Not only was the simplicity which characterized the teachings of Christ and of the apostles, in a great measure lost, in absurd and puerile expositions of Scripture, and corrupted by the substitution of vain speculations, derived especially from the Platonic philosophy, but the style of the pulpit was in other respects vitiated and corrupt. Philosophical terms and rhetorical flourishes, forms of expression extravagant and far-fetched, biblical expressions unintelligible to the people, unmeaning comparisons, absurd antitheses, spiritless interrogations, senseless exclamations and bombast, disfigure the sermons of the period now under consideration.

Causes which contributed to form the style above described.

1. The prevalence of pagan philosophy.

The preacher was compelled to acquaint himself with the philosophical speculations of the day, to expose their subtleties, and he unconsciously fell into a similar mode of philosophizing.

2. The conversion of many philosophers to Christianity, especially at the beginning of this period, had an influence in corrupting the simplicity of the Christian system, both in doctrine and in discourse.

They sought to incorporate their philosophical principles with the doctrines of Christianity, and to introduce their rhetoric and sophistries into the discourses of the clergy. Every discussion gave occasion for the introduction of various forms of expression unknown in Scripture. But to give greater authority to such discussions, certain phrases were selected from the Scriptures, to which a meaning was attached similar to the philosophical terms in use; and out of this strange combination, a new dialect was formed for the pulpit. In this way the few and simple doctrines of Christianity received from an impure philosophy many additions from time to time; and by continual controversy were darkened the more, and

gradually almost excluded from the instructions of the pulpit.

3. The evil in question was aggravated by the want of suitable preparation for the ministry.

Some betook themselves to the schools of the Platonic philosophy, and became practised in the arts of the orators and sophists of the day. Others sought, in deserts and in cloisters, to prepare themselves for the sacred office. Here they brooded over what they had previously read and heard. Here, removed from intercourse with men, they only learned to be visionary, perverse, self-willed and immoral. The consequence was, that their instructions abounded with distorted, false views of virtue and doctrine, and of the means of moral improvement.

4. Ignorance of the original languages of the Scriptures, and of just principles of interpretation, contributed to the same result.

Philo, Plato, and others, were read, instead of the evangelists, and Paul, and the other apostles. The Hebrew was little cultivated, and the true principles of interpretation were unknown.

5. A blind self-conceit had much influence in setting aside the great truths and duties of religion.

Forgetful of the religious edification of his people, the preacher was occupied with speculations upon trifling and unmeaning things. These accordingly were the topics of his public discourses, whenever he was not employed in the endeavor to expose some heretical dogma.

6. The religious controversy of the day gave an unprofitable direction to the instructions of the pulpit.

The preacher had constantly the attitude of a polemic, watching with a vigilant eye any defection from the truth, and hastening to oppose the outbreak of some destructive heresy.

7. The increasing influence of the bishop.

This was itself a new source of polemical discussion. The bishops at the head of their churches, and, in the larger cities, already having great authority over the presbyters and deacons, would not receive from these the least contradiction. If any reflection was cast upon the dignity of the bishop, whether justly or unjustly, that was enough. Not content merely to be honored, the bishops would be implicitly obeyed. To this demand some one perhaps ventured to dissent. If he had the courage or inconsideration to advance an opposite opinion concerning a doctrine of Scripture, or a sentiment avowed in a public address, he was, if possible, ejected from office by the bishop; and for what he had said or written was condemned as a heretic.

8. The increasing formalities of public worship had no small influence in diverting the mind from the true object of public religious instruction.

These forms, of which Christianity in its original simplicity had so few, were generally multiplied; great attention was paid to the adorning of the churches; festivals becarne numerous; the effect of all which was to turn off the mind from the essential truths and duties of religion, and fasten attention upon other things, which have not the least influence in promoting the spiritual improvement of man. The preacher sought to adapt his addresses to these forms and festivals,6

"Of this depraved state of the public mind, we have a striking example from Socrates. In relating the endless discords of the churches in regard to their rites and festivals, he refers to the decision of the apostolical council, Acts 15: 23-30, to show that the apostles gave no instructions touching these forms, but insisted only on moral duties, and proceeds to say, 'some, however, regardless of these practical injunctions, treat with indifference, every species of licentiousness, but contend as if for their lives for the days when a festival should be held.'' -Eccl. Hist. Lib. 5. c. 22. The same degeneracy characterized the church before the Reformation. 66 In proportion as a higher value was attached to outward rites, the sanctification of the heart, had become less and less an object of concern; dead ordinances had everywhere usurped the place of a Christian life; and, by a revolting yet natural alliance, the most scandalous debauchery had been combined

and often fell into extravagances and fanaticism. Monks, ascetics and recluses were extolled as saints, and commended as examples of piety.

Finally, the effeminacy, the tendency to gloom and melancholy, and the love of the marvellous which have ever characterized the Eastern nations, became to some extent infused into the religious discourses of their preachers.

III. Homilies in the Latin church.

The writers of this same period, from A. D. 250 to 400, to whom reference is had in the following remarks, are Cyprian, Zeno and Ambrose. The characteristic distinctions between these and the Greek fathers whose public discourses have been considered, are given by our author in the following summary.

1. The Latins were inferior to the Greeks, in their exegesis of the Scriptures. They accumulated a multitude of passages, without just discrimination or due regard to their application to the people.

2. They interested themselves less with speculative and polemic theology than the Greeks.

3. They insisted upon moral duties more than the Greeks, but were equally unfortunate in their mode of treating these topics, by reason of the undue importance which they attached to the forms and ceremonies of religion; hence their reverence for saints and relics, their vigils, fasts, penances and austerities of every kind.

4. In method and style the homilies of the Latin fathers are greatly inferior to those of the Greeks.

with the most superstitious devotion. Instances are on record of theft committed at the altar, seduction practised in the confessional, poison mingled with the Eucharist, adultery perpetrated at the foot of the cross."-D'Aubigné's Ref. Vol. III p. 348. This is one of the evils of Prelacy. It encourages a debasing superstition which, by corrupting the doctrines of religion, vitiates the morals of the people.

Causes productive of these characteristics.

1. The lack of suitable means of education.

They neither had schools of theology, like the Greeks, nor were they as familiar with the literature and oratory of their own people. Ambrose was promoted to the office of bishop, with scarcely any preparation for its duties.

2. Ignorance of the original languages of the Bible.

Of the Hebrew they knew nothing; of the original of the New Testament they knew little; and still less of all that is essential to its right interpretation. When they resorted to the Scriptures, it was too frequently to oppose heresy by an indiscriminate accumulation of texts. When they attempted to explain, it was by perpetual allegories.

3. The want of suitable examples, and a just standard of public speaking.

Basil, Ephraem the Syrian, and the two Gregories, were contemporaries, and were mutual helps and incentives to one another. Others looked to them as patterns for public preaching. But such advantages were unknown in the Latin church. The earlier classic authors of Greece and Rome were discarded, from bigotry; or, through ignorance, so much neglected, that their influence was little felt.

4. The unsettled state of the Western churches should be mentioned in this connection.

Persecuted and in exile at one time, at another engaged in fierce and bloody contests among themselves,7 the preachers of the day had little opportunity to prepare for their appropriate duties. Literature was neglected. Under Constantine, Rome herself ceased to be the seat of the fine arts, and barbarism began its disastrous encroachments upon the provinces of the Western church.

5. The increasing importance of the bishop's office.

The pride of the bishops, and their neglect of their duty

7 The contests for the election of bishops often ran so high as to end in bloodshed and murder, of which an example is given in Walch's History of the Popes, p. 87. Ammianus Marcellinus, Lib. 27. c. 3.