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 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. 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 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 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?
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?
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 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 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 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 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]
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 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 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 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 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 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, 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?
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 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 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 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.)
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.
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 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 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 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 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; 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.