bishops, who cared more for the favor of their earthly masters, than for the honor of then* heavenly Lord and the dignity of the church. Even Eusebius, otherwise one of the better bish- ops of his time, had no word of rebuke for the gross crimes of Constantino, but only the most extravagant eulogies for his merits. In the Greek church the discipline gradually decayed, to the great disadvantage of public moraKty, and every one was allowed to partake of the communion according to his con- science. The bishops alone reserved the right of debarring the vicious from the table of the Lord. The patriarch Necta- rius of Constantinople, about 390, abolished the office of peni- tential priest (presbyter poenitentiarius), who was set over the * Rev. ii. l-Y. Comp. my Hist, of the Apostolic Church, p. 429. ^-Gempw vol. i. § I14.(p^j:i4_8ct<)." SCI)i'][}i.tfiJfW'} 358 THIKD PERIOD. A.D. 311-590. execution of the penitential discipline. The occasion of this act was furnished by a scandalous occurrence : the violation of a lady of rank in the chui'ch by a worthless deacon, when she came to submit herself to public penance. The example of Nectarius was soon followed by the other oriental bishops.' Socrates and Sozomen, who inclined to the severity of the Novatians, date the decline of discipline and of the former purity of morals from this act. But the real cause lay further back, in the connection of the church with the temporal power. Had the state been pervaded with the religious earnestness and zeal of Christianity, like the Genevan republic, for exam- ple, under the reformation of Calvin, the discipline of the church would have rather gained than lost by the alliance. But the vast Roman state could not so easily and quickly lay aside its heathen traditions and customs ; it perpetuated them under Christian names. The great mass of the people received, at best, only John's baptism of repentance, not Christ's baptism of the Holy Ghost and of fire. Yet even under these new conditions the original moral earnestness of the church continued, from time to time, to make itself known. Bishops 'were not wanting to confront even the emperors, as Nathan stood before David after his fall, in fearless rebuke. Chrysostom rigidly insisted, that the deacon should exclude all unworthy persons from tlie holy communion, though by his vehement reproof of the immorali- ties of tlie imperial court, he brought upon himself at last deposition and exile. " Though a captain," says he to those who administer the communion, " or a governor, nay, even one adorned with the imperial crown, approach [the table of the Lord] unworthily, prevent him ; you have greater authority than he. . . . Beware lest you excite the Lord to wrath, and give a sword instead of food. And if a new Judas should approach the communion, prevent him. Fear God, not ' Sozomen, vii. 16 ; Socrates, v. 19. This fact has been employed by the Roman church