Gibbons Decline & Fall & Christianity
- By Amo2
- Christian History
- 114 Replies
The following book, chapter, and quotes may be viewed in their entirety at the link below.
The Great Empires of Prophecy, from Babylon to the Fall of Rome
Emphasis in the quotes below is mine.
As is obvious from the above account, it was the worldly political aspirations of both emperor and contending parties of already politicized “Christianity”, which settled the trinitarian matter for the empire in defining Roman Catholicism as the imperial religion of the state. A position that church has ever since sought to maintain. Causing untold tensions, strife, chaos, persecution, and many a war throughout our world's history.
The emperor Constantine himself, thought the matter to trifling to cause such dissensions, but the contending parties knew all too well the exaltation or abasement of the winners or losers of the conflict. The power of the state or empire for the winner, and persecution for the loser. Results only made possible by the ungodly unification of religion or church and state. An Old Covenant style theocratic government, without God directly leading, but rather men who claimed to be leading for our Lord. Things which our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ Himself came to abolish, and replace with His New Covenant spiritual nation or church unto salvation for anyone and everyone who believes.
The Great Empires of Prophecy, from Babylon to the Fall of Rome
Emphasis in the quotes below is mine.
Excerpts from - THE GREAT EMPIRES OF PROPHECY by Alonzo Jones
CHAPTER 33.
ROME — ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH.
1 THE Donatist dispute had developed the decision, and established the fact, that it was “the Catholic Church of the Christians” in which was embodied the “Christianity” which was to be recognized as the imperial religion. Constantine had allied himself with the church only for political advantage. The only use he had for the church was in a political way. Its value for this purpose lay entirely in its unity. If the church should be all broken up and divided into separate bodies, its value as a political factor would be gone.
2. The Catholic Church, on her part, had long asserted the necessity of unity with the bishopric, — a unity in which the bishopric should be possessed of authority to prohibit, as well as power to prevent, heresy…………………………………
6. The Donatist dispute had resulted in the establishment of the Catholic Church. Yet that dispute involved no question of doctrine, but of discipline only. Just at this time, however, there sprang into prominence the famous Trinitarian controversy, which involved, and under the circumstances demanded, an imperial decision as to what was the Catholic Church in point of doctrine — what was the Catholic Church in deed and in truth; and which plunged the empire into a sea of tumult and violence that continued as long as the empire itself continued, and afflicted other nations after the empire had perished……………………………
9. One of the chief reasons for the rapid and wide-spread interest in the controversy was that nobody could comprehend or understand the question at issue. “It was the excess of dogmatism founded on the most abstract words in the most abstract region of human thought.” (Stanley. “History of the Eastern Church,” lec, 3. par. 8.)There was no dispute about the fact of there being a Trinity, it was about the nature of the Trinity. Both parties believed in precisely the same Trinity; but they differed upon the precise relationship which the Son bears to the Father……………………………..
13. Whether the Son of God, therefore, is of the same substance, or only of like substance, with the Father, was the question in dispute. The controversy was carried on in Greek, and as expressed in Greek the whole question turned upon a single letter. The word which expressed Alexander’s belief is Homoousion. The word which expressed the belief of Arius is Homoiousion. One of the words has two “i’s” in it, and the other has but one; but why the word should not have that additional “i,” neither party could ever exactly determine. Even Athanasius himself, who succeeded Alexander in the bishopric of Alexandria, and transcended him in every other quality, “has candidly confessed that whenever he forced his understanding to meditate upon the divinity of the Logos, his toilsome and unavailing efforts recoiled on themselves; that the more he thought, the less he comprehended; and the more he wrote, the less capable was he of expressing his thoughts.” (Gibbon.“Decline and Fall,” chap. 21ar. 8.)
14. It could not possibly be otherwise, because it was an attempt of the finite to measure, to analyze, and even to dissect, the Infinite. It was an attempt to make the human superior to the divine. God is infinite. No finite mind can comprehend Him as He actually is. Christ is the Word — the expression of the thought — of God; and none but He knows the depth of the meaning of that Word. “He had a name written, that no man knew, but He himself;... and His name is called The Word of God.” Neither the nature, nor the relationship, of the Father and Son can ever be measured by the mind of man. “No man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him.” This revelation of the Father by the Son can not be complete in this world. It will require the eternal ages for man to understand “the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.”………………
16. One who lived near the time of, and was well acquainted with, the whole matter, has well remarked that the discussion “seemed not unlike a contest in the dark; for neither party appeared to understand distinctly the grounds on which they calumniated one another. Those who objected to the word ‘con-substantial’ [Homoousion, of the same substance], conceived that those who approved it, favored the opinion of Sabellius and Montanus; they therefore called them blasphemers, as subverters of the existence of the Son of God. And again, the advocates of this term, charging their opponents with polytheism, inveighed against them as introducers of heathen superstitions.... In consequence of these misunderstandings, each of them wrote volumes, as if contending against adversaries; and although it was admitted on both sides that the Son of God has a distinct person and existence, and all acknowledged that there is one God in a Trinity of persons, yet, from what cause I am unable to divine, they could not agree among themselves, and therefore were never at peace.” (Socrates. “Ecclesiastical History,” book 1, chap. 23.)
17. That which puzzled Socrates need not puzzle us. Although he could not divine why they should not agree when they believed the same thing, we may very readily do so, with no fear of mistake. The difficulty was that each disputant required that all the others should not only believe what he believed, but they should believe this precisely as he believed it, whereas just how he believed it, he himself could not define. And that which made them so determined in this respect was that “the contest was now not merely for a superiority over a few scattered and obscure communities; it was agitated on a far vaster theater — that of the Roman world. The proselytes whom it disputed were sovereigns.... It is but judging on the common principles of human nature to conclude that the grandeur of the prize supported the ambition and inflamed the passions of the contending parties; that human motives of political power and aggrandizement mingled with the more spiritual influence of the love of truth, and zeal for the purity of religion.” (Milman. “History of Christianity,” book 3, chap. 4 par. 5.)………………………………
19. The controversy spread farther and farther, and raged more fiercely as it spread. “All classes took part in it, and almost all took part with equal energy. ‘Bishop rose against bishop, district against district, only to be compared to the Symplegades dashed against each other on a stormy day.’ So violent were the discussions that they were parodied in the pagan theaters; and the emperor’s statues were broken in the public squares in the fierce conflicts………………………….
21. Constantine’s golden dream of a united Christendom was again grievously disturbed. The bow of promise (of the bishops) which had so brilliantly irradiated all the political prospect when his alliance was formed with the church party, was rudely dissipated by the dark cloud of ecclesiastical ambition, and the angry storm of sectarian strife. He wrote a letter to Alexander and Arius, stating to them his mission of uniting the world under one head, and his anxious desire that there should be unity among all, and exhorted them to lay aside their contentions, forgive one another, use their efforts for the restoration of peace, and so give back to him his quiet days and tranquil nights.
22. This letter clearly shows the views and the hopes of Constantine as to the unity of the church, and that it was this that controlled him in his alliance with the church party: —
“Victor Constantinus Maximus Augustus to Alexander and Arius: I call that God to witness (as well I may) who is the Helper of my endeavors, and the Preserver of all men, that I had a twofold reason for undertaking that duty which I have now effectually performed.
“My design then was, first, to bring the diverse judgments formed by all nations respecting the Deity to a condition, as it were, of settled uniformity; and secondly, to restore a healthy tone to the system of the world,………………………..
“Let, therefore, both the unguarded questions and the inconsiderate answer receive your mutual forgiveness. For your difference has not arisen on any leading doctrines or precepts of the divine law, nor have you introduced any new dogma respecting the worship of God. You are in truth of one and the same judgment; you may therefore well join in that communion which is the symbol of united fellowship....
“Let us withdraw ourselves with a good will from these temptations of the devil. Our great God and common Savior has granted the same light to us all. Permit me, who am His servant, to bring my task to a successful issue, under the direction of His Providence, that I may be enabled through my exhortations, and diligence, and earnest admonition, to recall His people to the fellowship of one communion. For since you have, as I said, but one faith and one sentiment respecting our religion, and since the divine commandment in all its parts enjoins on us all the duty of maintaining a spirit of concord, let not the circumstance which has led to a slight difference between you, since it affects not the general principles of truth, be allowed to prolong any division or schism among you………………….
“Restore me then my quiet days and untroubled nights, that henceforth the joy of light undimmed by sorrow, the delight of a tranquil life, may continue to be my portion. Else must I needs mourn, with copious and constant tears, nor shall I be able to pass the residue of my days without disquietude. For while the people of God, whose fellow servant I am, are thus divided amongst themselves by an unreasonable and pernicious spirit of contention, how is it possible that I shall be able to maintain tranquillity of mind?... Permit me speedily to see the happiness both of yourselves and of all other provinces, and to render due acknowledgment to God in the language of praise and thanksgiving for the restoration of general concord and liberty to all.” (Eusebius’s “Life of Constantine,” book 2, chaps. 65-72.)
23. This letter he sent by the hand of Hosius, whom he made his ambassador to reconcile the disputants. But both the letter and the mission of Hosius were in vain; and yet the more so by the very fact that the parties were now assured that the controversy had attracted the interested attention of the imperial authority. As imperial favor, imperial patronage, and imperial power were the chief objects of the contest, and as this effort of the emperor showed that the reward was almost within the grasp of whichever party might prove successful, the contention was deepened rather than abated.
24. It had already been decided that the imperial favor and patronage were for the Catholic Church. Each of these parties claimed to be the orthodox and only Catholic Church. The case of the Donatists had been referred to a council of bishops for adjudication. It was but natural that this question should be treated in the same way. But whereas the case of the Donatists affected only a very small portion of the empire, this question directly involved the whole East, and greatly concerned much of the West. More than this, the Catholic religion was now the religion of the empire. This dispute was upon the question as to what is the truth of the Catholic religion. Therefore if the question was to be settled, it must be settled for the whole empire. These considerations demanded a general council. Therefore a general council was called, A.D. 325, which met at the city of Nice, the latter part of May or the first part of June, in that year.
As is obvious from the above account, it was the worldly political aspirations of both emperor and contending parties of already politicized “Christianity”, which settled the trinitarian matter for the empire in defining Roman Catholicism as the imperial religion of the state. A position that church has ever since sought to maintain. Causing untold tensions, strife, chaos, persecution, and many a war throughout our world's history.
The emperor Constantine himself, thought the matter to trifling to cause such dissensions, but the contending parties knew all too well the exaltation or abasement of the winners or losers of the conflict. The power of the state or empire for the winner, and persecution for the loser. Results only made possible by the ungodly unification of religion or church and state. An Old Covenant style theocratic government, without God directly leading, but rather men who claimed to be leading for our Lord. Things which our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ Himself came to abolish, and replace with His New Covenant spiritual nation or church unto salvation for anyone and everyone who believes.
Upvote
0