Outlines of Ecclesiastical History
PART II.
THE APOSTASY.
{105}
SECTION I.
In Part I, our narrative was confined mainly to those propitious circumstances which made for the successful introduction of the gospel and the founding of the church of Christ. In Part II, we are to deal with those adverse events which led finally to the subversion of the Christian religion. We commence with the
1. Persecution of the Christians by the Jews.--The Messiah forewarned his disciples that they would be persecuted by the world, pointed out the reasons for it, and comforted them by reminding them that the world had hated him before it hated them; that the servant was not greater than his lord; and for that matter all the prophets which were before them had been persecuted by the generations in which they lived, and that, for the reason that they were not of the world, therefore the world hated and destroyed them.[1]
2. Two special reasons may be assigned for the persecution of the saints by the Jews. 1. They looked upon Christianity as a rival religion to Judaism, a thing of itself sufficient to engender bitterness, jealousy, persecution. 2. If Christianity should live and obtain a respectable standing, the Jews of that generation must ever be looked upon as not only putting an innocent man to death, but as rejecting and slaying the Son of God. To crush this rival religion and escape the odium which the successful establishment of it would inevitably fix upon them, were the incentives which prompted that first general persecution which arose against the church in Jerusalem, and that commenced in the very first year after Messiah's ascension.
{106} 3. The extent of the persecution or the time of its continuance may not be determined; but that it was murderous may be learned from the fact that Stephen was slain,[2] as was also James, the son of Zebedee,[3] and James, the Just, brother of the Lord.[4] The Apostle Peter was imprisoned and would doubtless have shared the fate of the other martyrs, but that he was delivered by an angel.[5]
4. Nor was this persecution confined alone to Jerusalem; on the contrary the hate-blinded high priests and elders of the Jews in Palestine conferred with the Jews throughout the Roman provinces, and everywhere incited them to hatred of the Christians, exhorting them to have no connection with, and to do all in their power to destroy the "superstition," as the Christian religion was then called. Nor were they content with what they themselves could do, but they exhausted their ingenuity in efforts to incite the Romans against them. To accomplish this they charged that the Christians had treasonable designs against the Roman government, as "appeared by their acknowledging as their king one Jesus, a malefactor whom Pilate had most justly put to death." [6]
5. The Jews themselves, however, were in no great favor with the Romans since their impatience of Roman restraint led them to be constantly on the eve of rebellion and sedition, and frequently to break out into deeds of violence against the Roman authority. This lack of favor rendered the power of the Jews unequal to their malice against the church of Christ.
6. The imperious nation, too, whose forefathers had rejected the prophets and at the last had crucified the Son of God with every circumstance of cruelty, crying out in the streets of their holy city, "crucify him, and let his blood be upon us and on our children," [7] were about to meet the calamities which their wickedness called down upon them. The Roman emperor Vespasian {107} [Ves-pa-zhe-an], tired of their repeated seditions, at last sent an army under Titus to subjugate them. The Jews made a stubborn resistance and a terrible war followed. Jerusalem, crowded with people who had come into the city from the surrounding country to attend the Passover, was besieged for six months, during which time more than a million of her wretched inhabitants perished of famine. The city was finally taken, the walls thereof thrown down and the temple so completely destroyed that not one stone was left upon another. Thousands of Jews were cut to pieces and nearly a hundred thousand of those taken captive were sent into slavery.[8] All the calamities predicted by the Messiah[9] befell the city and people. Jerusalem from that time until now has been trodden down of the Gentiles; and will be until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.
7. According to Eusebius, the Christians escaped these calamities which befell the Jews; for the whole body of the church at Jerusalem, having been commanded by divine revelation, given to men of approved piety, removed from Jerusalem before the war and dwelt at Pella, beyond Jordan, where they were secure from the calamities of those times.[10]
8. Persecution by the Romans.--It is more difficult to understand why the Romans should persecute the Christians than it is to see why the Jews did it. The Romans were polytheists, and affected the fullest religious liberty. The author of the "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" claims that this period of Roman history was the golden age of religious liberty. And such was the multitude of deities collected in Rome from various nations, and such the variety of worship to be seen in the great capital of the empire, that Gibbon has said:
Rome gradually became the common temple of her subjects; and {108} the freedom of the city was bestowed on all the gods of mankind.[11]
Furthermore, the same high authority says:
The various modes of worship which prevailed in the Roman world, were all considered by the people as being equally true; by the philosophers as all equally false; and by the magistrates as equally useful. And thus toleration produced not only mutual indulgences, but even religious concord.
9. The student who would learn why the mild and beautiful Christian religion was alone selected to bear the wrath and feel the vengeful power of Rome, must look deeper than the reasons usually assigned for the strange circumstance. It is superficial to say that the persecution was caused by the charges of immorality. The Roman authorities had the best of evidence that the charges were false. (See note 1, end of section). Equally absurd is it to assign as a cause the supposed atheism of the Christians, for that was the condition of nearly all Rome; while the charge that they were traitors to the emperor, and expected to see the empire supplanted by the kingdom of Christ--which some assign as the chief cause of Roman persecution--was treated with contempt by the emperors. (See note 2, end of section).
10. The true cause of the persecution was this: Satan knew there was no power of salvation in the idolatrous worship of the heathen, and hence let them live on in peace, but when Jesus of Nazareth and his followers came, in the authority of God, preaching the gospel, he recognized in that the principles and power against which he had rebelled in heaven, and stirred up the hearts of men to rebellion against the truth to overthrow it. This was the real cause of persecution, though it lurked under a variety of pretexts, the most of which are named in the above supposed causes.
11. The First Roman Persecution.--The first emperor {109} to enact laws for the extermination of Christians was Nero. (See note 3, end of section). His decrees against them originated rather in an effort to shield himself from popular fury than any desire that he had to protect the religion of the State against the advancement of Christianity. Nero, wishing to witness a great conflagration, had set fire to the city of Rome. The flames utterly consumed three of the fourteen wards into which the city was divided, and spread ruin in seven others. It was in vain that the emperor tried to soothe the indignant and miserable citizens whose all had been consumed by the flames, and neither the magnificence of the prince, nor his attempted expiation of the gods could remove from him the infamy of having ordered the conflagration.
12. Therefore, [writes Tacitus, one of the most trustworthy of all historians], to stop the clamor Nero falsely accused and subjugated to the most exquisite punishments a people hated for their crimes, called Christians. The founder of the sect, Christ, was executed in the reign of Tiberius, by the Procurator Pontius Pilate. The pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, burst forth again; not only through Judea, the birth-place of the evil, but at Rome also, where everything atrocious and base centers and is in repute. Those first seized, confessed; then a vast multitude, detected by their means, were convicted, not so much of the crime of burning the city as of hatred of mankind. And insult was added to their torments; for being clad in skins of wild beasts they were torn to pieces by dogs; or affixed to crosses to be burned, were used as lights to dispel the darkness of night, when the day was gone. Nero devoted his garden to the show, and held circensian [sir-sen-shan] games, mixing with the rabble, or mounting a chariot, clad like a coachman. Hence, though the guilty and those meriting the severest punishment, suffered, yet compassion was excited, because they were destroyed, not for the public good, but to satisfy the cruelty of an individual.[12]
13. Time of the Persecution.--The time of this persecution {110} is fixed by the date of the great conflagration, which Tacitus set down as commencing on the 18th of July, A. D. 65. It lasted six days; and soon after that the persecution broke out.
14. Continuance and Extent of the Persecution.--How long this persecution lasted, and whether it was confined to the city of Rome or extended throughout the empire is difficult to determine. From some remarks made by Tertullian [Ter-tul-li-an], writing in the next century, it would seem that the decrees of Nero against the Christians of Rome were general laws, such as those afterwards passed by Domitian. But the inferences of his language are generally discredited or accounted the result of Tertullian's fervid rhetoric; and Gibbon's conclusion that the persecution was confined within the walls of Rome generally accepted. [13] It was in this persecution, according to the tradition of the early Christian fathers, that Peter and Paul suffered martyrdom.
15. The Second Persecution.--The second persecution against the Christian church broke out in the year A. D. 93 or 94, under the reign of Domitian. It was during this persecution that the Apostle John was banished to Patmos. Eusebius states that at the same time, for professing Christ, Flavi Domitilla, the niece of Flavius Clemens, one of the consuls of Rome at the time, "was transported with many others, by way of punishment, to the island of Pontia." The pretext for this persecution is ascribed to the fears of Domitian that he would lose his empire. A rumor reached him that a person would arise from the relatives of Messiah who would attempt a revolution; whereupon the jealous nature of the emperor prompted him to begin this persecution. In it both Jews and Christians suffered, the emperor ordering that the descendants of David, especially, should be put to death. An investigation of the prospects of a revolution arising from such a quarter caused Domitian to dismiss {111} the matter with contempt and order the persecution to cease.[14] (See note 2, end of section).
NOTES.
1. Pliny's Testimony to the Morality of the Christians.--The character which this writer gives of the Christians of that age (his celebrated letter was written to Trajan early in the second century), and which was drawn from a pretty accurate inquiry, because he considered their moral principles as the point in which the magistrate was interested, is as follows: He tells the emperor that some of those who had relinquished the society, or who, to save themselves pretended that they had relinquished it, affirmed "that they were wont to meet together on a stated day, before it was light, and sang among themselves alternately a hymn to Christ as a God; and to bind themselves by an oath, not to the commission of any wickedness, but that they would not be guilty of theft, or robbery, or adultery; that they would never falsify their word, or deny a pledge committed to them when called upon to return it." This proves that a morality more pure and strict than was ordinary, prevailed at that time in Christian societies.--Paley's "Evidences."
2. Interview of Domitian and the Relatives of the Lord.--There were yet living of the family of our Lord the grandchildren of Judas, called the brother of our Lord according to the flesh. These were reported as being of the family of David, and were brought to Domitian by the evocaties. For this emperor was as much alarmed at the appearance of Christ as Herod. He put the question whether they were of David's race and they confessed that they were. He then asked them what property they had, or how much money they owned. And both of them answered, that they had between them only nine thousand denarii, and this they had not in silver, but in the value of a piece of land, containing only thirty-nine acres; from which they raised their taxes and supported themselves by their own labor. Then they also began to show their hands, exhibiting the hardness of their bodies, and the callosity formed by incessant labor on their hands, as evidence of their own labor. When asked also, respecting Christ and his kingdom, what was its nature, and when and where it was to appear, they replied that it was not a temporal nor an earthly kingdom, but celestial and angelic; that it would appear at the end of the world, {112} when coming in glory he would judge the quick and the dead, and give to every one according to his works. Upon which Domitian despising them, made no reply; but treating them with contempt, as simpletons, commanded them to be dismissed, and by a decree ordered the persecution to cease.--Hegesippus, quoted by Eusebius.
3. Character of Nero.--Nero was the incarnation of depravity--the very name by which men are accustomed to express the fury of unrestrained malignity. Bad as he was, he was not worse than Rome. She had but her due. Nay, when he died the rabble and the slaves crowned his statue with garlands and scattered flowers over his grave. And why not? Nero never injured the rabble, never oppressed the slave. He murdered his mother, his brother, his wife, and was the tyrant of the wealthy, the terror of the successful. He rendered poverty sweet, for poverty alone was secure; he rendered slavery tolerable, for slaves alone or slavish men were promoted to power. The reign of Nero was the golden reign of the populace, and the holiday of the bondman.--Bancroft.
REVIEW.
1. Of what did Messiah warn his followers?
2. What reason may be assigned for the hatred of the world towards the people of God?
3. What special reason can you assign for the persecution of the Christians by the Jews?
4. What can you say of the bitterness and extent of the first great persecution?
5. What circumstance rendered the Jewish power to injure the Christians unequal to the malice?
6. Describe the great conflict between the Jews and the Romans.
7. By what means did the Christians living at Jerusalem escape the calamities of those times?
8. What makes it difficult to understand why the Romans persecuted the Christians?
9. What can you say of the charges of immorality as justifying Roman persecution? (Note 1).
10. What of the charge of treason? (Note 2).
11. What was the true cause of the persecution?
12. Who was the first emperor to enact laws against the Christians?
13. What was the character of Nero? (Note 3).
14. What was the incentive which prompted Nero to persecute the Christians?
{113} 15. What was the duration and extent of the first Roman persecution?
16. Under whose reign did the second Roman persecution begin?
17. On what was the persecution based?
{114}
SECTION II.
1. Condition of the Church in the Second Century.--During the second century the church had many seasons of immunity from persecution. The Roman emperors for the most part were of a mild and equitable character, and at the beginning of the century there were no laws against the Christians, as those enacted both by Nero and Domitian had been repealed. The first by the senate, the second by his successor, Nerva.[15] Still it must not be supposed that the saints were free from persecution. Their troubles arose, however, rather from the tumults of the rabble at the instigation of the pagan priests than from any desire of the emperors to oppress them.
2. As the Christians had no temples, no altars, no clouds of incense, no smoking victims--in short, as they had none of the pomp and circumstance in their simple religion which attended pagan worship, they were open to the charge of atheism by the great body of the people of the Roman empire; and, in their judgment, deserved the severest tortures and death.
If the empire had been afflicted by any recent calamity, [remarks Gibbon], by a plague, a famine, or an unsuccessful war; if the Tiber had, or if the Nile had not, risen above its banks; if the earth had shaken, or if the temperate order of the seasons had been interrupted, the superstitious pagans were convinced that the crimes and impurities of the Christians, who were spared by the excessive lenity of the government, had at length, provoked the divine justice.[16]
And however virtuous the emperors were, however mild or equitable in character the governors of the provinces, it is certain {115} they did not hesitate to appease the rage of the people by sacrificing a few obnoxious victims.
3. The Persecution Under Marcus Aurelius.--The strangest fact of all connected with the persecutions of this century is that the saints suffered most under the most virtuous of the emperors--Marcus Aurelius [Mar-cus Au-re-li-us], who allowed the judges to put many of the saints accused of crime to torture. Among those of note who fell in this persecution were Polycarp, the bishop of Smyrna (see note 1, end of section.) and Justin Martyr, the philosopher. The persecution was most severe in Gaul (France), the churches of Lyons and Vienne being well nigh utterly destroyed. The unparalleled cruelties practiced upon the saints in those cities are related at length by Eusebius[17] in letters written by those who survived the persecution. (See note 2, end of section.)
4. Edicts of Severus.--Early in the third century a law was enacted by the Emperor, Severus [Se-ver-us,] making it criminal for any reason to abandon the religion of his fathers for that of the Christians or the Jews. The object of the law was to stay the propagation of Christianity which was spreading abroad on every hand; and while it was not intended to increase the hardships of those already Christians, it nevertheless encouraged the governors and judges of some of the provinces--especially those of Egypt and other parts of Africa and Asia--to sorely afflict the saints. Many of the poor were put to death--thousands of them if we may credit Eusebius--and many of the rich intimidated into paying large sums of money to the judges to secure them from torture and death. Still this persecution was not long continued, nor was it general throughout the empire, and after it subsided there was a long period of peace--pity it is that we have to say that it was more hurtful to the church than the periods of the cruelest persecution.
{116} 5. Persecution Under Decius Trajan.--In the middle of this century under Decius Trajan [De-ci-us Tra-jan] the severest and most disastrous persecution of all befell the Christians. The emperor must have been impelled both by his fear of the Christians and his attachment to the ancient religion of the Romans to publish his terrible edicts by which he hoped to destroy the Christian church. The governors of the provinces were ordered, on pain of forfeiting their own lives, either to exterminate all Christians utterly, or bring them back by pains and tortures to the religion of their fathers. Even Gibbon, whose constant effort is to belittle the sufferings of the early Christians, says of this persecution:
The bishops of the most considerable cities were removed by exile or death; the vigilance of the magistrates prevented the clergy of Rome during sixteen months from proceeding to a new election and it was the opinion of the Christians that the emperor would more patiently endure a competitor for the purple than a bishop in the capital.[18]
6. For more than two years the persecution raged with unmitigated fury; and great multitudes of Christians, in all the Roman provinces, were butchered in the most inhuman manner.
This persecution, [writes Dr. Mosheim], was more cruel and terrific than any which preceded it; and immense numbers, dismayed, not so much by the fear of death as by the dread of the long continued tortures by which the magistrates endeavored to overcome the constancy of the Christians, professed to renounce Christ, and procured for themselves safety, either by sacrificing--i. e., offering incense before the idols--or by certificates purchased with money.[19] (See note 3, end of section.)
7. The immediate successors of Decius continued this persecution, which with a pestilential disease which prevailed in many of the Roman provinces, greatly increased the hardships {117} of the saints; but the latter part of the century passed away in peace.
8. The Diocletian Persecution.--In the commencement of the fourth century a peculiar state of affairs existed in the Roman empire. In 284 A. D., Diocletian [Di-o-kle-shan], a native of Dalmatia [Dal-ma-shi-a], whose parents were slaves, was proclaimed emperor. The year following, feeling that the extent of the empire was too vast to be managed by a single mind, he chose a colleague, one Maximian [Max-im-i-an], an unlettered soldier, with whom he shared the authority of emperor and the title of "Augustus." Soon afterwards they each chose a colleague with whom they shared their authority. These were Constantinus [Con-stan-ti-nus] Chlorus [Klo-rus] and Galerius [Ga-le-ri-us]. On their ascension to this honor they each took the title of "Caesar," and so matters stood at the opening of the fourth century.
9. The church had peace at the opening of this century, and at first there were no indications that it would be broken. But early within that period Diocletian was persuaded to undertake the suppression of the Christian religion. This he attempted by demanding that the Christians give up their sacred books; if they refused they were put to death. The constancy of all the Christians, no, not even that of all their bishops and clergy, was equal to this trial, and many voluntarily surrendered the sacred writings in their possession, to save themselves from punishment and death.
10. The royal palace at Nicomedia being twice set on fire, soon after the first edict of Diocletian was published, the crime was charged to the Christians, and led to the issuance of a second edict which caused many Christians to suffer the penalties inflicted on incendiaries--torture and death. Following this came rebellion against Roman authority in Nicomedia and Syria. This too was charged to the intrigue of Christians (see notes 4 and 5, end of section), and was made a pretext for {118} throwing all bishops and ministers into prison. A third edict authorized the employment of torture to compel them to offer sacrifices to the gods of the heathen. It was hoped by Diocletian that if these leaders of the church could be forced into acts of apostasy the people would follow. A great multitude, therefore, of excellent men in all parts of Christendom--excepting Gaul--were put to death, and others condemned to labor in the mines.
11. But Diocletian was disappointed in the effects of these assaults on the leaders of the church. The members thereof remained obdurate in their adherence to the Christian faith; whereupon he issued a fourth edict, directing the magistrates to compel all Christians to offer sacrifice to the gods and to use tortures for that purpose. As the governors yielded strict obedience to these orders, the Christian church was reduced to the last extremity.[20]
12. With the exception of Gaul, [says Schlegel], streams of Christian blood flowed in the provinces of the Roman empire. Everywhere the Christian temples lay in ruins, and assemblies for worship were all suspended. The major part had forsaken the provinces and taken refuge among the barbarians. Such as were unable or unwilling to do this, kept themselves concealed, and were afraid for their lives if they appeared in public. The ministers of Christ were either slain, or mutilated and sent to the mines, or banished from the country. The avaricious magistrates had seized upon nearly all their church property and their private possessions. Many, through dread of undergoing torture, had made away with their own lives and many apostatized from the faith; and what remained of the Christian community consisted of weak, poor, and timorous persons. [21]
Truly it would appear from this that the beast unto whom was given power "to make war with the saints and overcome them" [22] had at last triumphed.
{119} 13. End of Pagan Persecution.--This, however, was to be the last great persecution of the Christians by the heathens. In 305 Diocletian, to the surprise of his own and all succeeding ages, resigned the empire and compelled his associate, Maximian, to do the same. This left the empire in the hands of the two Caesars, who became the emperors. Like their predecessors they chose colleagues; but Constantius Chlorus, dying at York, in Britain, his son, Constantine [Kon-stan-tin], afterwards called the Great, was proclaimed emperor by the army. The associate of his father, Galerius, and the two Caesars refused to ratify the election, and civil war ensued which lasted for eighteen years. Finally, however, Constantine prevailed over all his rivals and became sole emperor, A. D., 323. Being, like his father, favorably disposed towards Christianity, his accession to the throne brought universal peace to the church.
14. The Luminous Cross Seen by Constantine.--It was during the above-mentioned civil war, while marching against the forces of Maxentius [Max-en-ti-us], one of the rebellious Caesars, that Constantine and his army are said to have seen near midday, in the heavens, a luminous cross bearing this inscription in Greek: "By This Conquer." The same night Christ appeared to him in a dream accompanied with the same sign and instructed him to make a standard bearing the cross as a protection against his enemies. The circumstance is related at great length in the life of Constantine by Eusebius, on whose sole authority the story rests. It is regarded as suspicious that he makes no reference to the matter in Ecclesiastical History, written only twelve years after the event. (See note 7, end of section.) The story is altogether rejected by some writers as the cunning invention of interested priests seeking to make the cross an object of veneration; and even Christian writers of high standing--among them Mosheim--consider the story to be doubtful.
15. Constantine and his Friendliness to Christianity.--With {120} the accession of Constantine to the imperial throne, as before remarked, the peace of the church was assured. His father had favored the Christians, and in the cruel persecution under Diocletian, he kept the provinces of Gaul free from the effusion of Christian blood; and his son seems to have fallen heir to his father's friendliness for the Christian faith.
16. It is difficult to determine the motives of Constantine for favoring the Christian cause and resolving upon the destruction of the pagan religion. Whether it was the appearance of the miraculous cross in the heavens, as some aver, the influence of Helena, his mother,[23] as Theodoret claims, or through the arguments of an Egyptian priest who promised him absolution for the crime of murder if he would accept Christianity.[24] But let the motive be what it may, benevolence, policy, conviction or remorse, coupled with a hope of forgiveness, Constantine from the time of his accession to the throne became the avowed protector of the Christian church; and at length by his powerful influence made Christianity the reigning religion of the Roman empire.[25] The exiles were recalled; those condemned to labor in the mines were released; those who had been robbed of their property were reinstated in their possessions, and the demolished Christian temples were ordered to be rebuilt and enlarged. The church militant after the emperor's edicts of toleration became the church tranquil, so far as external opposition was concerned. Her ministers were welcomed to the court of the emperor, admitted to the imperial table, and even accompanied the monarch in his expeditions. Wealth, honor and imperial patronage were bestowed almost without measure on the Christian church. From the position of a despised, persecuted religion, Christianity was suddenly exalted to {121} the very throne of the Roman world. Yet these things which are usually accounted among the good fortunes of the church, were, as we shall yet see, disastrous to the purity of the Christian religion.
17. Progress of the Church Under the Patronage of Constantine.--The court of Constantine was converted, of course; but it is to be feared that it was the hope of wealth and honor, the example of the emperor, his exhortations, his irresistible smile, rather than the truths of Christianity which wrought a change in the hearts of the obsequious crowd that filled the palace. A number of cities manifested a forward zeal in a voluntary destruction of their temples and idols, but it is more than likely that the municipal distinctions and popular donations which were held out as a reward for such conduct, rather than belief in the Christian faith are what inspired the iconoclasts. Twelve thousand men and a proportionate number of women and children were baptized in a single year in Rome; but how far did the twenty pieces of gold and a white garment promised to each convert by the emperor influence the conversion of this great number? Nor was the influence of Constantine in respect to the Christian religion confined within the provinces of the empire. It extended to the barbarous peoples outside; who, while they had held in disdain a despised and proscribed sect, soon learned to esteem a religion which had been so lately embraced by the greatest monarch, and the most civilized nation of the globe.[26]
18. The Character of Constantine.--It is as difficult to come to a right conclusion as to the real character of Constantine as it is to decide the motives which led him to accept the Christian religion; for in the former as in the latter case the authorities are conflicting. The Christians who were favored by his actions extol him for his virtues; while the pagans who were despoiled by him, execrate him for his crimes. It is {122} certain, however, that he put to death his own son Crispus, and his wife Fausta, on a suspicion that was at least precarious. He cut off his brother-in-law Licinius, and his offending son, contrary to his plighted word; and, according to Schlegel and Gibbon, he was much addicted to pride and voluptuousness:
He pursued the great objects of his ambition through the dark and bloody paths of war and policy, and after the victory, abandoned himself without moderation to the abuse of his good fortune. As he advanced in years he seems to have declined in the practice of virtue, blighting in his old age, when a convert to the Christian faith, and famed as the protector of the Christian church, the fair promises he gave in his youth, and while a pagan, of being a truly virtuous prince. It is not likely that the patronage of such an emperor would contribute to the real progress of religion or assist in the establishment of the church of Christ.
NOTES.
1. The Martyrdom of Polycarp.--Presently the instruments prepared for the funeral pile were applied to him. As they were on the point of securing him with spikes, he said: "Let me be thus, for he that gives me strength to bear the fire, will also give me power, without being secured by you with these spikes, to remain unmoved on the pile." They therefore did not nail him, but merely bound him to the stake. But he, closing his hands behind him, and bound to the stake as a noble victim selected from the great flock an acceptable sacrifice to Almighty God, said: "Father of thy well-beloved and blessed Son, Jesus Christ, through whom we have received the knowledge of thee, the God of angels and power and all creation, and of all the family of the righteous, that live before thee, I bless thee that thou hast thought me worthy of the present day and hour to have a share in the number of the martyrs and in the cup of Christ, unto the resurrection of eternal life, both of the soul and body, in the incorruptible felicity of the Holy Spirit. Among whom may I be received in thy sight this day as a rich and acceptable sacrifice, as thou the faithful and true God hast prepared, hast revealed and fulfilled. Wherefore on this account, and for all things I praise thee, I bless thee; I glorify thee through the eternal High Priest, Jesus Christ, thy well beloved Son. {123} Through whom be glory to thee with Him in the Holy Ghost, both now and forever. Amen." After he had repeated Amen, and had finished his prayer, the executioners kindled the fire.--Eusebius.
2. A Second Century Persecution.--Would the reader know what a persecution in those days was, I would refer him to a circular letter written by the church at Smyrna soon after the death of Polycarp, who it will be remembered had lived with St. John; and which letter is entitled a relation of that Bishop's martyrdom. "The sufferings," say they, "of all the other martyrs were blessed and generous which they underwent according to the will of God. For so it becomes us, who are more religious than others, to ascribe the power and ordering of all things unto him. And indeed who can choose but admire the greatness of their minds, and that admirable patience and love of their Master, which then appeared in them? Who when they were so flayed with whipping, that the frame and structure of their bodies were laid open to their very inward veins and arteries, nevertheless endured it. In like manner, those who were condemned to the beasts and kept a long time in prison, underwent many cruel torments, being forced to lie upon sharp spikes laid under their bodies, and tormented with divers other sorts of punishments; that so, if it were possible, the tyrants by the length of their sufferings might have brought them to deny Christ."--Paley.
3. The Persecution Under Decius Trajan.--This persecution was more terrible than any preceding one, because it extended over the whole empire, and because its object was to worry the Christians into apostasy by extreme and persevering torture.--The certificated or libellatici, are supposed to be such as purchased certificates from the corrupt magistrates, in which it was declared that they were pagans and had complied with the demands of the law, when neither of these was fact. To purchase such a certificate was not only to be partaker in the fraudulent transaction, but it was to prevaricate before the public in regard to Christianity, and was inconsistent with that open confession of Christ before men, which He Himself requires.--Murdock. (Note in Mosheim, vol. I., cent. iii., p. 1, ch. ii.)
4. The Insurrection of Syria and Nicomedia.--Some degree of probability could be attached to the charge against the Christians of causing the insurrection from the fact that their inconsiderate zeal sometimes led them to deeds which had an aspect of rebellion. At the commencement of this persecution, for example, a very respectable Christian tore down the imperial edict against the Christians which was set up in a public place.--Schlegel.
5. Unwise Zeal of the Christians.--Several examples have been preserved of a zeal impatient of those restraints which the emperors had provided for the security of the church. The Christians sometimes supplied by their voluntary declaration the want of an accuser, rudely {124} disturbed the public service of paganism, and rushing in crowds round the tribunal of the magistrates, called upon them to pronounce and to inflict the sentence of the law. The behavior of the Christians was too remarkable to escape the notice of the ancient philosophers; but they seemed to have considered it with much less admiration than astonishment. Incapable of conceiving the motives which sometimes transported the fortitude of believers beyond the bounds of prudence or reason, they treated such an eagerness to die as the strange result of obstinate despair, of stupid insensibility or of suspicious frenzy.--Gibbon.
6. Spirit of the Christian Martyrs.--The spirit of the Christian martyrs, at least of the first three centuries, may be learned from the epistle of Ignatius of Antioch, who, early in the second century was taken from Syria to Rome, where he suffered martyrdom by being thrown to the wild beasts. On his journey to Rome, under sentence of death, he wrote an epistle to the Roman saints from which the following passage is taken: "I write to the churches and I declare to all, that willingly I die for God, if it be that you hinder me not. I beg of you, do not become to me an unseasonable love. Let me be of the beasts, by whose means I am enabled to obtain God. I am God's wheat, and by the teeth of the beasts am I ground, that I may be found God's pure bread. Rather entreat kindly the beasts that they may be a grave for me and may leave nothing of my body; that not even when I am fallen asleep, I may be a burden upon any man. Then I shall be in truth a disciple of Jesus Christ, when the world seeth not even my body. Supplicate our Lord for me, that by these instruments I may be found a sacrifice to God. I am not commanding you like Peter and Paul; they were apostles, I am a condemned convict; they were free, I am hitherto a slave. But if I suffer I am a free man of Jesus Christ, and I shall rise from the dead, in him a free man. And now since I am in bonds, I learn to desire nothing. From Syria to Rome I am cast among beasts by sea and by land, by night and by day; since I am bound between ten leopards, who get worse when I do good to them. But by their ill-treatment I am furthered in my apprenticeship; still by that I am not justified. May I have to rejoice of the beasts prepared for me! and I pray that they may be found ready for me, and I will kindly entreat them quickly to devour me, and not as they have done to some, being afraid of them, to keep from touching me. And should they not be willing, I will force them."--Ignatius' Epistle to the Romans.
7. Constantine's Luminous Cross.--Now if this narrative [by Eusebius] is all true, and if two connected miracles were actually wrought as here stated, how happens it that no writer of that age, except Eusebius, says one word about the luminous cross in the heavens? How came it that Eusebius himself said nothing about it in his Ecclesiastical {125} History, which was written twelve years after the event, and about the same length of time before his life of Constantine? Why does he rely solely on the testimony of the emperor and not even intimate that he even heard of it from others; whereas, if true, many thousands must have been eye-witnesses of the fact. What mean his suggestions, that some may question the truth of the story; and his caution not to state anything as a matter of public notoriety, but to confine himself simply to the emperor's private representation to himself. * * * But how came the whole story of the luminous cross to be unknown to the Christian world, for more than twenty-five years, and then to transpire only through a private conversation between Eusebius and Constantine?--Murdock.
REVIEW.
1. From what source did the persecution of the church come during the 2nd century?
2. What charge did pagan priests bring against the Christians?
3. What in the estimation of the ignorant pagans gave the color of truth to their charge?
4. To what circumstance were the calamities which befell the empire usually attributed?
5. What strange fact meets us in connection with the persecution of the 2nd century?
6. What two noted martyrs were put to death in the reign of Marcus Aurelius?
7. Describe the martyrdom of Polycarp.
8. What was the nature of some of the tortures inflicted on the Christians? (Note 2).
9. What was the nature and purpose of the edicts of Severus?
10. What was the effect of this persecution and the period of peace which followed it?
11. What can you say of the persecution under Trajan?
12. What does Gibbon say of it?
13. How long did it continue?
14. What means of avoiding the severe tortures were offered the Christians?
15. What was the effect of this persecution?
16. What other circumstance added to the afflictions of the Christians?
17. What changes in respect to the Roman government took place early in the 4th century?
18. What method did Diocletian adopt for the suppression of the Christian religion?
{126} 19. What special crimes were charged to the Christians in the reign of Diocletian?
20. What can you say of the zeal of the Christians? (Note 4 and 5).
21. What effect did these persecutions have on the church?
22. What event put a stop to the pagan persecutions?
23. Relate the circumstances which led to Constantine becoming emperor of Rome.
24. What effect did his accession to the throne have upon the Christian church?
25. By what circumstance is Constantine said to have been converted to the Christian religion?
26. What evidences exist against the probability of this story?
27. What good service did the father of Constantine do the Christians in the Diocletian persecution?
28. What are the several motives assigned for Constantine's friendliness to the Christian church?
29. What can you say of the emperor's treatment of the Christians?
30. What considerations very likely influenced converts when Constantine extended his patronage to the church?
31. What was the character of Constantine?
{127}
SECTION III.
1. The Accusations of the Pagans.--The simplicity of the Christian religion was made a reproach to the church of Christ by the pagan priests. The saints were accused of atheism, an accusation which found support in the fact that the primitive church had no temples, no incense, no sacrifice, no incantations, pomp or ceremony in its worship. "The Christians have no temples, therefore they have no gods," was an argument sufficiently convincing to the heathen. It was but natural, perhaps, that the Christians should seek to cast off this reproach; but the desire to do so led to the introduction of many ceremonies quite at variance with the religion of Jesus Christ, and eventually subverted it altogether.
2. Outward Ordinances of the Christian Religion.--The outward ordinances of the gospel consisted of baptism, the laying on of hands for the imparting of the Holy Ghost, and the Lord's Supper. The laying on of hands was also employed in ordaining men to the Priesthood and in administering to the sick. In the latter case it was accompanied by anointing with oil.
3. While it does not appear that there was any specific law commanding or regulating fasts, the ancient saints occasionally joined abstinence from their food with their prayers, and especially when engaged in great undertakings. But the frequency of his fasts and the time of their continuance were left to each man's judgment.
4. They met on the first day of the week--Sunday--for worship (see note 1, end of section) the meetings, during the first century, being held in most instances in private houses. The {128} ceremonies were of the simplest character. They consisted of reading the scriptures, the exhortation of the president of the assembly--"neither eloquent nor long, but full of warmth and love;" the testimony of such as felt moved upon by the Holy Ghost to bear testimony, exhort or prophesy; the singing of hymns; the administration of the Sacrament and prayers.[27] (See note 2, end of section.)
5. Baptism.--Baptism was administered by immersing the candidate in water. The only pre-requisites were faith in Jesus Christ and repentance. As soon as the candidate professed these he was admitted into the church by baptism.[28] In a short time, however, the simplicity of this ordinance was corrupted and burdened with useless ceremonies. In the second century the newly baptized converts, since by baptism they had been born again, were taught to exhibit in their conduct the innocence of little infants. Milk and honey, the common food of infants, were administered to them, after their baptism, to remind them of their infancy in the church. Moreover, since by baptism they were released from being servants of the devil, and became God's free men, certain forms borrowed from the Roman ceremony of manumission of slaves were employed in baptism. As by baptism also they were supposed to be made God's soldiers, like newly enlisted soldiers in the Roman army, they were sworn to obey their commander, etc.
6. Further Additions of Ceremonies to Baptism.--A century later (the third) further ceremonies were added. It was supposed that some evil spirit was resident in all vicious persons and impelled them to sin. Therefore, before entering the sacred font for baptism, an exorcist by a solemn, menacing formula declared them free from the bondage of Satan, and hailed them servants of Christ.[29] After baptism the new converts {129} returned home, "decorated with a crown and a white robe, the first being indicative of their victory over the world and their lusts, the latter of their acquired innocence." [30]
7. We have already noted the fact that baptism was administered in the days of the apostles as soon as profession of faith and repentance were declared, but in the second and third century baptism was only administered twice a year, and then only to such candidates as had gone through a long preparation and trial.[31] The times chosen for the administration of the ordinance were on the vigils of Easter and Whitsuntide;[32] and in the fourth century it had become the custom to accompany the ceremony with lighted wax candles, to put salt--an emblem of purity and wisdom--in the mouth of the baptized, and everywhere a double anointing was administered to the candidates, the one before, the other after, baptism.[33]
8. The Form of Baptism Changed.--It must have been early in the third century that the form of baptism began to be changed. Up to this time it had been performed only by immersion of the whole body. But in the first half of the third century, Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, during a controversy respecting the re-baptism of those who in times of persecution had denied the faith, decided that those whose weak state of health did not permit them to be immersed, were sufficiently baptized by being sprinkled.[34] The first case of this kind of {130} baptism is related by Eusebius. The person to whom it was so administered was Novatus [No-va-tus], a desperate heretic, who created a schism in the church and became the founder of a sect. He was among the number of so-called Christians who put off baptism as long as he dared; in order to enjoy a life of sin and then through baptism, just before death, obtain forgiveness for them--a custom very prevalent in those times. Novatus being attacked with an obstinate disease, and supposed to be at the point of death, was baptized by having water sprinkled upon him as he lay in bed; "if indeed," says Eusebius, "it be proper to say one like him did receive baptism." [35]
9. This innovation continued to spread until now the general rule among so-called Christian sects is to baptize by sprinkling or pouring. For this change there is no warrant of revelation. It destroys the symbol there is in baptism as taught by Messiah and his apostles--that of a burial and resurrection--of a death and a birth--a death unto sin, a birth unto sin, a birth unto righteousness. (See notes 3 and 4, end of section.) It is one of those innovations which changed an ordinance of the everlasting covenant.
10. Baptism Misapplied.--About the time that the form of administering baptism was changed it began to be misapplied, that is, it was administered to infants. Just when this custom came into vogue may not be determined, but clearly it has no warrant for its existence either in the doctrines or practice of the apostles or any New Testament writer. (See note 5, end of section.) No truth is more plainly taught by the apostles than that baptism is for the remission of sins, and must be preceded by faith and repentance; and as infants are incapable of sin, or of exercising faith, or of repenting, evidently they are not fit subjects for baptism.
11. Still it became the custom in the latter part of the second century or early in the third to baptize infants. In the year 253 A. D., a council of sixty bishops, in Africa--at which {131} Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, presided, took under consideration the question whether infants should be baptized within two or three days after birth, or whether it should be deferred until the eighth day, as was the custom of the Jews in respect to circumcision. The council decided that they should be baptized at once, that is within a day or two after birth.[36] It will be observed that the question was not as to whether infants should be baptized or not, but when they should be baptized, within a day or two after birth or not until they were eight days old. The matter was treated in the council as if infant baptism was a custom of long standing. This proves, not that infant baptism is a correct doctrine, or that it was derived from the teachings and examples of the apostles--as some aver[37]--but that in a century or so after the introduction of the gospel, men began to pervert it by changing and misapplying its ordinances. The false doctrine of infant baptism is now practiced by nearly all so-called Christian churches, Catholic and Protestant.
12. The Sacrament.--Much as the simple rite of baptism was burdened with useless ceremonies, changed in its form and misapplied, it was not more distorted than was the sacrament of the Lord's supper. The nature of the sacrament--usually called the eucharist--and the purposes for which it was instituted are so plain that he who runs may read.
13. From Paul's description of the ordinance, it is clear that the broken bread was an emblem of Messiah's broken body; the wine an emblem of his blood, shed for sinful man; and his disciples were to eat the one and drink the other in remembrance of him until he should return; and by this ceremony show forth the Lord's death.[38]
{132} 14. It was designed as a memorial of Messiah's great atonement for mankind, a token and witness unto the Father that the Son was always remembered. It was to be a sign that those partaking of it were willing to take upon them the name of Christ, to always remember him, and keep his commandments. In consideration of these things being observed, the saints were always to have the Spirit of the Lord to be with them.[39] In this spirit and without great ceremony (see note 7, end of section) the sacrament was administered for some time.
15. Administration of the Sacrament Corrupted.--In the third century there were longer prayers and more ceremony connected with the administration of the sacrament than in the century preceding. Disputations arose as to the proper time to administer it. Some considered the morning, others the afternoon, and some the evening the most suitable time. All were not agreed either as to how often the ordinance should be celebrated. Gold and silver vessels were used, and neither those doing penance, nor those unbaptized, though believers, were {133} permitted to be present at the celebration of the ordinance; "which practice, it is well known, was derived from the pagan mysteries." [40] Very much of mystery began to be associated with it even at an early date. The bread and the wine through the prayer of consecration were considered to undergo a mystic change by which they were converted into and became the very body and the very blood of Jesus Christ; so that they were no longer regarded as emblems of Messiah's body and blood, but the body and blood itself.[41] This is the doctrine of transubstantiation.
16. The dogma established, it was but a short step to the "elevation of the host;" that is, the elevation of the bread and wine before they were distributed, so that they might be viewed with reverence by the people. Thus came the adoration of the symbols.
17. Institution of the Mass.--Hence came also the mass, or the idea of a sacrifice being connected with the celebration {134} of the eucharist. It was held that as Jesus was truly present in the bread and wine he could be offered up, and was truly offered up as an oblation to his Eternal Father. The death of the victim was not supposed to occur in reality but mystically, in such a way, however, as to constitute a true sacrifice, commemorative of that of the cross, and not different from it in essence. The same victim was present, and offered up by Christ through his minister, the priest. The sacrifice at the cross was offered with real suffering; true shedding of blood, and real death of the victim; in the mass it was taught there was a mystical shedding of blood and a mystical death of the same victim.
18. Into such absurdities was the simple sacrament of the Lord's supper distorted! When attended with all the pomp and ceremony of splendid altars, lighted tapers, processions, elevations and chantings: offered up by priests and bishops clad in splendid vestments and in the midst of clouds of incense, accompanied by mystic movements and genuflections of bishops and priests, the church could congratulate itself on having removed the reproach at the first fastened upon the Christians for not having altars and sacrifice. The mass took away the reproach; and the new converts to Christianity were accustomed to see the same rites and ceremonies employed in this mystical sacrifice of the Son of God as they had seen employed in offering up of sacrifice to their pagan deities. (See notes 8 and 9, end of section.)
19. Suppression of Half the Sacrament.--In time the idea became prevalent that as the body and blood of Messiah were equally and entirely present under each "species"--that is, equally and entirely present in the bread and in the wine--it was equally and entirely given to the faithful whichever they received. This idea, of course, rendered it unnecessary to partake of both bread and wine--hence the practice of communion in one kind. That is, the sacrament was administered by giving {135} bread alone to the communicant. To remark that this was changing the ordinance of the sacrament as instituted by Messiah--suppressing half of it in fact--can scarcely be necessary since it is so well known that Jesus administered both bread and wine when instituting the sacred ordinance.[42]
NOTES.
1. Reasons Why the Ancient Saints Worshiped on Sunday.--But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, when he changed the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead; for the day before that of Saturn he was crucified, and on the day after it, which is Sunday, he appeared to his apostles and disciples and taught them these things which we have given to you also for your consideration.--Justin Martyr.
2. Description of Christian Public Worship in the Second Century.--On the day which is called Sunday there is an assembly in the same of all who live in cities or in country districts; and the records of the apostles, or the writings of the prophets, are read as long as we have time. Then the reader concludes, and the president verbally instructs and exhorts us to the imitation of these excellent things. Then we all rise together and offer up our prayers. And, as I said before, when we have concluded our prayer, bread is brought, and wine and water, and the president in like manner offers up prayers and thanksgivings with all his strength, and the people give their assent by saying Amen; and there is a distribution and a partaking by every one of the eucharistic elements [the sacrament,] and to those who are not present they are sent by the hands of the deacons. And such as are in prosperous circumstances, and wish to do so, give what they will, each according to his choice; and what is collected is placed in the hands of the president, who assists the orphans and widows, and such as through sickness or any other cause are in want; and to those who are in bonds, and to strangers from afar, and, in a word, to all who are in need, he is a protector.--Justin Martyr.
3. Baptism a Symbol of Burial and Resurrection.--In writing to the saints of Rome, Paul says: "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore {136} we are _buried_ with him by baptism into death; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been _planted_ together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection." (Rom. vi:3-5.) In writing to the saints of Colosse, the same apostle reminds them that they had been "_Buried_ with him [Christ] in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God who hath raised him from the dead." (Col. ii: 12.)
In these passages the terms "buried" and "planted" are in plain allusion to the manner in which the saints had received the ordinance of baptism, which could not have been by sprinkling or pouring, as there is no burial or planting in the likeness of Christ's death, or being raised in likeness of his resurrection in that; but in immersion there is.--"The Gospel--Roberts," page 173.
4. The Manner of Baptism Instituted Among the Nephites.--"Verily I say unto you, that whoso repenteth of his sins through your words, and desireth to be baptized in my name, on this wise shall ye baptize them: Behold, ye shall go down and stand in the water, and in my name shall ye baptize them. And now behold, these are the words which ye shall say, calling them by name, saying, Having authority given me of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen. And then shall ye immerse them in the water and come forth again out of the water. And after this manner shall ye baptize in my name."--Jesus to the Nephites.
5. Infant Baptism not Ordained of Christ or the Apostles.--As faith and baptism are constantly so closely connected together in the New Testament, an opinion was likely to arise that where there could be no faith there could be no baptism. It is certain that Christ did not ordain infant baptism. * * We cannot prove that the apostles ordained infant baptism; from those places where the baptism of a whole family is mentioned (Acts xvi:33; I Cor. i: 16), we can draw no such conclusions, because the inquiry is still to be made whether there were any children in those families of such an age that they were not capable of any intelligent reception of Christianity; for this is the only point on which the case turns.--Neander "Church History," vol. I., page 360.
6. Infant Baptism Forbidden Among the Nephites.--The word of the Lord came to me by the power of the Holy Ghost, saying: * * * Behold, I came into the world not to call the righteous, but sinners unto repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore little children are whole for they are incapable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that {137} it hath no power over them; and the law of circumcision is done away in me. * * * Wherefore, my beloved son, I know that it is solemn mockery before God that ye should baptize little children. * * * Awful is the wickedness to suppose that God saveth one child because of baptism, and the other must perish because he hath no baptism. Wo be unto him that shall pervert the ways of the Lord after this manner, for they shall perish, except they repent.--Mormon to Moroni (Book of Moroni, chapter viii.)
7. Manner of Administering the Sacrament--Second Century.--When the Christians celebrated the Lord's supper which they were accustomed to do chiefly on Sundays, they consecrated a part of the bread and wine of the oblations, by certain prayers pronounced by the president, the bishop of the congregation. The wine was mixed with water, and the bread was divided into small pieces. Portions of the consecrated bread and wine were commonly sent to the absent and the sick, in testimony of fraternal affection towards them. There is much evidence that this most holy rite was regarded as very necessary to the attainment of salvation.--Mosheim.
8. Pagan Rites Introduced into the Christian Worship--Fourth Century.--The Christian bishops introduced, with but slight alterations, into the Christian worship, those rites and institutions by which formerly the Greeks and Romans, and other nations had manifested their piety and reverence towards their imaginary deities; supposing that the people would more readily embrace Christianity, if they saw that the rites handed down to them from their fathers still existed unchanged among the Christians, and perceived that Christ and the martyrs were worshiped in the same manner as formerly their gods were. There was, of course, little difference in these times, between the public worship of the Christians and that of the Greeks and Romans. In both alike there were splendid robes, mitres, tiaras, wax tapers, crosiers, processions, illustrations, images, golden and silver vases, and numberless other things.--Mosheim.
9. Superstitious Observances Connected with the Eucharist--Eighth Century.--As evidence of the superstition which was associated with the eucharist, note the following: "If any one through negligence, shall destroy the eucharist, i. e. the sacrifice, let him do penance one year. * * * If he lets it fall on the ground, carelessly, he must sing fifty Psalms. Whoever neglects to take care of the sacrifice, so that worms get into it, or it lose its color or taste, must do penance thirty or twenty days; and the sacrifice must be burned in the fire. Whoever turns up the cup at the close of the solemnity of the mass must do penance forty days. If a drop from the cup should fall on the altar, the minister must suck up the drop and do penance three days; and the linen cloth which the drop touched, must be washed three times, {138} over the cup, and the water in which it was washed be cast into the fire."--Decisions of Pope Gregory III. (Harduin's Concilia.)
REVIEW.
1. What reproach did the simplicity of the Christian religion lead to?
2. What effect did the endeavor to get rid of that reproach have on the Christian religion?
3. Enumerate the outward ordinances of the gospel.
4. What can you say of Christian fasts?
5. On what day did the Christians meet for worship?
6. What reasons do the early church fathers give for holding public worship on that day? (Note 1).
7. Describe the meetings of the early Christians. (Note 2.)
8. How was baptism administered in the early church?
9. What does baptism represent? (Note 3).
10. Tell how the simplicity of this ordinance was changed.
11. What additions were made to the ceremony of baptism in the third century?
12. When was the form of baptism changed?
13. Relate the first known case of baptism by sprinkling.
14. In what way was the ordinance of baptism misapplied?
15. Was infant baptism ordained of the apostles? (Note 5).
16. About when was infant baptism introduced into the church?
17. Does the antiquity of infant baptism prove it to be a correct doctrine?
18. What does it prove?
19. What was said to the Nephites about infant baptism? (Note 6).
20. For what was the sacrament of the Lord's supper instituted?
21. Give Paul's description of the introduction of the sacrament. (Note).
22. About what time was the manner of administering the sacrament changed?
23. What was the nature of those changes?
24. What custom crept into the practice of the Christian church that was forbidden by Jesus among the Nephites? (Note).
25. What can you say of the antiquity of the doctrine of transubstantiation?
26. What is the mass?
27. What reproach did the institution of the mass remove from the Christians?
28. At what cost was the reproach removed?
29. Who introduced pagan rites into Christian worship?
30. Why was it done? (Note 8.)
31. What reason is given for suppressing half the sacrament?
{139}
SECTION IV.
1. Early Church Organization Not Perpetuated.--We have already stated in Part I of this work that the church organization established by Messiah--consisting of apostles, prophets, seventies, bishops, etc.--was designed to be perpetual. It is a singular fact, however, that aside from filling up the vacancy in the quorum of the twelve--occasioned by the fall of Judas Iscariot--there is no account in any of the writings of the apostles or fathers of the first centuries--on the eastern hemisphere[43]--of any attempt to perpetuate the quorum of the twelve by filling up the vacancies occasioned by the death of the original apostles. The same may also be said of the quorum of the seventies.
2. The reason for this will doubtless be found in the fact that in the very days of the apostles the great apostasy which was to end eventually in the subversion of the Christian religion, had begun. (See note 2, end of section.) And since "the mystery of iniquity" had already begun its work in the days of the apostles, and men were rapidly proving themselves unworthy of the church of Christ, the Lord did not permit his servants to perpetuate these quorums of the higher Priesthood.
3. Establishment of the Church by the Apostles.--Whenever in their travels the apostles converted any considerable number of persons, in a city or district, they organized them into a church, or, speaking more precisely, into a branch of {140} the great universal church of Christ, and appointed either a bishop or an elder to preside over them. As long as the apostles lived they were regarded as the presiding authority of the universal church, and were looked to for counsel and instruction in all difficult matters that arose concerning doctrine or discipline. Their decisions were accepted as final, and well might it be so, since these men were guided in their counsels by revelation[44] as well as by the wisdom which their large experience in company with Jesus Christ had given them.
4. But when the apostles died, and no one succeeded to their authority, the branches of the church were left separate and independent organizations, united, it is true, in faith and charity, but the visible, general presidency recognized in the apostles and cheerfully submitted to by all sections of the church, ceased when the apostles passed away, and each branch was left an independent organization of itself.[45] There is no evidence that there was such a thing as subordination among the churches when so left, or rank among the bishops. Each church was a sort of independent commonwealth, of which the bishop was president and a vassal to no other bishop.[46]
5. Manner of Electing Bishops.--The manner in which bishops were first elected was for the apostles to nominate them, and then for the whole church over which they were to preside to sustain them by their vote. After the apostles had passed away then "other men of repute" made the nominations {141} and the people sustained them as at first.[47] The duties and powers of the bishops in the first and in the greater part of the second century were limited to conducting the public worship, administering the ordinances of the gospel, settling difficulties which arose between brethren, attending in person the sick and the poor. They also were made the custodians and managers of the public fund. In all these duties they were assisted by the elders [presbyters] and the deacons of the church. Yet neither the bishops nor the elders, nor both of them together, seem to have had power to ordain or determine anything without the approbation and consent of the members of the church. The principle of common consent was closely adhered to in the primitive church. (See note 3, end of section.)
6. Equality Among Bishops Changed.--This equality of rank among the bishops, together with the simple form of church government, described above, was soon changed. The bishops who lived in cities either by their own labors or those of the elders associated with them, raised up new churches in the adjacent villages and hamlets. The bishops of these rural districts being nominated and ordained by the bishops presiding in the city, very naturally, perhaps, felt themselves under the protection and dependent upon the city bishops. This idea continued to grow until these "bishops of the suburbs and the fields," were looked upon as a distinct order of officers, possessing a dignity and authority above the elders, and yet subordinate {142} to the bishops of the cities, who soon came to be designated as archbishops.
7. The Origin of Metropolitans.--Gradually and almost imperceptibly the church in its government began to follow the civil divisions of the Roman empire. The bishops of the metropolis of a civil province, in time, came to be regarded as having a general supervision of all the churches in that province, over the archbishops and indirectly over the suburban bishops or suffragans, as they began to be called, and finally, bishops merely. The bishops of these provinces were soon designated as metropolitans.
8. The Rise and Influence of Councils.--Concurrent with these changes arose the custom, first derived from the Greeks, of holding provincial councils. The bishops living in a single province met in council to confer upon matters of common interest to the churches of the province. These provincial councils met at stated times of the year, usually in the spring and autumn. At the first the attending bishops looked upon themselves as merely the representatives of their respective churches, without jurisdiction further than to discuss and come to agreement on matters of common concern. But gradually they usurped the power to order by decree where at first they were accustomed to advise or entreat--so easy is it to change the language of exhortation to that of command! Nor was it long ere the decrees of these provincial councils were forced upon the respective churches as laws to be implicitly obeyed. There was some resistance to this at first from the lower orders of the clergy; but that resistance was quickly overcome by the activity and ambition of the bishops, who were only too glad to escape from the restraints which the doctrine of "common consent"--a doctrine which made it necessary for the bishops to submit any matter of importance to their respective churches for the approbation of the people--imposed upon them. (See note 4, end of section.)
{143} 9. Conduct of Lower Clergy.--As many changes occurred among the lower orders of the clergy as among the bishops. The elders and deacons became too proud to attend to the humble duties of their offices and hence a number of other officers were added to the church, while the elders and deacons spent much of their time in indolence and pleasure.
10. Corruption of Church Officials.--To the evils of contention for power and place, which had its origin in arrogance and ambition--unbecoming those who profess to be followers and servants of Jesus Christ--must be added the vices of dissipation and voluptuousness. Many bishops, in the third century, affected the state of princes, especially those who had charge of the more populous and wealthy congregations; for they sat on thrones, surrounded by their ministers and other signs of their power, and dazzled the eyes and the minds of the populace with their splendid attire.[48]
11. Church Government Modeled on the Plan of the Civil Government.--It was reserved for the fourth century to see the church government more completely modeled on the plan of the civil government of the Roman empire, to witness more pride and arrogance in its rulers, and an increase of vices both in clergy and people. Early in this century, it will be remembered, Constantine, the emperor of Rome, avowed his conversion to Christianity, and as might have been expected that fact produced great changes in the fortunes of the church. It not only put an end to its persecutions but loaded its bishops with new honors and enlarged powers.
12. In saying that the church government was modeled upon the plan of the civil government we would not be understood as saying that the first was a _fac simile_ of the second; there were some differences between them, but the civil divisions of the empire suggested the ecclesiastical divisions.
{144} 13. Under Constantine the Roman empire was divided into four prefectures, containing thirteen dioceses, embracing one hundred and sixteen provinces. Officers called praetorian prefects presided over the four prefectures--exarchs over the dioceses and governors over the provinces. The Bishops of Rome, Constantinople, Antioch and Alexandria having gained a pre-eminence over all other metropolitans were made to correspond with the four prefectures by Constantine, and assumed, before the close of the century, the title of patriarchs. Next to the patriarchs stood the bishops, whose jurisdiction extended over several provinces, corresponding to the civil exarchs,[49] though the bishops of this dignity did not equal in number the civil exarchs. Next came the metropolitan bishops, whose jurisdiction was limited to a single province. They corresponded to the civil governors of the provinces, whose authority was limited in like manner. After the metropolitans came the arch-bishops,[50] and then the bishops. Some of the latter were exempt from the jurisdiction of both metropolitans and arch-bishops, and hence were called independent bishops.
14. Pre-Eminence of the Bishops of Rome.--The distinctions of rank among the bishops of the Christian church first arose largely through the opulence and civil importance of the respective cities and provinces over which they presided--the membership of the church and its wealth usually bearing a just proportion to the size and civil importance of the city in {145} which it was located. It is not surprisingg, therefore, that the metropolitans and patriarchs also struggled for pre-eminence upon the same basis. That basis gave the bishop of Rome great advantage; for, as stated by Gibbon, "the Roman church was the greatest, the most numerous, and, in regard to the west, the most ancient of all the Christian establishments, many of which had received their religion from the pious labors of here missionaries." The fact, too, that for so many ages Rome had been the capital of the great empire led men naturally to give pre-eminence to the church established there.
15. Another thing which went far to establish the supremacy of the bishop of Rome was the tradition that Peter, the chief or "prince" of the apostles, had founded that church; that he became its first bishop; that the bishops succeeding him succeeded to his apostleship and to whatever of pre-eminence he held over his fellow apostles; and that pre-eminence, it is claimed, amounted to the right of presidency over the universal church.
16. Objections to the Claims of the Bishop of Rome.--That Peter, aided by Paul, did found the church at Rome there is little cause to doubt. It is also true that Peter was the chief or president of the apostles; that to him had been given the keys of the kingdom of heaven.[51] But that he became the bishop of Rome, or that the bishops of Rome succeeded to the apostleship and to that power which made him the president of the universal church of Christ, we cannot allow.
17. Our first reason for saying that Peter was not bishop of Rome is that the office of apostle and bishop are not identical. If Peter presided at all over the church at Rome he did so by virtue of his apostleship, not by becoming its bishop; but as his apostleship would give him the right to act in minor offices of the church--on the principle that the greater authority includes {146} the lesser--he may have presided for a time over the church at Rome.
18. Our second reason is that according to the very best authority on the subject, one Linus and not Peter was the first bishop of Rome. Irenaeus writing in the second century, says:
The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul] then, upon founding and erecting the church [at Rome], committed the office of administering the church to Linus. Of this Linus, Paul speaks in the epistle to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus [An-a-cle-tus], and after him in the third place from the apostles, Clement received the bishopric. [52]
From this it plainly appears that Peter and Paul organized a church at Rome, and as in other cities they appointed a bishop to preside over it. Peter no more became the bishop of Rome than he did of the church at Jerusalem, or Paul of Antioch, Ephesus, or Corinth.
19. The bishop of Rome did not succeed to the apostleship of Peter, much less to the pre-eminence which he held among the apostles; and that for the very good reason that the office of bishop and that of apostle, as remarked above, are not identical. It would require an apostle to succeed an apostle, and as there is no account of an apostle being ordained to succeed to Peter's office, we conclude he had no successor. Here we might let the matter rest, but it will be proper to notice the arguments which are made by those who contend that the bishops of Rome are the true successors to the office and mission of the Apostle Peter.
20. Scripture Basis of the Claims of the Bishop of Rome to Pre-Eminence.--On one occasion Jesus said to his disciples, "Whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered, * * * Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." To this Jesus said: "Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona; for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which {147} is in heaven. And I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." [53] He then gave to Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven--power to bind and loose on earth and in heaven. The argument is that since Peter, some time before this, had been given the name Cephas, which means a stone,[54] therefore when Jesus said, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church," it is claimed that he meant than on Peter he would build his church.[55]
21. That this is a clear misconception of the scripture is apparent. If Messiah had meant to found the church on Peter, how unfortunate that he did not say, Thou art Cephas, a stone, and upon _thee_ will I build my church! etc. But he did not. He first assured Peter that the knowledge he had received that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God, was received by revelation from God--"And I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock [principle] will I build my church," etc.; i.e., upon the principle of God revealing to men that Jesus was the Christ[56]--on the principle of revelation.
22. Another passage quoted in support of the theory that the apostles had successors in the bishops of Rome is found in the following: Jesus after his resurrection said to his apostles:
All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore and teach all nations; * * * and lo I am with you always even unto the end of the world. [57]
This is the argument--
The apostles themselves were only to live the ordinary term of {148} man's life: therefore the commission of preaching and ministering, together with the promise of divine assistance, regards the successors of the apostles, no less than the apostles themselves. This proves that there must have been an uninterrupted series of successors of the apostles, in every age since their time; that is to say, successors to their doctrine, to their jurisdiction, to their orders, and to their mission. [58]
Against this argument we put that of the late Apostle Orson Pratt:
We do not admit that the promise--"Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world," had any reference to any persons whatever only the eleven disciples mentioned. * * * * They were the only persons whom he [Jesus] addressed and to whom he made this great promise. "But," says Dr. Milner, "they were only to live the ordinary term of man's life," and consequently he draws the conclusion that the promise could not be fulfilled to them without successors. According to this curious inference of the learned bishop, the Lord must have forsaken the eleven disciples as soon as they died; for if he admit that Jesus continued with them after the period of the death of their mortal bodies, and that he will continue with them even unto the end of the world, then what need would there be for successors in order that the promise might be fulfilled? Prove that Jesus has not been with the eleven apostles from the time of their death until the present time, and that he will not be with them even unto the end of the world, and after you have proved this, you will prove that Jesus has falsified his word; for to be with the successors of the apostles is not to be with them. But whether the apostles have successors or not, Jesus will always be with them, and will bring them with him when he shall appear in his glory, and they shall sit upon thrones and judge the house of Israel during the great Millennium, while Jesus will not only be with them, but will reign with them even unto the end of the world.[59]
23. Those who believe that the church was founded on Peter; {149}that he became the bishop of Rome; that those who succeeded to that bishopric became the heir to his apostleship and right of presidency over the universal church, are as weak in their arguments as they are wrong in their conceptions of the foundation of the church and the right of succession in the priesthood.
24. Primacy of the Bishops of Rome Allowed by the Fathers.--It cannot be denied that the early fathers of the Christian church conceded to the bishops of Rome a certain "primacy of order and association;" but they did not concede to them any such authority as the popes wielded from the fifth and sixth centuries onward. The assumption of autocratic powers was resisted in the third century by Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, who contended for the equality and independence of all bishops. (See note 5, end of section.)
25. Opposition of the Bishops of Constantinople.--After Cyprian the Roman pontiffs found their chief opponents in the bishops of Constantinople. That city was made the capital of the empire early in the fourth century; and became a "New Rome." The importance given to the city by this act, and the lavish embellishments and increase of population which followed it, conferred great dignity on the patriarch appointed to preside there; and the council of Constantinople held A. D. 381, conferred upon him the second place among the great bishops of the world--the bishop of Rome being first. The council of Chalcedon, held in the next century [A. D. 451], decreed that the bishop of "New Rome" ought to be equal in power and authority with the bishop of Rome, assigning as a reason that the cities where they resided were equal in rank and dignity.
26. It would appear that second place ill-suited the ambitious prelates of "New Rome," and in this century began that struggle for supremacy between the bishops of the ancient and the new capital of the empire which ended finally in the division of the church. The strife raged with varying fortunes; but in the main {150} the Roman pontiffs were most successful. Still in the last half of the sixth century the bishop of Constantinople, John, called the Faster--on account of the austerity of his life--assumed the title of universal bishop and continued to hold it in spite of all the efforts and threats of the Roman prelates. Early in the seventh century the emperor, Phocas, being displeased with Cyriacus, the bishop of Constantinople, he divested him of the title of universal bishop and conferred it upon the Roman pontiff, Boniface III. "After Phocas' death the prelate of the east re-assumed the title. The two bishops each preserved it, and with equal ambition strove for the pre-eminence." [60] Instead of dwelling together as brethren and working for the spread of truth, they spent their time in vain disputes about the extent of their respective jurisdictions and wasted their revenues and strength in conquests and reprisals of each other's ecclesiastical provinces.
27. The Ascendency of the Roman Pontiffs.--Gradually, however, the Roman pontiffs surpassed their eastern competitors in the struggle for power. The first reason for this will be found in the superior activity and that restless energy of the western people. While the east was at a standstill in its missionary enterprises, at this period, the west was using its best endeavors to extend the faith among the barbarous peoples of Germany and Briton; and everywhere they went they taught submission to the decrees of the Roman pontiff. Not only did Rome send missionaries to the barbarians, but the barbarians came to Rome. They came with arms in their hands, and as conquerors, it is true, and in the closing years of the fifth century obtained an easy victory over the western division of imperial Rome. But if imperial Rome was vanquished, there rose above its ruins and above the kingdoms founded upon them by the all-conquering barbarians, papal Rome, in majesty no {151} less splendid than imperial Rome in her palmiest days; and in the course of time, the victorious barbarians bowed in as humble submission to the wand of the popes as their ancestors had to the eagle-mounted standards of the emperors.
28. Another reason why the Roman pontiff outstripped his eastern rival in the struggle for supremacy will be found in the superstitious reverence in which the barbarous nations that fell under the influence of Roman missionaries were accustomed to hold their priests. In the days of paganism in Gaul (France) and Germany the priests reigned over both people and magistrates, controlling absolutely the jurisdiction of the latter. The proselytes to the Christian faith among them, readily transferred that devout obedience which they had given to pagan priests, to the Christian bishops. The latter were not slow in appropriating to themselves all the honors the rude barbarians had before paid to their pagan priests, while the extraordinary reverence--which amounted to worship, according to some authorities--they bestowed upon their chief priest, was readily transferred to the pope. (See note 6, end of section.)
29. The Great Division of the Church in the Ninth Century.--The jealousy of the bishops of Rome and Constantinople finally ended in a division of the church, which remains to this day. It occurred in this manner: About the middle of the ninth century the emperor of the east--Michael--removed Ignatius [Ig-na-shi-us], bishop of Constantinople--whom he accused of treason--and set up one Photius [Fo-shi-us] in his place. Ignatius appealed to the bishop of Rome, Nicolaus I. Nicolaus [Nik-o-lus] called a council, which decided that the election of Photius was irregular and unlawful, and pronounced that he, with all his adherents, was unworthy of Christian communion. Instead of being humbled by this decree, and much less frightened at it, Photius convened a council, and in turn excommunicated the bishop of Rome.
30. To follow the controversies in respect to religion which {152} followed this action, and the contests which arose about the jurisdiction over certain ecclesiastical provinces, to note the criminations and recriminations, the excommunications and counter excommunications would be not only a dreary task but one which the limits of this work preclude. Let it be sufficient to say that the breach made in the church in the middle of the ninth century, and which had its origin in the mutual jealousies of the bishops of Rome and Constantinople, rather than in the wrong done to the deposed Ignatius, or doctrinal difference which afterwards arose--continued to widen and has proven to be a chasm which up to the present it has been impossible to bridge.
31. Means by Which Roman Pontiffs Gained Ascendency.--The popes of Rome, however, easily outstripped the prelates of Constantinople in wealth, in pride, in power, in the magnificence of their courts, in the veneration paid them by their subjects, in the extent of territory they brought under their jurisdiction, in the influence wielded in the affairs of the world. For by encouraging appeals to themselves; by assuming the care of all the churches, as if it were a part of their official duty; by appointing vicars in churches, over which they had no claims to jurisdiction; by assuming to be judges where they should have only been mediators; by requiring accounts to be sent to them of the affairs of foreign churches; by imposing the rites and usages of their own church upon all others, as being of apostolic origin; by insisting that their elevation was due to the pre-eminence of the Apostle Peter--whose successor they claimed to be; by maintaining that their fancied prerogatives belonged to them by divine right; by threatening with excommunication all who would not submit to their decrees; [61] by accepting the homage which the barbarians anciently bestowed upon their pagan priests; [62] by assuming {153} the temporal power of princes, and obtaining large grants of lands from kings and emperors [63] (see note 7, end of section)--by these means was that splendid though corrupt power established, before which monarchs trembled, and which for ages ruled the destinies of Europe.
32. Rise of the Temporal Power of the Pope.--The Roman pontiffs, not satisfied with claiming to hold the keys of heaven, determined through the prestige which this claim gave them to rule the earth.
33. The popes were at first dependent for their election upon the suffrages of the clergy and people of Rome. The election after the days of Constantine had also to receive the approval of the emperor. But in course of time all this was changed. The popes succeeded at last in conferring the privilege of electing a successor to the chair of St. Peter upon the clergy alone; and finally lodged that power in the college of cardinals.[64] The next step was to render the election independent of the sanction of the emperors. This, too, was finally accomplished. But no sooner was the church thus made independent of kings and emperors than the former began to dominate the latter, whose power was weakness in comparison with that of the popes.
34. They assumed the right not only to excommunicate and anathematize kings, but to free their subjects from their allegiance, and thus encourage rebellions and regicides. They assumed the power to inflict temporal punishments for violations of God's laws; and then claimed the power to remit those punishments {154} for a consideration paid into the sacred treasury.[65] Claiming to be the true successors of the humble fisherman of Galilee--St. Peter--and the vicars of the still more humble Nazarene, their crowns, and thrones and courts as far outshone in splendid worldly grandeur those of kings and emperors, as their pride and arrogance surpassed the pomp and vain glory of the princes of this world; until, at last, the pope exalted himself "above all that is called God, or that is worshiped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God." [66] (See notes 9 and 10, end of section.)
NOTES.
1. Apostasy in the Days of the Apostles.--The great apostasy of the Christian church commenced in the first century, while there were yet inspired apostles and prophets in their midst; hence Paul, just previous to his martyrdom, enumerates a great number who had "made shipwreck of their faith," and "turned aside unto vain jangling;" teaching "that the resurrection was already past;" giving "heed to fables and endless genealogies," "doubting about questions and strifes of words whereof came envyings, railings, evil surmisings, perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing the gain is godliness." This apostasy had become so general that Paul declares to Timothy, "that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me;" and again he says "at my first answer, no man stood with me, but all men forsook me;" he further says {155} that "there are many unruly, and vain talkers, deceivers, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake." These apostates, no doubt, pretended to be very righteous; "for," says the apostle, "they profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable and disobedient and unto every good work reprobate."--Orson Pratt.
2. Early Decline of the Church.--About the year of our Lord sixty, he [James] wrote his Catholic epistle. * * * By the practical turn of his doctrine, by his discanting on the vices of the tongue, of partiality to the rich, and of contemptuous treatment of the poor in Christian assemblies, and by his direction against vain swearing, it is but too evident that the church had considerably declined from its original purity and simplicity; and that the craft of Satan, aided ever by human depravity, was wearing out apace the precious fruits of that effusion of the Spirit, which has been described [alluding to the effusion on the day of Pentecost.]--Milner, Vol. I, page 34.
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 {156} 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 {157} 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 {158} 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?
{159} 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?
{160}
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 {161} 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.
{162} 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 {163} 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 {164} 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, {165} 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 {166} 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 {167} 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 {168} 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 {169} 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 {170} 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 {171} 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 {172} 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.)
{173} 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 {174} 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]
{175}
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 {176} 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 {177} 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 {178} 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?
{179} 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?
{180}
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 {181} 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 {182} 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 {183} 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 {184} 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 {185} 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? {186} 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 {187} 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]
16. State of Morals in Centuries Subsequent to the Fifth.--Such was the condition of the Christian church as to morals in the fifth century. It was no better in the sixth or the seventh or the eighth. Indeed the concurrent testimony of all authorities is to the effect that matters moral and spiritual grew gradually worse in these centuries until darkness covered the earth and gross darkness the people. Of the ninth century Mosheim says:
The ungodly lives of most of those intrusted with the care and government of the church are a subject of complaint with all the ingenuous and honest writers of this age. In the east, sinister designs, rancor, contentions and strife were everywhere predominant. * * *
In the west, the bishops hung round the courts of princes and indulged {188} themselves in every species of voluptuousness; while the inferior clergy and the monks were sensual, and by the grossest vices corrupted the people whom they were set to reform.[108]
17. State of Morals in Tenth Century.--Of the tenth century Dr. Milner, who wrote his great history for the purpose of maintaining that there had been a succession of pious men since the founding of the church by Messiah, and to "trace the goodness of God taking care of his church in every age by his providence," [109] says:
The famous annalist of the Roman Church,[110] whose partiality to the see of Rome is notorious, has, however, the candor to own that this [the tenth century] was an iron age, barren of all goodness; a leaden age, abounding in all wickedness; and a dark age, remarkable above all other things for the scarcity of writers and men of learning. Christ was then, as it appears, in a very deep sleep, when the ship was covered with waves; and what seemed worse, when the Lord was thus asleep there were no disciples, who by their cries, might wake him, being themselves all fast asleep. * * * Under an allusion by no means incongruous with the oriental abd scriptural taste, this writer [Baronius] represents the divine head of the church as having given up the church for its wickedness, to a judicial impenitency, which continued the longer, because there was scarcely any zealous spirits who had the charity to pray for the cause of God upon earth. * * * Infidel Malice has with pleasure recorded the vices and the crimes of the popes of this century. Nor is it my intention to attempt to palliate the account of their wickedness. It was as deep {189} and atrocious as language can paint; nor can a reasonable man desire more authentic evidence of history than that which the records both of civil and ecclesiastical history afford concerning the corruption of the whole church.[111]
18. The Church Destroyed.--Beyond this century it is not necessary to go. The church of Christ no longer existed in the earth. The persecution of the Jews and the Romans, coupled with the internal dissensions in the church; the rise of false teachers, who brought in damnable heresies; the changing of the character and spirit of the church government; the addition of pagan rites and ceremonies to the doctrines and ordinances of the gospel; the admixture of pagan philosophy with Christian theology; and, finally, the universal departure of the church from that moral life enjoined upon mankind by the precepts of the Christian religion--utterly subverted the religion of Jesus Christ, and destroyed the church which he founded. The apostasy of men from that religion and church was complete; and since they did not like to retain God in their hearts, God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts. [See notes 1 to 6, end of section].
NOTES.
1. Admission of the Great Apostasy by Christian Writers.--The church of England in its Homily on the Perils of Idolatry, says: "Laity and clergy, learned and unlearned, all ages, sects and degrees have been drowned in abominable idolatry most detested by God and damnable to man for eight hundred years and more."
2. In Smith's Dictionary of the Bible (page 163)--the work is endorsed by sixty-three learned divines and Bible scholars--the following {190} occurs: "We must not expect to see the church of Christ existing in its perfection on the earth. It is not to be found thus perfect, either in the collected fragments of Christendom, or still less in any one of those fragments."
3. John Wesley said that the reason why the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were no longer to be found in the church [in the dark ages] was "because the love of many waxed cold, the Christians had turned heathens again and only had a dead form left."--(Wesley's Works, Vol. vii, sermon 89, pages 26, 27).
4. Dr. Adam Clark commenting on the fourth chapter of Ephsians--treating church officers and the gifts bestowed upon them--says: "All these officers and the and graces conferred upon them were adjudged necessary by the great head of the church for its full instruction in the important doctrines of Christianity. The same officers and gifts are still necessary, and God gives them, but they do not know their places."
5. Roger Williams (Picturesque America, page 502) refused to continue as pastor over the oldest Baptist church in America on the ground that there was "no regularly constituted church on earth, nor any person qualified to administer any church ordinance; nor can there be until new apostles are sent by the great head of the church, for whose coming I am seeking."
5. Alexander Campbell, founder of the sect of the "Disciples," says: "The meaning of this institution [the kingdom of heaven] has been buried under the rubbish of human tradition for hundreds of years. It was lost in the dark ages and has never, until recently, been disinterred."--(Christianity Restored, page 184).
REVIEW.
1. What may be learned from the reproofs and admonitions in the writings of the apostles and early Christian fathers?
2. About what time did the notion arise in respect to a double rule of life?
3. What great evil grew out of this erroneous idea?
4. From whence did Christians derive their ideas which demanded the austerities they practiced?
5. Give an account of the origin of monasteries and nunneries.
6. How did the celibacy of the clergy originate?
7. When did it become an express law of the church?
8. What shameful scandal arose from this doctrine in the 3rd century?
9. Under what circumstances were lying and deceiving accounted virtues?
{191} 10. What evil grew out of this wicked notion?
11. What can you say of the general moral condition of the church in the early Christian centuries?
12. State the moral condition of the church in the 4th century. In the 5th.
13. What of the moral state of the church subsequent to the 5th?
14. Give the substance of Dr. Milner's admission concerning the moral state of the church in the 10th century.
15. State what several circumstances led to the destruction of the church of Christ.
16. Recount the admissions which noted Christian writers make concerning the apostasy from the Christian religion. (Notes end of section).
{192}
SECTION VII.
We have considered those events that occurred in the church by which its form and spirit of government were altered, its doctrines corrupted, its ordinances changed, and its truths and powers subverted. We now turn to the scriptures to show that all these things were predicted by the apostles and prophets of God, being foreseen by the spirit of revelation.
1. False Teachers to Arise in the Church.--On the occasion of Paul's last visit to Ephesus, he had the elders assembled, and in the course of his address to them said:
I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God. Taken heed, therefore, unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things to lead away disciples after them.[112]
2. In his second letter to Timothy the same apostle again prophesies of the coming of these false teachers:
I charge thee, therfore, [said he], before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke with all long suffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers having itching ears; and they [the false teachers] shall turn their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.[113]
3. Peter also prophesied the rise of false teachers in the {193} church. In his second epistle, addressed, "to them that have obtained like precious faith," with himself--that is, to the saints; after saying that prophecy in olden time came by men speaking as they were moved upon by the Holy Ghost;[114] he then remarks:
But there were false prophets also among the people [that is, among the ancient saints], even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. And through covetousness with feigned words make merchandise of you; whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.[115]
4. Hypocrisy and Austerity Predicted.--Paul also appears to have foreseen the hypocrisy that would creep into the church, together with that useless austerity of life with which men and women would become infatuated, and which, became the fountain of so much corruption. He thus speaks of it:
Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their conscience seared with a hot iron; forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats.[116]
5. The Rise of Anti-Christ Foretold.--Moreover, the Prophet Paul foretold the rise of anti-Christ before the glorious coming of Messiah to judgment. He plainly foresaw the "falling away"--the long night of spiritual darkness and apostasy that would brood over the world before the coming of the Son of God in the glory of his Father, to reward the righteous, to condemn the wicked. He said of this apostasy:
Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus {194} Christ and by our gathering together unto him; that ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.[117] Let no man deceive you by any means, for that day shall not come except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. Remember ye not that when I was yet with you I told you these things? And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his own time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth [hindereth] will let [will hinder][118] until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming; even him whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all power and signs and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusions, that they should believe a lie; that they all might be damned who believe not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. [119]
6. Isaiah's Great Prophecy of the Apostasy.--Isaiah also prophesied of the universal apostasy from the gospel of Christ. After describing the earth as mourning and fading away, together with its haughty people, he said:
The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant. Therefore hath the curse devoured the earth, and they that dwell therein are desolate: therefore the inhabitants of the earth are burned, and few men left. [120]
7. It is sometimes claimed that this prophecy refers to the Mosaic law, and the Mosaic covenant, instead of the gospel of Christ. The answer to such claim is that the prophecy has reference to an everlasting covenant that is to be broken; and the Mosaic law or covenant, never was intended to be an everlasting covenant, while the gospel of Christ is such a covenant. Paul said:
The scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel to Abraham. * * * Wherefore then serveth the law [that is, if the gospel was preached unto Abraham, of what use is the law of Moses--the law of carnal commandments--how came it into existence]? It was added because of transgression, till the seed [Christ] should come, to whom the promise was made. * * * Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. [121]
8. From this it appears that the gospel was preached in very ancient times; that afterwards, because of transgression--doubtless apostasy--the law of Moses was added, or given in the place of the gospel, that it might act as a schoolmaster to bring the people to Christ, that is, prepare them for the gospel. Therefore, when the gospel was introduced by the personal ministry of Messiah, the law of Moses--the carnal law--having served its purpose, was set aside, and the gospel was reinstated. It will be seen, therefore, that the Mosaic law was not an everlasting covenant, but a temporary law, given for a specific purpose, having accomplished which it is supplanted by a more excellent law and covenant. It is clear that Isaiah's great prophecy had no reference to the law of Moses, but to an everlasting covenant which was to be broken, its ordinance changed, its laws transgressed. That covenant is the gospel of {196} Jesus Christ, whose blood is spoken of as the "blood of the everlasting covenant." [122]
9. Moreover the prophecy ends by saying that in consequence of the transgression of the law, the changing of the ordinance, the breaking of the covenant, "the inhabitants of the earth are burned, and few men left." This predicted calamity did not overtake the people for breaking the Mosaic law. It has not yet taken place. It is a judgment still hanging over mankind for their great apostasy from the gospel of Jesus Christ.
10. John's Vision Foreshadowing the Apostasy.--Among the many revelations given to the Apostle John while a prisoner on the Isle of Patmos was one in which he saw an angel "fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, saying with a loud voice, "Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters." [123] From this it is learned that in the hour of God's judgment the gospel will be brought to the earth by an angel, and thence proclaimed to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, a very good evidence that in the "hour of God's judgment" all the world would be without the gospel, or why this restoration at that time and its universal proclamation if the nations at the time indicated already possessed it?
11. Thus through revelation the ancient prophets foresaw the great apostasy from the gospel of Jesus Christ. We who live now after the great event has occurred, in the light of historical facts, see it no more plainly than did these ancient servants of God through the gift of prophecy. They read the history of it by the light of revelation, we by the light of history, and the former is a light no less certain than the latter.
{197}
REVIEW.
1. By what means were the apostles and still more ancient prophets made acquainted with the great apostasy from the Christian religion?
2. Repeat the several prophecies concerning the rise of false teachers in the church.
3. Give the passage which predicts the rise of hypocrisy and austerity of life.
4. In what passage of Paul's writings is the rise of anti-Christ predicted?
5. What does letteth and let in this passage mean? Give proof.
6. State in what way Paul's great prophecy has been fulfilled.
7. State Isaiah's great prophecy respecting the apostasy.
8. What objection may be urged to our application of this prophecy?
9. How would you meet the objection?
10. What great judgment is still pending over the world because of their wicked apostasy?
11. What vision given to St. John on Patmos foreshadowed a universal apostasy?
12. If the gospel from the time it was established on the earth by Messiah's personal ministry had continued with men until now, would there be any necessity for restoring it to the earth in the hour of God's judgment?
13. Was the fact of the apostasy read by the light of the spirit of prophecy less clear than when by the light of historical facts?
{198}
SECTION VIII.
1. The Nephite Christian Church.--For nearly two centuries the Nephite Christian church flourished in great prosperity. For that length of time the truth seems to have been preserved in its fullness, and the church in its unity. With the third century, however, began that apostasy which eventually terminated by a complete subversion of the church of Christ on the Western hemisphere.
2. Pride of Wealth and Class Distinctions.--The peace and righteousness of two centuries brought great prosperity and wealth to the Nephite Christians--to the entire western hemisphere; but the commencement of the third century began to develop the fact that pride was pressing fast upon the heels of that prosperity. Up to the commencement of the third century the Nephite Christians had all things common; but early in the third century that order of things was broken up. Class distinctions arose, men began to pride themselves on their fine apparel and jewels. They began to build churches to get gain, and to deny the true church of Christ. Others, professing to be Christians, denied much of that which Messiah taught, and administered that which was sacred to those to whom it had been forbidden, because of unworthiness.
3. The Anti-Christian Church Persecutions.--There also arose an anti-Christian church, which persecuted the true church, despising the members thereof because of their humility, and hating them because of the power of God which was with them. Among the twelve apostles whom Jesus selected from the Nephites three desired that they might remain upon the earth until Messiah should come in his glory. {199} This request was granted them, and their bodies were changed that they were not subject to death. They had remained with the church up to the time of which we write, and against them the anti-Christian church was especially embittered. The apostates sought to kill them as the Jews at Jerusalem tried to kill Jesus; they cast them into prison and into dens of wild beasts; but the Lord delivered them from prisons, murders and the wild beasts, and that by the manifestations of his power. Yet the miracles did not convert their ungodly persecutors, and the wicked increased rapidly in numbers.
4. Revival of Old Distinctions.--Soon the ancient distinctions between Nephites and Lamanites which for two centuries had been buried in oblivion, began to be employed to designate the two peoples which gradually began to be formed. The true Christians were called Nephites, and their enemies Lamanite. All the old bitterness which attached to the names in former times was revived.
5. It was but a few years after the apostasy began before the wicked outnumbered the righteous. For a while the name "Nephites" designated the true followers of Messiah, but soon they became as proud and as wicked as the Lamanites, and righteousness was subverted.
6. Revival of Secret Organizations.--The old secret societies were revived for robbery and plunder. Early in the fourth century (320 A. D.) Ammoran, who had charge of the Nephite records, hid them up, revealing the place of their concealment only to Mormon, a lad then ten years of age, giving him a charge to go, when he was twenty-four years old, and take the plates of Nephi and record on them the things he had witnessed among the people. About the same time the three Nephite apostles disappeared from among the people; the church no longer being worthy of their administrations, the Lord took them away. All miracles, healings, and other spiritual manifestations ceased. Mormon, a historian and a {200} righteous man, remained with them, but he was forbidden to preach to them. A black pall of spiritual darkness settled over the land and the minds of the people.
7. An Attempt to Reorganize the Church.--Forty years later, after a series of disastrous wars, by which one might reasonably expect the Nephites would be humbled and brought to seek the Lord, an attempt to re-establish the church was made. Mormon received a commandment to preach repentance and baptism to the people, a commandment which he willingly obeyed; but all to no purpose. The people would not repent. They hardened their hearts against God and made themselves fit only for destruction.
8. Utter Destruction of the Nephites.--That destruction was not very remote. Towards the close of that century which witnessed the climax of their wickedness saw their destruction. By permission of the Lamanites the Nephites assembled about the hill called by them Cumorah and prepared for the last great struggle. It took place in the year 385 A. D., and resulted in the entire destruction of the Nephite people, except, perhaps, a few who fled southward. Mormon was slain, and his son, the last of the Nephites, was preserved to record the destruction and the desolation which followed it, and hid up the records of the great race which had founded kingdoms and republics upon the western hemisphere that would vie with those of Persia, Macedonia or Greece; and cities that in extent and grandeur must have equalled those of Antioch, Alexandria, Tyre or Sidon.
9. The Reign of Anarchy.--That civilization was destroyed, the empires and republics were overthrown, government was destroyed, anarchy reigned. The people, chiefly Lamanites, who survived the terrible conflict about Cumorah, broke up into tribes, each fiercely contending with the other. Cities were laid waste to crumble into shapeless heaps of ruin, with here and there a monument that defied the ravages of time and {201} proudly stood a silent witness of the greatness of the departed race which reared it. Such was the apostasy on the western hemisphere, and such the result which followed it.
REVIEW.
1. For how long did the Nephite Christian church keep the faith?
2. In the third century what occurred?
3. On what were their class distinctions based?
4. State what you can of the rise and course of the anti-Christian church.
5. What of the rise of old distinctions?
6. What old organizations were revived in the fourth century?
7. What attempt was made to reorganize the church?
8. Where were the Nephites destroyed?
9. What followed the destruction of the Nephites?
Footnotes
1. These statements are sustained in the following scriptures. Matt. x:16-40; Luke vi:22-26; John xv:18-22.
2. Acts vii: 55-60.
3. Acts xii: 1, 2.
4. Eusebius Bk. II, ch. xxiii.
5. Acts xii.
6. Mosheim Part I, ch. v.
7. Matt. xxvii: 22-25.
8. Josephus' Wars of the Jews, Bk. vi, ch. ix.
9. Luke xxi: 5-9, 20-24.
10. Eusebius Bk. III, ch. v. The Saints were also warned to flee from Jerusalem by Messiah himself when they should see armies begin to encompass it.--See Luke xxi: 20-24.
11. Decline and Fall Vol. I, ch. 1.
12. Annals lib. xv, ch. 44.
13. Decline and Fall I, ch. xvi. See also Guizot's note on same page.
14. This is according to the testimony of Eusebius, quoting Hagesippus and Tertullian. (Eusebius Book III, ch. xx). But other authorities claim that Domitian's edicts against the Christians were not revoked until after his death.
15. Mosheim's Eccl. Hist. I. Second Cent. ch. ii.
16. Decline and Fall, vol. I, ch. xvi.
17. Eusebius Eccle. Hist. Bk. v, ch. i and ii.
18. Decline and Fall, vol. I, ch. xvi.
19. Mosheim's Eccl. His. vol. I, cent. iii, ch. ii.
20. Mosheim's Eccl. Hist. vol. I, cent. iv, ch. i.
21. Quoted by Murdock in Mosheim.--See note--Mosheim Eccl. Hist. vol. I, p. 210.
22. Revelation ch. xiii: 1-7.
23. According to Eusebius, however, Helena was converted to Christianity by her son.--De Veta Constantine I, iii, ch: 47.
24. Constantine had caused to be put to death, through jealousy and on what, to say the least, was very slight and very suspicious testimony, his son Crispus, his wife Fausta, and his brother-in-law Licinius.
25. Decline and Fall, vol. I, ch. xvi.
26. Decline and Fall vol. I, ch. xvi.
27. Mosheim vol. I, Book i, part ii, ch. iv.
28. Acts ii: 41. Acts viii: 12, 35-40.
29. That exorcism was not annexed to baptism till some time in the third century, and after the admission of the Platonic philosophy into the church, may almost be demonstrated. The ceremonies used at baptism in the second century are described by Justin Martyr in his second apology, and by Tertullian in his book de Corono Militas. But neither makes mention of exorcism. This is a cogent argument to prove that it was admitted by Christians after the times of these fathers, and of course in the third century. Egypt perhaps first received it. Murdock's Mosheim vol. I, p. 190.--(Note.)
30. Mosheim vol. I, book i, part ii, ch. iv.
31. According to Schlegel, the so-called apostolic constitution (b. viii, ch. 32) enjoined a three years' course of preparation; yet with allowance of some exceptions.
32. That is, the evening preceding the day on which Messiah is supposed to have arisen from the dead, and the evening preceding the seventh Sunday after Easter, the anniversary of Pentecost when the Holy Ghost was poured out upon the Apostles in a remarkable manner (Acts ii.)
33. Mosheim vol. I, book ii, part ii. ch. iv.
34. Cyprian's Epistles, letter 76.
35. Eusebius Eccl. Hist. b. vi, ch. 43.
36. Milner's Church Hist. vol. I pp. 429, 430.
37. Such is the opinion of Milner--Church Hist. vol. I. p. 430.
38. The Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat; this is my body which is broken for you; this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying: This cup is the new testament in my blood; this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come.--Paul to the Corinthians. (I Cor. xi: 23-26.)
39. These facts are clearly taught by Messiah when he established the sacrament among the Nephites; and of course it was established among the Jews for the same purpose that it was among the Nephites. After having broken the bread and blessed it, and passed it to the multitude, Messiah said: "This shall ye do in remembrance of my body, which I have shown unto you. And it shall be a testimony unto the Father that ye do always remember me. And if you do always remember me, ye shall have my Spirit to be with you." So when he had administered the wine: "Blessed are ye for this thing which ye have done; * * * this doth witness unto the Father that ye are willing to do that which I have commanded you; and this shall ye always do to those who repent and are baptized in my name; and ye shall do it in remembrance of my blood which I have shed for you, that ye may witness unto the Father that ye do always remember me. And if ye do always remember me, ye shall have my Spirit to be with you."--III Nephi, xviii. See also Moroni, iv and v, where the prayer of consecration is given.
40. Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History, vol. I, book i, cent. iii, part 2, chapter iv. The banishment of unbaptized people from sacrament meetings was forbidden among the Nephites by Messiah. III Nephi xviii: 22-23.
41. Protestants combating the Catholic idea of the real presence of the flesh and blood in the eucharist--transubstantiation--have endeavored to prove that this doctrine was not of earlier origin than the eighth century. In this, however, the evidence is against them. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, writing early in the second century says of certain supposed heretics: "They do not admit of eucharists and oblations, because they do not believe the eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, who suffered for our sins." (Epistles of Ignatius to the Smyrneans.) So Justin Martyr, also writing in the first half of the second century:--"We do not receive them [the bread and the win] as ordinary food or ordinary drink; but as by the word of God Jesus Christ, our Savior, was made flesh and took upon him both flesh and blood for our salvation, so also the food which was blessed by the prayer of the word which proceeded from him, and from which our flesh and blood, by transmutation, receive nourishment, is, we are taught, both the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh." (Justin's Apology to Emperor Antonius.) After Justin's time the testimony of the fathers is abundant. There can be no doubt as to the antiquity of the idea of the real presence of the body and blood of Jesus in the eucharist; but that proves--as we said of infant baptism--not that the doctrine is true, but that soon after the apostles had passed away, the simplicity of the gospel was corrupted or else entirely departed from.
42. Luke xxii. Matt. xxvi. III Nephi xviii.
43. It will be remembered that the quorum of the twelve was perpetuated on the western hemisphere by filling up vacancies as fast as they occurred (IV Nephi: 14), but for how long a period is uncertain.
44. Acts xv: 1-30. Rev. i-iv.
45. During a greater part of this century (the second) all the churches continued to be, as at the first, independent of each other. * * * Each church was a kind of small republic, governing itself by its own laws, enacted or at least sanctioned by the people.--Ecclesiastical History, Mosheim Vol. I, book ii, cent. ii, part ii, ch. ii.
46. As might be expected, however, there was a peculiar respect paid to the churches founded by the apostles--the church at Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, Corinth, Rome. Those churches were appealed to in controversies on points of doctrine, "as most likely to know what the apostles taught," but the appeal had no other significance than that.
47. Clement, the third bishop of Rome, is my authority for the above statement. It appears that the Corinthians had deposed some of their bishops, and Clement in an epistle which he wrote to them said: "Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife over the name of the bishop's office. For this cause therefore, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the aforesaid persons [the bishops], and afterward they provided a continuance [i.e., gave instructions] that if these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed to their ministration. Those therefore who were appointed by other men of repute with the consent of the whole church, and have ministered unblamably * * * these men we consider to be unjustly thrust out of their ministration."--See also Gibbon's "Decline and Fall," vol. I, ch. xv.
48. Eccl. Hist. (Mosheim) vol. I, bk. i, cent. iii, part ii, ch. ii.
49. Dr. Mosheim in his Institutes of Ecclesiastical History states that next to the patriarchs were bishops called exarchs; but this his translator (Murdock) denies. Certain it is, however, that there were bishops who presided over several provinces, just as the civil exarchs