting, without hesitation or inquiry, all that history has recorded, or devotion has feigned, on the subject of martyrdoms, it must still be acknowledged that the Christians, in the course of their intestine dissensions have inflicted far greater severities on each other than they have experienced from the zeal of infidels.  During the ages of ignorance which followed the subversion of the Roman empire in the west, the bishops of the imperial city extended their dominion over the laity as well as clergy of the Latin church.  The fabric of superstition which they had erected, and which might long have defied the feeble efforts of reason, was at length assaulted by a crowd of daring fanatics, who, from the twelfth to the sixteenth century, assumed the popular character of reformers.  The church of Rome defended by violence the empire which she had acquired by fraud; a system of peace and benevolence was soon disgraced by proscriptions, wars, massacres, and the institution of the holy office; and as the reformers were animated by the love of civil as well as religious freedom, the Catholic princes connected their own interest with that of the clergy, and enforced by fire and sword the error of spiritual censures.  In the Netherlands alone more than one hundred thousand of the subjects of Charles the Fifth are said to have suffered by the hand of the executioner; and this extraordinary number is attested by Grotius, a man of genius and learning who preserved his moderation amidst the fury of contending sects, and who composed the annals of his own age and century, at the time when the invention of printing had facilitated the means of intelligence and increased the danger of detection.  If we are obliged to submit our belief to the authority of Grotius, it must be allowed that the number of protestants who were executed in a single province and a single reign far exceeded that of the primitive martyrs in the space of three  centuries, and of the Roman empire!

Both Guizot and Milman, eminent Christian scholars, annotated the work of Edward Gibbon, the former in French, the latter in an English edition; and at every point where they could modify a statement or soften a passage apparently unjust to Christianity, they did so; but in the presence of the important and terrible passages just quoted, they remained absolutely silent!  Nor has any other Christian writer since their day, so

far as I know, attempted to contradict the statement of Mr. Gibbon.  It is proper to say, however, that in a note Mr. Gibbon himself cites the fact that Fra Paola an Italian writer, places the number of Belgic martyrs at fifty thousand, but even that computation would still leave the conclusion of Mr. Gibbon's reflections unimpaired.

The circumstance of the Church, elevated by Constantine becoming a persecuting Church is a strong evidence of its paganized state; for the true Christian religion is not a persecuting religion; the true Church of Christ is not a persecuting Church.  When the Samaritans would not receive the Messiah, some of the Apostles would have them consumed by fire from heaven; but the Master turned and rebuked them, saying, "Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of, For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them."  It is true that Messiah said:  "think not that I am come to send peace on earth:  I came not to send peace, but a sword.  For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.  And a man's foes shall be they of his own household."  This, however, is but a prediction of the effect of the proclamation of the Gospel, not an authorization to force the acceptance of Christianity by the sword; nor does it authorize the Church to invoke the arm of the civil authority to execute by force her doctrinal decrees.  The Gospel of Jesus Christ, it is true, did not bring peace, but a sword:  the sword, however, was found in the hands of those who rejected the Gospel, not in the hands of those who accepted and preached it.  And when the Church departed so far from the spirit of Christ that she grasped the sword in her own hands, or dictated the civil authority to wield it in her behalf, and that became the policy of the Church, the adoption of that policy proclaimed her apostate condition to the world, in a manner to be known and read of all men. 

Christianity Before and After Constantine.

I think sufficient has been said to justify the belief that the reign of Constantine marks the period when the paganization of Christianity had become complete.  I do not mean by this that there is any particular date which one may set down to show that here true Christianity ceases, and there apostate Christianity begins; which is a point frequently insisted upon by those who contend for the unbroken perpetuity of Christianity from the days of Messiah.  They demand to know on what night it was that the whole collection of Christians, of different nationalities and languages, went to bed sound in the Christian faith, to awake the next morning all pagans.  I claim no such sudden revolution brought about the apostasy which I am sure took place.  We have seen by what has already been said, that even in the time of the Apostles there was a tendency on the part of the Christians to depart from the religion of Jesus Christ; that after the days of the Apostles there was a steady increase in the number and influence of false teachers; an insidious introduction of heresies;  a multiplication of rites and ceremonies well known in the pagan celebration of religious mysteries, but entirely foreign to the Gospel; and an amalgamation of pagan doctrines with Christian principles.  It remains to be shown that there was a steady increase of immorality among the professing Christians; a marked loss of spirituality; a rapid growth of pride and worldliness on the part of Christian bishops and other church leaders; and at last, an utter departure from the true and living God and Jesus Christ whom He had sent, and the establishment of a system in its place, as debasing to men as it was dishonorable to God.

Taking then the reign of Constantine as the period beyond which the true religion of Christ did not extend, nor the true Church of Christ exist, let us consider Christianity before his reign and after it.  Here I shall ask the reader to take into account as part of the consideration of Christianity previous to Constantine what I have already set before him in this introduction concerning the tendency to division and heresies which existed in the Church in the days of the Apostles; and also those quotations I have made from eminent Christian authorities, which give evidence of the early corruption of Christianity, and which too plainly testify that it was in a state of steady decline through the second and third centuries, until it was fit only for such enthronement as a Constantine could give it, when he made it the state religion of a corrupt empire hastening to its decay.  If the reader will do this, it will obviate the necessity of my referring to these matters again. 

Decline in Moral and Spiritual Living Among Christians.

It will be conceded that the Gospel of Jesus Christ commands a very high order of moral and spiritual living, and that the Apostles enjoined this moral law upon the early saints as essential to the favor of God.  Others also after the days of the Apostles, followed in the same admonition, and indeed the sharp contrast that existed between the lives of converts before and after their acceptance of Christianity was a matter of pride not only to St. Paul, but to Justin Martyr of the second century who, in reference to the change produced in the lives of Christian converts, said:

We, who were once slaves of lust, now have delight only in purity of morals;  we, who once practiced arts of magic, have consecrated ourselves to the Eternal and Good God; we, who once prized gain above all things, give even what we have to the common use and share it with such as are in need; we, who once hated and murdered one another, who on account of differences of customs would have no common hearth with strangers, do now, since the appearance of Christ, live together with them; we pray for our enemies, we seek to convince those that hate us without cause, so that they may order their lives according to Christ's glorious doctrine and attain to the joyful hope of receiving like blessings with us from God, the Lord of all.

It was not long, however, before there was a marked departure from this high moral level among the Christians.  In tracing that decline I shall use chiefly the History of the Church by Joseph Milner, published in 1794.  My reason for doing so is as follows:  I have already stated in this writing, that Milner wrote what some regard as his "great history of the Church," to counteract the influence of Dr. Mosheim's splendid Institutes of Ecclesiastical History, which is evidently by some regarded as too much a history of the perversions and abuses of religion, Milner plainly informs his readers that he intends to write the history of those only who have been real, not nominal, Christians, irrespective of the external Church to which they belonged, proceeding upon the theory that these good men constitute the Church of Christ.  His history, in other words, is a history of piety, not of the Church.  It will be his purpose therefore to exalt the morality of the Christians in all ages; and I quote his work respecting the moral deteriorations of the Christians that I may not be charged with quoting authorities who some think have made too much of Christian shortcomings.  Milner says that a gloomy cloud, concerning moral conditions, hung over the close of the first century, and proceeds to argue that the first impressions made by the effusions of the spirit are the strongest; that human depravity overborne for a time arose afresh, particularly in the next generation, and hence the disorders of schisms and heresies in the Church.  Neander does not agree with the philosophy of

Milner.  He says, "Christianity, since it first entered human nature, has operated, wherever it has struck root, with the same divine power for sanctification; and this divine power cannot be weakened by the lapse of ages.  In this respect, therefore, the period of the first appearance of Christianity could have no advantage over any of the following ages of the Christian Church."  And he follows this declaration with a statement, that the change which Christianity produced in the lives of those who accepted it appeared so strongly marked by the contrast it presented with what they had previously been when pagans.  The correctness of the philosophy I shall leave these two great Christian authorities to settle between themselves.  I am concerned more particularly with the facts in the case.

In consequence of the prominence that has been given to the persecutions of the Christians during the first three centuries, the impression very extensively prevails that the early Christian Church was constantly under the hard pressure of continuous and relentless persecutions.  This, however, is not the case.  There were many periods of peace granted to the Christians.  Indeed their periods of persecution were only occasional, and it is a question if these periods of peace were not more detrimental to Christianity than the seasons of persecution.  Milner, under the authority of Origen, says that the long peace granted the Church  in the third century, during the reign of the several emperors, from about 260 A. D., to the opening of the fourth century, produced a great degree of luke-warmness and religious indecorum.  "Let the reader," he says, "only notice the indifference which Origen here describes and the conduct of Christians both in the first and second centuries, and he will be affected with the greatness of the declension."  Then he quotes Origen: "Several come to church only on solemn festivals, and then not so much for instruction as diversion.  Some go out again as soon as they have heard the lecture, without conferring or asking the pastors questions.  Others stay not till the lecture is ended, and others hear not so much as a single word, but entertain themselves in a corner of the church."

Coming to the middle of the third century, just previous to that severe persecution inaugurated by the emperor Decius, and speaking of Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, Milner exclaims:  "A star of the first magnitude, when we consider the time in which he lived!  Let us recreate  ourselves with the contemplation of it.  We are fatigued with hunting for Christian goodness, and we have discovered but little and that little with much difficulty.  We shall find Cyprian to be a character who partook indeed of the declensions which we have noticed and lamented, but who was still far superior, I apprehend, in real simplicity and piety, to the

Christians of the East."  This same Cyprian, in whom Milner delights, speaking of the effects of the long peace upon the Church which preceded the Decian persecution, says:

Each had been bent on improving his own patrimony, and had forgotten what believers had done under the Apostles, and what they ought always to do.  They were brooding over the arts of amassing wealth; the pastors and the deacons each forgot his duty;  works of mercy were neglected, and discipline was at the lowest ebb; luxury and effeminacy prevailed; meretricious arts in dress were cultivated; fraud and deception practiced among brethren.  Christians would unite themselves in matrimony with unbelievers; could swear, not only without reverence but without veracity.  With haughty asperity they despised their ecclesiastical superiors; they railed against one another with outrageous acrimonyy, and conducted quarrels with determined malice.  Even many bishops, who ought to be guides and patterns to the rest, neglected the peculiar duties of their stations, gave themselves up to secular pursuits.  They deserted their places of residence and their flocks; they traveled through distant provinces in quest of pleasure and gain; gave no assistance to their needy brethren but were insatiable in their thirst of money. They possessed estates by fraud and multiplied usury.  What have we not deserved to suffer for such conduct?  Even the divine word hath foretold us what we might expect:  "If his children forsake my law and walk not in my judgments, I will visit their offenses with the rod and their sins with scourges."  These things had been denounced and foretold but in vain.  Our sins had brought our affairs to that pass, that because we had despised the Lord's directions, we were obliged to undergo a correction of our multiplied evils and a trial of our faith by severe remedies.

Referring to the long reign of peace in the closing decade of the third century, Milner says:

This new scene [the toleration of Christianity by a pagan government] did not prove favorable to the growth of grace and holiness.  In no period since the Apostles was there ever so great a general decay as in this.  Not even in particular instances can we discover during this interval much of lively Christianity.

Here I drop Milner to take up Eusebius, who was an eye witness of the moral declension among the Christians previous to the last great pagan persecution under the emperor Diocletian.  Referring to the long  period of peace which the Church had enjoyed--a period of forty years--he says:

But when, by reason of excessive liberty, we sunk into negligence and sloth, one envying and reviling another in different ways, and we were almost, as it were, upon the point of taking up arms against each other with words as with darts and spears, prelates inveighing against prelates, and people rising up against people, and hypocrisy and dissimulation had arisen to the greatest height of malignity, then the divine judgment, which usually proceeds with a lenient hand, whilst the multitudes were yet crowding into the Church, with gentle and mild visitations began to afflict the episcopacy; the persecution having begun with those brethren in the army.  But as if destitute of all sensibility, we were not prompt in measures to appease and propitiate the Deity; some indeed like atheists, regarding our situation as unheeded and unobserved by a Providence, we added one wickedness and misery to another.  But some that appeared to be our pastors deserting the law of piety, were inflamed against each other with mutual strifes, only accumulating quarrels and threats, rivalship, hostility and hatred to each other only anxious to assert the government as a kind of sovereignty for themselves.

Here I shall avail myself of some reflections upon this condition which I have elsewhere expressed.  Let it be remembered that what is said in the foregoing quotation is from a writer contemporary with the events, and who says, in the very chapter following the one from which I have just quoted, that it was not for him to record the dimensions and follies which the shepherds of the people exercised against each other before the persecution.  He also adds:  "We shall not make mention of those that were shaken by the persecution, nor of those that suffered shipwreck in their salvation, and of their own accord were sunk in the depths of the watery gulf."  Then in his Book of Martyrs, referring to events that occurred between the edicts ordering the persecution, he says:  "But the events that occurred in the intermediate times, besides those already related, I have thought proper to pass by:  I mean more particularly the circumstances of the different heads of the churches, who from being shepherds of the reasonable flocks of Christ, that did not govern in a lawful and  becoming manner, were condemned by divine justice, as unworthy of such a charge, to be the keepers of the unreasonable camel, an animal deformed in the structure of his body; and condemned further to be the keepers of the imperial horses. * * * *  Moreover, the ambitious aspirings of many to office, and the injudicious and unlawful ordinations that took place, the divisions among the confessors themselves, the  reat schisms and difficulties industriously fomented by the factions among the new members, against the relics of the Church, devising one innovation after another, and unmercifully thrusting them into the midst of all these calamities, heaping up affliction upon affliction; all this, I say, I have resolved to pass by, judging it foreign to my purpose, wishing, as I said in the beginning, to shun and avoid giving an account of them."  Hence, however bad the condition of the Church is represented to be by ecclesiastical writers, we must know that it was still worse than that; however numerous the schisms; however unholy the ambition of aspiring prelates; however frequent and serious the innovations upon the primitive ordinances of the Gospel; however great the confusion and apostasy in the Church is represented to be;  we must know that it is still worse than that, since the Church historians contemporaneous with the events refused to record these things in their fulness, lest it should have disastrous to the Church;  just as some of our modern scholars professing to write Church history express their determination to close their eyes to the corruption and abuses which form the greater part of the melancholy story of ecclesiastical history, for fear that relating these things would make it appear that real religion scarcely had any existence.

I shall say no more upon the matter of moral declensions among Christians, except this:  If there were such moral declensions among Christians as are represented by the foregoing high authorities on Christian affairs in the centuries preceding Constantine, what moral declension must have prevailed when from a proscribed religion Christianity was exalted to the dignity of the state religion of the empire;  and her prelates and clergy were recalled from exile and suffering, poverty and disgrace, and loaded with the wealth and honors that the lord of the Roman world could bestow?  Consider, in this connection, the propositions of Constantine at the council of Nicea for the propaganda of Christianity, and pass a candid judgment upon the moral or rather immoral effect they would produce upon the Church.  Neander thus states them:

"The heathen would be most easily led to salvation, if the condition of the Christians were made to appear to them in all respects enviable.

"They [the bishops] should consider that the advantage to be derived from preaching could not belong to all.

"Some, he said, might be drawn to the faith by being seasonably supplied with the means of subsistence.

"Others were accustomed to repair to that quarter where they found protection and intercession (alluding to the intercessions of the bishops).

 "Others would be won by an affable reception,

"Others by being honored with presents,

"There were but few who honestly loved the exhibitions of religious doctrine; but few were the friends of truth (therefore but few sincere converts),

"For this reason they should accommodate themselves to the characters of all, and like skillful physicians, give to each man that which might contribute to his cure, so that in every way the saving doctrine might be glorified in all."

The effect of adopting such methods for the more rapid propagation of Christianity, as is here proposed by the emperor to the bishops assembled at the council of Nicea, must be apparent to all, and is quite universally lamented by Christian writers of later ages. "A course of Proceeding upon such principles," remarks Neander himself, "must entirely have thrown open a wide door for all manner of hypocrisy.  Even Eusebius, the panegyrist of Constantine, blinded as he was by the splendor which the latter had cast over the outward Church--even he is obliged to reckon among the grievous evils of this period, of which he was an eye witness, the indescribable hypocrisy of those who gave themselves out as Christians merely for temporal advantage, and who, by their outward show of zeal for the faith, contrived to win the confidence of the emperor, which he suffered them to abuse."  "The piercing eye of ambition and avarice," says Gibbon, "soon discovered that the profession of Christianity might contribute to the interest of the present as well as of a future life.  The hopes of wealth and honors, the example of an emperor, his exhortations, his irresistible smiles, diffused conviction among the venal and obsequious crowds which usually fill the apartments of a palace.  The cities which signalized a forward zeal by the voluntary destruction of their temples, were distinguished by municipal privileges and rewarded with popular donatives. * * *  As the lower ranks of society are governed by imitation, the conversion of those who possessed an eminence of birth, of power, or of riches, was soon followed by dependent multitudes. The salvation of the common people was purchased at an easy rate, if it be true that in one year twelve thousand men were baptized at Rome, besides a proportionable number of women and children; and that a white garment, with twenty pieces of gold, had been promised by the emperor to every convert.

Under all these circumstances it is small wonder if men exclaimed as Augustine did somewhat later in his commentary on St. John--"How many seek Jesus only that He may benefit them in earthly matters!  One man has a law suit, so he seeks the intercession of the clergy; another is oppressed by his superior, so he takes refuge in the Church.  Others are seeking, one in this way and another in that, to be interceded for in some quarter where they have but little influence themselves.  The Church is daily full of such persons.  Seldom is Jesus sought for Jesus' sake!"  After nicely balancing the possibility and probability of those who came into the Church for present worldly advantage being converted in time to a true faith in the Christian religion, Neander says:  "Beyond all doubt the number was far greater of those who grew hardened in that worldly sense by which from the first they had profaned a holy profession, and who were thus the means of introducing into the Church a great mass of corruption."

"Unhappily," he adds, "there were bishops whose only wish was to make the conversion to Christianity a right easy thing for the pagans. * * *  Hence they baptized even those who lived in open sin, and who plainly enough manifested that it was not their purpose to forsake it.  They imagined that when these were only baptized and introduced into the fellowship of the Church, it was then time enough to admonish them against sin."  Surely it was not difficult among such a mass of unconverted members thus brought into the Church to find elements that would foster the errors, both in ethics and in doctrine, which about this time arose in the Church.  It is small wonder that it was well nigh publicly adopted in this age--as we are informed by Mosheim--"That to deceive and lie is a virtue when religion can be promoted by it, and that error in religion ought to be visited with penalties and punishments."  The first of these evils resulted in the accumulation of that mass of myth and fable that burdens the annals of the dark ages; the second established the "holy inquisition," alike the shame of the Roman Catholic church and the so-called Christian civilization she has influenced.  "It is almost incredible," continues Mosheim, speaking of the first evil referred to, "what a mass of the most insipid fables, and what a host of pious falsehoods have, through all the centuries, grown out of it, to the great detriment of true religion.  If some inquisitive person were to examine the conduct and the writings of the great and most pious teachers of this century, I fear he would find about all of them infected with this leprosy."  "Those idle fictions," he adds, "which a regard for the Platonic philosophy, and for the prevailing opinions of the day had induced most theologians to embrace, even before the time of Constantine, were now in various ways confirmed, extended and embellished.  Hence it is that we see, on every side, evident traces of excessive veneration for departed saints; of a purifying fire for the soul when separated from the body; of the celibacy of the clergy; of the worship of images and relics; and of many other opinions, which in process of time almost banished the true religion, or"--and here the Doctor perhaps remembered that he was a Protestant and that his position as such would not admit of conceding the utter subversion of the Christian religion, and hence added--"or at least very much obscured and corrupted it." "Genuine piety" he continues, "was supplanted by a long train of superstitious observances which originated partly from opinions inconsiderately embraced, partly from a preposterous disposition to adopt profane rites and combine them with Christian worship, and partly from the natural predilections of mankind in general for a splendid and ostentatious religion." 

The Loss of Spiritual Gifts.

Not only did the moral declensions in the Church, which started soon after the demise of the Apostles, proceed with accelerated pace after Constantine became the patron of the Church, and with such resulting evils as I have pointed out, but there was a like declension in the enjoyment of spiritual gifts in the Church.  It is well known that the Apostles promised the Holy Ghost to those who received the Gospel, and the enjoyment of those supernatural gifts which go with it.  Indeed Jesus Himself said in His last commission to His disciples:

Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature.  He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be damned.  And these signs shall follow them that believe in my name: they shall cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Paul, in speaking of the spiritual gifts promised in the Gospel says:

Now there are diversities of gifts but the same Spirit.  And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.  And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.  But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.  For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; to another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; to another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another diverse kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues; but all these worketh by that one and the self-same Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

It is well known that the spiritual gifts here enumerated were enjoyed by the saints in the early Christian centuries; and especially in Apostolic times.  The New Testament books are replete with reference to the enjoyment of these gifts of the Spirit among the saints.  Nor is there any intimation of the discontinuance of them.  On the contrary it is reasonable to conclude that so long as the saints shall continue in the enjoyment of the Holy Ghost, that long also will they enjoy the spiritual gifts which proceed from a possession of Him.  Moreover, "the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance:  against such there is no law.  And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts."  Such are the effects of the operations of the Holy Ghost upon the nature of man.  These fruits of the Spirit indicate the change that the Spirit of God may effect in human nature; by which that which is corrupted through sin may be conformed to that which is pure and holy, according to the working whereby the Spirit is able to subdue all things unto Himself, in them that give place for His indwelling in their souls.  This effectual working of the Spirit in the souls of men, by which they were transformed from vileness to holiness, was the boast of the early saints.  And, upon reflection, all will concede that the victories of the Spirit in reforming the lives of men and making them in their very nature conform to the likeness of Christ in righteousness, are more to be desired and more to be celebrated than those victories which are physical or intellectual merely in their nature.  Indeed these latter fruits of the Spirit derive their chief value from the extent to which they contribute to the production of the former--that is, to the extent that they establish men in the faith, enable them to crucify the flesh with the lusts thereof, and help them to live in harmony with the sweet influence of the Spirit of God.  When men live in harmony with that Spirit there will righteousness obtain; there will love abound; there will the Gospel of Christ appear triumphant.  Where these fruits do not appear, there the Gospel of Christ is not; there the powers of darkness, for the time being, are triumphant.  Yet notwithstanding this promise, concerning the enjoyment of the spiritual gifts of the Gospel, the evidence is abundant and conclusive that when all the Apostles were deceased, then there was a marked declension in the manifestation of the spiritual powers of the Gospel.  "With the close of the New Testament records," says Dr. Phillip Smith, author of The Students' Ecclesiastical History, "and the death of the last surviving Apostle, the history of the Church passes from its sacred to its purely human phase.  The miraculous gifts which attested the divine mission of the Apostles ceased; not indeed by any formal record of their withdrawal, but by the clear evidence that they were possessed no longer.

Dr. Jortin bears witness to the same fact.  He says:

The words of Eusebius intimate that he thought those extraordinary powers to be, at least, not very common afterwards--[i. e., the beginning of the second century].  "They went about," says he, "with God's co-operative grace, for even then the divine Spirit performed many miracles by them." * * *  This brings the probability of miracles down to the beginning of the second century, in the middle of which Justin Martyr says:  "There are prophetic gifts among us even until now:"  and amongst these gifts he reckons up miraculous powers, as healing the sick, casting out evil spirits, etc.  His words imply an opinion that such gifts were not only exercised in his time, but had been continued down to his time, and he may be justly supposed to speak the sense of his contemporary Christians; and that is all that I cite him for.  It seems probable that if we had a full and authentic history of the propagation of the Gospel, from the time of the Apostles to the middle of the second century, composed by eye witnesses and by the preachers of Christianity, we should find miracles wrought for the conversion of the pagans.  But from A. D. 70 to 150 is a dark interval, and we have very short accounts of the transactions of those days, unless we should accept of groundless rumors and frivolous tales.

So, also, Dr. Mosheim, speaking of the second century, and after commenting on the extent to which the extraordinary divine gifts contributed to the extension of the limits of the Church, says:  "The gift of foreign tongues appears to have gradually ceased, as soon as many nations became enlightened with the truth; * * * but the other gifts with which God favored the rising Church of Christ, were, as we learn from numerous testimonies of the ancients, still conferred upon particular persons here and there."  And when writing of the fourth and succeeding centuries, he, too, bears witness of the declension, and final cessation of these spiritual powers among the Christians; and, indeed, the most of our ecclesiastical writers form the same conclusion.

Thus the Christians lost the enjoyment of the spiritual gifts of the Gospel, such as inspired dreams, prophecies, healings, speaking in new tongues, ministering of angels, and, most to be lamented of all, direct revelation from God, by which the will of God might be made known to His people and his Church preserved from error, from decadence, and from destruction:  and by the absence of these spiritual gifts and powers among the Christians of the third and fourth centuries, we may know that a mere man-made religion, having indeed a form of godliness but denying the power thereof, had succeeded to the spiritually gifted religion, of Jesus Christ, wherein the power of God is ever present and outwardly as well as inwardly manifested. 

Departure of "Christendom" from the True Doctrine of Deity.

In nothing perhaps was there a wider departure from the real truth of Christianity than in the doctrine concerning God defined by the general council of the Church held within the lifetime of Constantine, and which, in fact, he assembled upon his own authority.  This was the celebrated Council of Nicea, in Bithynia, Asia Minor, held in 325 A. D.  The main purpose for which the first general Council of the Church was assembled was to settle a dispute between one Arius, a presbyter of Alexandria, and his bishop, Alexander, of the same city, respecting the doctrine of the Godhead.  The dispute proved to be far-reaching in its effects, and for three hundred years the rivalry of the contending factions disturbed the peace of Christendom.  We shall have clearer conceptions of the subject, however, and be better able to judge of the extent to which there was a departure from the true doctrine respecting the Godhead, by the definitions formulated and enforced upon the Church by the council of Nicea, if we first consider the doctrine of the Godhead as found in the Testament.

Part-2 I Part 3 | Part-4