← catalogue

A New Witness for God (Volume 1 of 3)

by B. H. Roberts · English · Gutenberg #46202 · 851,663 chars · public domain (US)

The Project Gutenberg eBook of A New Witness for God (Volume 1 of 3)
    
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.

Title: A New Witness for God (Volume 1 of 3)

Author: B. H. Roberts


        
Release date: July 6, 2014 [eBook #46202]
                Most recently updated: October 24, 2024

Language: English

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/46202

Credits: Produced by the Mormon Texts Project. See
        http://mormontextsproject.org/ for a complete list of
        Mormon texts available on Project Gutenberg, to help
        proofread similar books, or to report typos. Special thanks
        to Diane Evans for proofreading.


*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK A NEW WITNESS FOR GOD (VOLUME 1 OF 3) ***

A NEW WITNESS FOR GOD.

* * * *

BY

ELDER B. H. ROBERTS

AUTHOR OF

"THE GOSPEL," "THE LIFE OF JOHN TAYLOR," "OUTLINES OF ECCLESIASTICAL
HISTORY," "SUCCESSION IN THE PRESIDENCY OF THE CHURCH," ETC., ETC.

* * * *

"Some millions must be wrong, that's pretty clear. * * * * 'Tis time
that some new prophet should appear."

* * * *

PUBLISHED BY GEORGE Q. CANNON & SONS COMPANY, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH.
1895.



PREFACE.

Three quarters of a century have passed away since Joseph Smith
first declared that he had received a revelation from God. From that
revelation and others that followed there has sprung into existence
what men call a new religion--"Mormonism;" and a new church, the
institution commonly known as the "Mormon Church," the proper name of
which, however, is THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS.

Though it may seem a small matter, the reader should know that
"Mormonism" is not a new religion. Those who accept it do not so regard
it; it makes no such pretentions. The institution commonly called the
"Mormon Church," is not a new church; it makes no such pretensions, as
will be seen by its very name--the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints. This of itself discloses what "The Mormon Church" claims to
be--the Church of Jesus Christ; and to distinguish it from the Church
of Jesus Christ that existed in former days, the phrase "of Latter-day
Saints" is added. "Mormonism," I repeat, is not a new religion; it is
the Old Religion, the Everlasting Gospel, restored again to the earth
through the revelations received by Joseph Smith.

At a glance the reader will observe that these claims in behalf of
"Mormonism" pre-suppose the destruction of the primitive Christian
Church, a complete apostasy from the Christian religion; and hence,
from the standpoint of a believer, "Mormonism" is the Gospel of Jesus
Christ restored; and the institution which grows out of it--the
church--is the Church of Jesus Christ re-established among men.

During the three quarters of a century that have elapsed since the
first revelation was announced by Joseph Smith, the world has been
flooded with all manner of rumors concerning the origin of "Mormonism,"
its doctrines, its organization, its purposes, its history. Books
enough to make a respectable library, as to size, have been written on
these subjects, but the books, in the main, are the works of avowed
enemies, or of sensational writers who chose "Mormonism" for a subject
because in it they supposed they had a theme that would be agreeable to
their own vicious tastes and perverted talents, and give satisfactory
returns in money for their labor. This latter class of writers have
not only written without regard to truth, but without shame. They are
ghouls who have preyed upon the misfortunes of an unpopular people
solely for the money or notoriety they could make out of the enterprise.

That I may not be thought to overstate the unreliability of anti-Mormon
literature, I make an excerpt from a book written by Mr. Phil
Robinson, called _Sinners and Saints_. [1] Mr. Robinson came to Utah
in 1882 as a special correspondent of _The New York World,_ and stayed
in Utah some five or six months, making "Mormonism" and the Latter-day
Saints a special study. On the untrustworthiness of the literature in
question, he says:

"Whence have the public derived their opinions about Mormonism? From
anti-Mormons only. I have ransacked the literature of the subject,
and yet I really could not tell anyone where to go for an impartial
book about Mormonism later in date than Burton's 'City of the Saints,'
published in 1862. * * * But put Burton on one side, and I think I
can defy any one to name another book about the Mormons worthy of
honest respect. From that truly _awful_ book, 'The History of the
Saints,' published by one Bennett (even an anti-Mormon has styled him
'the greatest rascal that ever came to the West,') in 1842, down to
Stenhouse's in 1873, there is not to my knowledge a single Gentile work
before the public that is not utterly unreliable from its distortion of
facts. Yet it is from these books--for there are no others--that the
American public has acquired nearly all its ideas about the people of
Utah."

It may be asked why have not the Saints themselves written books
refuting the misrepresentations of their detractors, and giving correct
information about themselves and their religion. To that inquiry there
are several answers. One is that they _have_ made the attempt. Perhaps
not on a sufficiently extensive scale. They may not have appreciated
fully the importance of doing so; but chiefly the reason they have
not published more books in their own defense, and have not been more
solicitous about refuting slanders published against them, is because
of the utter impossibility of getting a hearing. The people to whom
they appealed were hopelessly prejudiced against them. Their case was
prejudged and they themselves condemned before a hearing could be had.
These were the disadvantages under which they labored; and how serious
such disadvantages are, only those know who have felt the cruel tyranny
of prejudice.

Now, however, there seems to be a change in the tide of their
affairs. Prejudice has somewhat subsided. There is in various
quarters indications of a willingness to hear what accredited
representatives of the "Mormon" faith may have to say in its behalf.
It is this circumstance that has induced the author to present for the
consideration of his fellow-men this work, which is written, however,
not with a view of defending the character of the Latter-day Saints,
but to set forth the message that "Mormonism" has to proclaim to the
world, and point out the evidences of divine inspiration in him through
whom that message was delivered.

The author has chosen for his work the title, "A NEW WITNESS FOR GOD,"
because that is the relation Joseph Smith, the great modern prophet,
sustains to this generation; and it is the author's purpose to prove,
first, that the world stands in need of such a witness; and, second,
that Joseph Smith is that witness.

The subject is treated under four THESES.

I.

_The world needs a New Witness for God._

II.

_The Church of Christ was destroyed; there has been an apostasy from
the Christian religion so complete and universal as to make necessary a
New Dispensation of the Gospel;_

III.

_The Scriptures declare that the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the last
days--in the hour of God's judgment--will be restored to the earth by a
re-opening of the heavens, and giving a New Dispensation thereof to the
children of men._

IV.

_Joseph Smith is the New Witness for God; a prophet divinely authorized
to preach the Gospel and re-establish the Church of Jesus Christ on
earth._

How well the writer has succeeded in sustaining these propositions, the
reader will judge for himself; he only asks that his treatment of the
subjects be considered with candor.

To guard against error or inaccuracy in doctrine the writer applied to
the First Presidency of the Church for a committee of brethren well
known for their soundness in the faith, and broad knowledge of the
doctrines of the Church, to hear read the manuscript of this book.
Whereupon Elder Franklin D. Richards, one of the Twelve Apostles of the
New Dispensation, and Church Historian; Elder George Reynolds, one of
the author's fellow-Presidents in the First Council of the Seventies;
and Elder John Jaques, Assistant Church Historian, were appointed as
such committee; and to these brethren, for their patient labor in
reading the manuscript, and for their suggestions and corrections, the
writer is under lasting obligations.

THE AUTHOR.

Footnotes

1. p. 245.



CONTENTS

* * * *

THESIS I.

THE WORLD NEEDS A NEW WITNESS FOR GOD.

CHAPTER I.

The Necessity of a New Witness

* * * *

THESIS II.

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST WAS DESTROYED; THERE HAS BEEN AN APOSTASY FROM THE
CHRISTIAN RELIGION, SO COMPLETE AND UNIVERSAL AS TO MAKE NECESSARY A
NEW DISPENSATION OF THE GOSPEL.

CHAPTER II.

The Effect of Pagan Persecution on the Christian Church

CHAPTER III.

The Effect of Peace, Wealth and Luxury on Christianity

CHAPTER IV.

Changes in the Form and Spirit of Church Government--Corruption of the
Popes

CHAPTER V.

Change in Public Worship--In the Ordinances of the Gospel

CHAPTER VI.

The Testimony of Prophecy to the Apostasy

CHAPTER VII.

Catholic Arguments--Protestant Admissions

* * * *

THESIS III.

THE SCRIPTURES DECLARE THAT THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST IN THE LAST
DAYS--IN THE HOUR OF GOD'S JUDGMENT--WILL BE RESTORED TO THE EARTH BY A
RE-OPENING OF THE HEAVENS, AND GIVING A NEW DISPENSATION THEREOF TO THE
CHILDREN OF MEN.

CHAPTER VIII.

The Necessity of a New Revelation--The Arguments of Modern Christians
Against it Considered

CHAPTER IX.

Prophetic History of the Church--The Restoration of the Gospel by an
Angel

* * * *

THESIS IV.

JOSEPH SMITH IS THE NEW WITNESS FOR GOD; A PROPHET DIVINELY AUTHORIZED
TO TEACH THE GOSPEL, AND RE-ESTABLISH THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST ON
EARTH.

CHAPTER X.

The New Witness Introduced

CHAPTER XI.

A New Dispensation of the Gospel

CHAPTER XII.

Objections to the New Witness Considered

CHAPTER XIII.

The Character of the New Witness

CHAPTER XIV.

Fitness in the Development of the New Dispensation

CHAPTER XV.

The Evidence of Scriptural and Perfect Doctrine

CHAPTER XVI.

Manner of the Prophet's Teaching

CHAPTER XVII.

The testimony of Toil and Suffering--Exertion and Danger--A Christian
Argument Applied

CHAPTER XVIII.

The Testimony of Miracles--The Evidence of Fulfilled Promises

[By an error Chapter XIX. was numbered XX., hence the apparent
omission.]

CHAPTER XX.

The Evidence of Prophecy

CHAPTER XXI.

The Evidence of Prophecy--Continued

CHAPTER XXII.

The Evidence of Prophecy--Continued

CHAPTER XXIII.

The Evidence of Prophecy--Concluded

CHAPTER XXIV.

The Church Founded by Joseph Smith, a Monument to his Inspiration

CHAPTER XXV.

Testimony of the Inspiration and Divine Calling of Joseph Smith Derived
from the Comprehensiveness of the Work he Introduced

CHAPTER XXVI.

Testimony of the Inspiration and Divine Calling of Joseph Smith Derived
from the Comprehensiveness of the Work he Introduced--Continued

CHAPTER XXVII.

Evidence of Inspiration Derived from the Wisdom in the Plan Proposed
for the Betterment of the Temporal Condition of Mankind

CHAPTER XXVIII.

Evidence of Divine Inspiration in Joseph Smith Derived from the
Prophet's Teaching in Regard to the Extent of the Universe, Man's
Place in it, and his Doctrine Respecting the Gods

CHAPTER XXIX.

Evidence of Divine Inspiration in Joseph Smith Derived from the
Prophet's Teaching in Regard to the Extent of the Universe, Man's
Place in it, and his Doctrines Respecting the Gods--Continued

CHAPTER XXX.

Evidence of Divine Inspiration in Joseph Smith Derived from the
Prophet's Teaching in Regard to the Extent of the Universe, Man's Place
in it, and his Doctrine Respecting the Gods--Concluded

CHAPTER XXXI.

The Testimony of the Martyrdom--Conclusion



THESIS I.

The World Needs a New Witness for God.



CHAPTER I.

THE NECESSITY OF A NEW WITNESS.

THE very title of this book may give offense. "A New Witness for God!"
will exclaim both ministry and laity of Christendom; "are not the Old
Witnesses sufficient? Has not their testimony withstood the assaults of
unbelievers, atheists and agnostics alike for nineteen centuries? What
need have we for a New Witness? Every weapon that hostile criticism
could suggest, has been brought to bear against the tower of our
faith based on the testimony of the Old Witnesses; and it stands more
victorious now than ever, four square to all the winds that blow. [1]
The testimony of the Old Witnesses has outlived the ridicule of
Voltaire, the solemn sneers of Gibbon, the satire of Bolingbroke, the
ribaldry of Paine; just as it will outlive the insidious assaults of
the German mythical school, and the rationalistic school of critics,
which are now much in vogue. Such the confident boast of orthodox
Christians.

"Meanwhile, every diocesan conference rings with the wail over 'infidel
opinions.' It grows notoriously more and more difficult to get educated
men to take any interest in the services or doctrines of the church;
* * * literature and the periodical press are becoming either more
indifferent, or more hostile to the accepted Christianity year by year;
the upper strata of the working class, upon whom the future of that
class depends, either stand coldly aloof from all the Christian sects,
or throw themselves into secularism. Passionate appeals are made to all
sections of Christians, to close their ranks, not against each other,
but against the 'skepticism rampant' among the cultivated class and the
religious indifference of the democracy." [2]

In the face of these facts, notwithstanding the confident boasts of
orthodox Christians about the invulnerableness of the testimony of the
Old Witnesses, it will be well for us to look a little more closely
into the achievements of Christianity, Catholic as well as Protestant,
and see if they are as satisfactory when measured by actual results, as
they are claimed to be in the fervid rhetoric of the orthodox special
pleader.

What is distinctly and commonly recognized as the Christian religion,
was founded some nineteen centuries ago [3], by the personal ministry
of Jesus Christ, and those whom he chose as Apostles. For about three
centuries it had a hard struggle for existence. The persecutions waged
against it, first by the Jews, from whose religious faith it may be
said to have sprung; and second, from the pagans, then in possession
of all secular power, well-nigh overcame it. The "beast" made war upon
the saints and "prevailed against them." Then Constantine, the friend
of Christianity, succeeded to the imperial throne of Rome, and external
persecution ceased. Christian ministers were invited to the court of
the emperor and loaded with wealth and honors. Magnificent churches
were erected, and the hitherto despised religion became the favorite
_protege_ of the imperial government. From a precarious and wretched
existence, the Christian church was suddenly raised to a position of
magnificence and power. Nor was it long in playing the part of the
camel which, being permitted by the kind indulgence of its master to
put its head within the tent during a violent storm, next protruded
its shoulders, then its whole body, and turning about kicked out its
master. [4] So did the Christian ecclesiastical power with the civil
power. That is to say, that which was at first granted to the church
as a privilege was soon demanded as a right; and what was at first
received by grace, was at the last taken by force. On the ruins of
pagan Rome, rose papal Rome, and while the latter power did not abolish
secular government, it did make it subservient to ecclesiasticism. From
the chair of St. Peter, the Roman pontiffs ruled the world absolutely.
Kings and emperors obeyed them, and all stood in awe before the throne
of the triple-crowned successor of St. Peter.

Finally, through the mutual jealousy and ambition of the bishops of
Rome and Constantinople, a controversy arose which, in the ninth
century, resulted in a great and lasting division of Christendom into
two great ecclesiastical bodies; viz., the Greek Catholic or Eastern
Church, and the Roman Catholic or Western Church. In the Western Church
the secular or civil power continued to be regarded as subordinate to
ecclesiastical authority, a sort of convenient instrument to execute
the decrees of the church. Hence Roman Catholic Christianity drew to
itself all that prestige in the propagation of its doctrines which
comes from the authority and support of the state; and though the power
of the state was held to be subordinate to that of the church, no
one who has read our Christian annals can help being struck with the
importance of the civil power as a factor in the propagation of Roman
Catholic Christianity. The barbarous peoples who came in contact with
the Christian nations, were often compelled to accept the so-called
Christian religion as one of the terms of capitulation; and the fear
of the sword often eked out the arguments of the priests, and was
generally much more effective.

I think it proper that the above statement should be emphasized by the
following proofs:

"In the year 772, A. D., Charlemagne, king of the Franks, undertook
to tame, and to withdraw from idolatry, the extensive nation of the
Saxons, who occupied a large portion of Germany, and were almost
perpetually at war with the Franks, respecting their boundaries and
other things; for he hoped that if their minds could become imbued
with the Christian doctrines, they would gradually lay aside their
ferocity, and learn to yield submission to the empire of the Franks.
The first attack upon their heathenism produced little effect, being
made not with the force of arms, but by some bishops and monks whom
the victor had left for that purpose among the vanquished nation. But
much better success attended the subsequent wars which Charlemagne
undertook, in the years 775, 776, and 780, A D., against that heroic
people, so fond of liberty, and so impatient, especially of sacerdotal
domination. For in these assaults, not only rewards, but also the sword
and punishments were so successfully applied upon those adhering to
the superstition of their ancestors, that they reluctantly ceased from
resistance, and allowed the doctors whom Charles employed to administer
to them Christian baptism. Widekind and Albion, indeed, who were two
of the most valiant Saxon chiefs, renewed their former insurrections;
and attempted to prostrate again by violence and war, that Christianity
which had been set up by violence. But the martial courage, and the
liberality of Charles at length brought them, in the year 785, solemnly
to declare that they were Christians, and would continue to be so. *
* * The Huns inhabiting Pannonia, were treated the same way as the
Saxons; for Charles so exhausted and humbled them by successive wars,
as to compel them to prefer becoming Christians to being slaves." [5]

In Denmark, during the tenth century, "the Christian cause had to
struggle with great difficulties and adversities, under King Gorman,
although the queen was a professed Christian. But Harald, surnamed
Blatand, the son of Gorman, having been vanquished by Otto the Great,
about the middle of the century, made a profession of Christianity in
the year 949, and was baptized. * * * Perhaps Harald, who had his birth
and education from a Christian mother, Tyra, was not greatly averse
from the Christian religion; and yet it is clear that in the present
transaction he yielded rather to the demands of his conqueror, than to
his own inclinations. For Otto, being satisfied that the Danes would
never cease to harass their neighbors with wars and rapine, if they
retained the martial religion of their fathers, made it a condition of the
peace with Harald that he and his people should become Christians." [6]

"Waldemar I., King of Denmark, obtained very great fame by the many
wars he undertook against the pagan nations, the Slavs, the Wends,
the Vandals, and others. He fought not only for the interests of his
subjects, but likewise for the extension of Christianity; and wherever
he was successful, he demolished the temples and images of the gods,
the altars and groves, and commanded the Christian worship to be set
up. * * * The Fins who infested Sweden with frequent inroads, were
attacked by Eric IX., King of Sweden, called St. Eric, after his death,
and by him subdued after many bloody battles. * * * The vanquished
nation was commanded to follow the religion of the conqueror, which
most of them did with reluctance and disgust."

"Towards the close of the century [the tenth], * * * some merchants of
Bremen or of Lubec trading to Livonia, took along with them Mainhard, a
regular canon of St. Augustine in the monastery of Segberg in Halsatia,
to bring that warlike and uncivilized nation to the Christian faith.
But as few listened to him, Mainhard consulted the Roman pontiff,
who created him the first bishop of the Livonians, and desired that
war should be waged against the opposers. This war, which was first
waged with the Esthonians, was extended farther and prosecuted more
rigorously by Berthold, the second bishop of the Livonians, after the
death of Mainhard; for this, Berthold, formerly Abbot of Lucca, marched
with a strong army from Saxony, and recommended Christianity not by
arguments but by slaughter and battle. Following his example, the third
bishop, Albert, previously a canon of Bremen, entering Livonia in the
year 1198, well supported by a fresh army raised in Saxony, and fixing
his camp at Riga, he instituted, by authority of Innocent III., the
Roman pontiff, the military order of knight's sword-bearers, who should
compel the Livonians by force of arms to submit to baptism. New forces
were marched from time to time from Germany, by whose valor and that of
the sword-bearers the wretched people were subdued and exhausted, so
that they at last substituted the images of Christ and the saints in
place of their idols." [7]

A volume of evidence similar in import to the foregoing could be
compiled, showing that from the accession of Constantine the Great down
to the sixteenth century, the Roman Catholic Church did not hesitate to
employ the civil power to enforce conversion and punish recalcitrants.

If the Eastern Church has been less successful in extending the borders
of Christianity by means of conquests waged by the civil power, it was
because the division of the world it occupied afforded less opportunity
than Western Europe, where a great struggle was on between the race of
men made weak by the effete civilization of Rome and the more vigorous
barbarians. But while the Eastern Church made less direct use of the
sword to extend its dominions, it nevertheless had the state for an ally
which sustained it at need.

When in the sixteenth century the great revolt against the authority
of the pope and the religion of the Roman Catholic Church gave birth
to the Protestant churches, they, too, in the main, formed alliances
with the states in which they were founded. Nay, in the very struggle
for their existence, the states of Germany, of Holland, Scandinavia
and of England, drew the sword in their behalf and by their support
made it possible for the seceding religionists to establish churches
despite all efforts of the Roman pontiffs to prevent them; and after
the revolution was an accomplished fact, the states above enumerated
continued to give support to the churches founded within their borders.
If the church and the state in some instances were regarded as separate
and distinct societies, they acted at the same time as close neighbors,
and nearly interested in each other's welfare. If they lived separate,
they were not estranged; and each at need gave the other support.

I have thought it necessary to call the attention of the reader to
the conditions in which Christianity has existed since the days of
Constantine under all three great divisions of Christendom--the
Roman Catholic, the Greek Catholic, and Protestant--in order that
he might be reminded of the fact that circumstances of the most
propitious character have existed for the propagation of the so-called
Christian religion. Christendom has had at its command the wealth
and intelligence of Europe; it has been able to follow the commerce
of European states into every country of the world; and not only its
commerce, but its conquests as well; and wherever the love of adventure
or the desire for conquest has led Christian soldiers, Christian
priests have either accompanied or followed them, that the gospel, in
the hands of the Christian minister, might be a balm for the wounds
inflicted by the sword in the hands of the Christian soldier; so that
if Christian armies were a bane to the savages, the Christian priests
might be an antidote!

Yet with all the advantages which came to Christianity through the
support of the state; with the intelligence and wealth of Europe behind
it; with the privilege of following in the wake of its commerce and
conquests; what has Christendom done in the way of converting the world
to its religion? But a little over one-fourth of the inhabitants of the
earth are even nominally Christian! There are in the world, according
to statistics published on the subject:

  Roman Catholics ...........................206,588,206

  Protestants (all sects) ................... 89,825,348

  Greek and Russian Churches ................ 75,691,382

  Oriental Churches ......................... 6,770,000

  Making the total of all Christians........ 378,874,936.

  The other religions stand as follows:

  Brahminical Hindoos .......................120,000,000

  Followers of Buddha, Shinto and
  Confucius .................................482,600,000

  Mohammedans ...............................169,054,789

  Jews ....................................... 7,612,784

  Parsees (fire-worshipers in Persia) ........ 1,000,000

  Pagans not otherwise enumerated ...........277,000,000
                                           ______________

  Making a total of .......................1,007,267,573 [8]

Surely when the superior advantages for the propagation of the
Christian religion are taken into account, one could reasonably expect
better results than this, after a period of nineteen centuries, sixteen
of which may be said to have been of a character favorable to the
extension of the borders of the church.

But let us take a nearer view of the status of Christendom. As seen in
the foregoing, but a little more than one-fourth of the population of
the earth is even nominally Christian. No one will contend that all
those nominally Christians are really Christians. Church membership
may be one thing, conversion to the Christian religion quite another.
If those who are Christians in name only, and church members from
custom or for worldly advantage were separated from those who are
Christians upon principle, upon conversion and real faith, the number
of Christians in the world would be materially reduced. For it cannot
be denied that when any religion becomes popular there are multitudes
of insincere men who will outwardly accept it, and give it lip-service
in return for the advantages that accrue to them socially, financially
or politically.

Moreover, Christendom is not united in one great body or church; but
on the contrary it is divided into numerous contending factions whose
differences are so far fundamental that there appears no prospect of
reconciliation among them. The Catholics refuse to recognize any power
of salvation in Protestantism. To the Catholic the Protestant is an
heretic, a renegade child; and on the other hand, to the Protestant,
the Catholic is an idolator, and the pope the very anti-Christ,
prophesied of in scripture.

Nor are the Roman and Greek Catholics much nearer at one with each
other than the Roman Catholics and Protestants. Away back in the
ninth century, as a result of the controversy between the Eastern and
Western Churches, Pope Nicholas, in a council held at Rome, solemnly
excommunicated Photius, the patriarch of Jerusalem, and had his
ordination declared null and void. The Greek emperor resented this
conduct of the pope, and under his sanction Photius, in his turn,
convened what he called an acumenical council, in which he pronounced
sentence of excommunication and deposition against the pope, and got it
subscribed by twenty-one bishops and others amounting in number to one
thousand.

Although this breach was patched up after the death of the Emperor
Michael, difficulties broke out again between the East and the West
from time to time, until finally in the eleventh century, when Michael
Cerularius, patriarch of Constantinople, opposed the Western Church
with respect to their making use of unleavened bread in the sacrament,
their observation of the Sabbath, and fasting on Saturdays, charging
therein that they lived in communion with the Jews. Pope Leo IX.
replied, and in his apology for the Western Churches, declaimed warmly
against the false doctrine of the Greeks, and ended by placing on
the altar of Santa Sophia, by his legates, a deed of excommunication
against the Patriarch, Michael Cerularius. This was the final rupture.
From that time the mutual hatred of the Greeks and the Latins became
insuperable, insomuch that they have continued ever since separated
from each other's communion. [9]

Though both the Greek and the Protestant Churches are separated
from the Roman Catholic Church, yet there is no union or fellowship
between them; on the contrary, they hold doctrines so opposite that
union between them is out of the question. At least so remote is the
prospect, that all attempts at union have been ineffectual.

Turn now to Protestant Christendom. Surely we shall find a union of
organization and agreement of sentiment here! But no; division, on
the contrary, is multiplied. Protestant Christendom is divided into
numerous sects between some of which the gulf of separation is almost
as broad and deep as that which separates Protestants from Catholics.
Such is the distracted condition of Protestant Christendom that sects
are daily multiplying, and confusion is constantly increasing. Nor can
one refrain from saying with Cardinal Gibbons, that "This multiplying
of creeds is a crying scandal, and a great stumbling-block in the way
of the conversion of the heathen nations." [10] And I will add, equally
a stumbling-block to the conversion of the unbelievers living among
Christians.

This last class of persons named, the unbelievers living among
Christians, we must now consider; and note the effect of their assaults
upon Christianity. They are, for the most part, without organization;
without unity of purpose, except in so far as they are united in their
disbelief of revealed religion. Their position being essentially a
negative one, the incentive to organization is not active. It requires
unity of purpose and organization of effort to build; those who content
themselves with pointing out the defects, real or imagined, of the
work of the builders, or saying the structure does not answer well
the purposes for which it was erected, feel no such necessity for
organization as the builders do.

In consequence of having no organization, infidels keep no account of
their numerical strength; they publish no statistics, and therefore we
have no way of estimating how numerous they are. But no one with large
acquaintance in Christian countries, and who is in touch with the trend
of modern religious thought, can doubt that the number of unbelievers
is considerable, and their influence upon the Christian religion more
damaging than Christian enthusiasts are willing to admit.

What a motley crowd this great body of unbelievers is! First is the
downright atheist who says plainly, "There is no God. Nothing but blind
force is operating in the universe; there is no Providence whose will
can interrupt the destined course of nature." Providence they set down
as a dream. "The universe and all its varied phenomena are generated
by natural forces out of cosmic atoms, and into atoms to be again
resolved," is their creed.

Following the atheist is the deist, who, while not one whit behind the
atheist in rejecting revealed religion, is of the opinion that mind
is somewhere operating in the universe, but refuses to recognize that
intelligence as associated with a personality. Still that Intelligence,
whatever or wherever it be, is God; but with them is always "It," never
"He."

Then comes the agnostic. He prefers to suspend his judgment on
the question of Deity; and with a modesty, not always free from
affectation, says, "I don't know. The evidence in the case is not
quite clear; in fact it is sometimes quite conflicting." He questions;
is debating; but you find his sympathies, at bottom, on the side of
unbelief.

Next to the agnostic comes the rationalist, who, while he leaves God
more or less of an open question, has his mind made up in respect to
Jesus Christ. He recognizes him as a good man, though mistaken on many
questions; but though he strips Jesus of all divinity, he nevertheless
recognizes him as the friend of God and of man; and sees embodied in
him, moreover, "the symbol of those religious forces in man which are
primitive, essential and universal." [11]

Such are the varied classes which assail the Christian religion. Their
methods of assault, though having much in common, are as varied as
the kinds of unbelievers. The atheist mockingly asks if there be a
God why he does not make himself manifest to all the world; why he
keeps himself shrouded in mystery? Why not reveal himself to all as
well as to a chosen few? Pushing aside the testimony of those who say
they have stood in his presence, he boldly asserts there is no God,
because no one has ever seen him; he has not made himself known to men,
and in conclusion he points to the natural and uninterrupted order of
things in the universe as proof that all things are governed by blind
forces instead of intelligence, whether a personality or apart from
personality.

The deists say nearly all that the atheists say; but admitting an
intelligence back of all phenomena in the universe, they pretend to
read his will in the book of nature, [12] and contrast its perfections
with the imperfections of all written books of revelation. To them
the Bible--the Christian volume of revelation--is imperfect and
contradictory; it teaches a morality and seems to tolerate practices
unworthy of a Being of infinite goodness.

The agnostics join with the deists in their objections. They see all
the contradictions, imperfections and alleged immorality that deists
see in the Christian volume of revelation; and with them question the
authenticity and credibility of the scriptures. If they differ from
the deists in anything, it is simply in arriving at a less positive
conclusion. But the worst is to come.

There has arisen within our century, mainly in Germany, a class of
theological writers, who indeed profess a reverence both for the name
and person of Jesus Christ, and a real regard, moreover, for the
scriptures as "embodiments of what is purest and holiest in religious
feeling;" and yet they degrade Christ to a mere name, and strip the
scriptures of all their force as the word of God, by denying the
historical character of the Biblical narrative. Starting with the
postulate that the miraculous is impossible and never happens, or at
least has never been proven, [13] they relegate the scriptures--the New
Testament as well as the Old--to the realms of poetry, legend or myth,
because they are filled with accounts of the miraculous. [14]

This movement of theological thought had its origin in a new science,
the science of historical criticism, which had its birth in our own
nineteenth century. The new science consisted simply in applying to the
mass of materials on which much of ancient history had been hitherto
based--myths, legends and oral traditions--the rules [15] embodying
the judgment of sound discretion upon the value of different sorts
of evidence. The effect of the application of this principle to the
materials out of which our ancient histories were constructed, was to
banish to the realms of pure myth or doubtful legend much which our
fathers accepted as historical fact. The relations of ancient authors
are no longer received with as ready a belief as formerly; nor are
all ancient authors any longer put upon the same footing and regarded
as equally credible, or all parts of their work supposed to rest upon
the same basis. [16] Many old, fond theories have been shattered;
in some respects the whole face of antiquity has been changed, [17]
and instead of now looking upon the ancients as demi-gods, and the
condition in which they lived as being something supernatural, we
are made to feel that they were men of like passions with ourselves,
possessed of the same weaknesses, actuated by the same motives of self
interest, ambition, jealousy, love, hatred; and that the conditions
surrounding them were no more supernatural than those which surround
us. The science of historical criticism by the application of its main
principle has stripped ancient times of their prodigies, and has either
brought those demi-gods of legend to earth and made them appear very
human, or has banished them entirely from real existence.

So long as the leading principle of this new science was applied to
profane history alone; and the revolution it inaugurated confined
to smashing the myths of ancient Greece, Rome, Babylon, Egypt and
India, no complaints were heard. Indeed, the work was very generally
applauded. But when the same principle began to be applied to what, by
Christians at least, was considered sacred history, then an exception
was pleaded.

This difficulty was met by orthodox believers much in the same way that
an earlier question, one about miracles, was met by Conyers Middleton.
It will be remembered that the Catholic Church has always claimed for
herself the power of working miracles from the earliest days until the
present; and cites, in confirmation of her claims, testimony that seems
at once respectable and sufficient. The Protestants, with the Anglican
Church at their head, in the discussions to which reference is here
made, conceded that the possession of the gift of working miracles was
_prima facie_ evidence of divine authority and soundness of faith. [18]
So much being conceded, Protestants were puzzled when to fix the date
that miracles ceased. They were certain that no miracles had happened
in their times, but were equally positive that they had occurred in
the early Christian centuries. But the recent testimony presented by
their Catholic opponents was just as worthy of belief as the testimony
of the early Christian Fathers; in some respects it was better,
because it was within reach for examination. What was to be done? If
this recent testimony of the Catholic Church concerning miracles was
to be rejected, could the earlier testimony of the Christian Fathers
stand? The discussion had reached this point when Middleton published
his "Free Inquiry," in which he held that the miracles claimed by
the Catholic Church, both in former and recent times must stand or
fall together. For if the testimony of the early Christian Fathers
and contemporary witnesses could confirm the former, the testimony of
the recent witnesses, being just as respectable as the former, and
hence as worthy of belief, would confirm the latter. Middleton met
the difficulty by rejecting all testimony to miracles after the close
of the apostolic age. When it was suggested that the New Testament
miracles might be treated in a like summary manner, he took the
position that the New Testament account of miracles was inspired, and
therefore beyond the reach of criticism.

So likewise I say, orthodox Christians were disposed to meet
the application of this principle of Historical Criticism under
consideration. They protested against the application of it to sacred
history. They insisted that the marvelous occurrences related in the
Bible, and which read so much like myth or legend, were recorded
by inspired writers, hence above criticism. The exception pleaded,
however, was not granted. There were bold spirits both within the
church as well as outside of it, who did not hesitate, at least so
far as the Old Testament was concerned, to apply the new methods of
criticism to sacred history.

The conclusions of those who started with the hypothesis that what we
call the miraculous is impossible, would not be difficult to forecast.
From the outset, with them, the Old Testament was doomed. In the
wonderful incidents related as the experience of the patriarchs, of
Moses, Aaron, Joshua and the kings and prophets of Israel, this school
of critics could discern a striking parallel to the legends of Rome, of
Greece and Egypt; and as readily rejected the one as the other. They
rejected also the cosmogony of Genesis, insisting that it was not the
history of the creation but poetry, and as such must be regarded, but
not as fact.

Suspicion once cast upon the historical value of sacred writings, the
critics grew bolder and declared that portions of the sacred narrative
presented the appearance of being simply myths; and from this by
degrees it soon became the fashion to attach a legendary character
to the whole of the Old Testament. It was decided by the same class
of critics that the whole narrative, in the main, rests upon oral
tradition and that that tradition was not written until long after
the supposed events occurred. Moreover, when the old traditions were
written, the work was done by poets bent rather on glorifying their
country than upon recording facts; and it is claimed that at times they
did not hesitate to allow imagination to amplify the oral traditions
or at need to invent new occurrences, to fill up blanks in their
annals. The authorship of the sacred books was held to be a matter of
great uncertainty, as well as the date at which they were written; but
certainly they were not written until long after the dates usually
assigned for their production. This style of criticism not only got rid
of the cosmogony of Genesis, but discredited as histories the whole
collection of books comprising the Old Testament. The Fall of man, that
fact which gives meaning to the atonement of Christ, and without which
the scheme of Christian salvation is but an idle fable--was regarded as
merely a myth. So, too, were the revelations of God to the patriarchs;
his communion with Enoch; his warning to Noah, together with the story
of the flood; the building of Babel's tower; the visions of Abraham;
the calling of Moses; the splendid display of God's power in the
deliverance of Israel from bondage; the law written upon the tables of
stone by the finger of God, the ark of the covenant and the visible
presence of God with Israel; the visitation of angels to the prophets;
their communion with God and the messages of reproof, of warning or
of comfort they brought to the people--all, all were myths, distorted
legends, uncertain traditions told by ecstatic poets, falsely esteemed
prophets! Such was the wreck which this new science of criticism made
of the Old Testament.

There was scarcely a halt between the wrecking of the Old Testament
by this new school of critics and their assault upon the New. Their
success gave them confidence, and they attacked the Christian documents
with more vigor than they had the Old Testament. By research which did
not need to be very extensive in order to conduct them to the facts,
they discovered that the age which witnessed the rise of the Christian
religion was one in which there existed a strong preconception in favor
of miracles; that is, the miraculous was universally believed, and it
was held by our new school of critics that this pre-conception in favor
of miracles influenced the writers of the New Testament to insert them
in their narratives.

Ever present in their New Testament criticism as in that of the
Old, was the cardinal principle that miracles never take place--the
miraculous is the impossible; [19] hence whenever our anti-miracle
critics found accounts of miracles interwoven in the biographies of
Jesus, or in the epistles of the apostles, they inexorably relegated
them to the sphere of myth or legend. [20]

Unhappily for orthodox believers who cling to the gospel narratives
as reliable statements of fact, they themselves found it necessary to
discard as apocryphal many of the books and writings which sprang into
existence in the early Christian centuries; books which pretended to
relate incidents in the life of Messiah, especially those which treated
of his childhood and youth. The marvelous account of his moulding
oxen, asses, birds and other figures out of clay, which at his command
would walk or fly away; his power to turn his playmates into kids; his
striking dead with a curse the boys who offended him; his stretching
a short board to its requisite length; his silencing those who try to
teach him [21]--all this, and much more, Christians had to discard as
pure fable. But they stopped short with the pruning process at the
books of the New Testament as we now have them.

Our new school of critics, however, infatuated with the chief principle
of their new science, went right on with the pruning, and made as sad
work of the New Testament as they had with the Old. They rejected the
miraculous in the New Testament writings as well as the account of
miracles which the Christians themselves rejected in the apocryphal
writings. By this step they got rid of the story of the miraculous
conception and birth of Christ; of the journey of the vision-led
magi; of the dream-led Joseph; of the testimony of the Holy Ghost,
and of the Father at Christ's baptism; of converting water into wine;
of Christ walking upon the water; of the miraculously fed multitude;
of the healing of the sick by a word or with a touch; casting out
devils; the raising of the dead; the earthquake; the rending of the
vail of the temple; and the miraculous three hours' darkness at the
crucifixion; Christ's resurrection from the dead; his appearance
after the resurrection; his final ascension into heaven; and the
declaration of the two angels that he would come again to the earth as
he had left it: in the clouds of heaven and in great glory. The new
criticism got rid of all this--all that makes Christ God, or one of
the persons of the Godhead, or that ascribes to him powers above those
that may be possessed by a man. Christ's divinity is destroyed by this
method of criticism, and one instinctively asks what there is left,
and is told--"The manifestations of the God concealed in the depths
of the human conscience." [22] "God-man, eternally incarnate, not an
individual but an idea!" [23]

To this then it comes at last, a Christianity without a Christ--that
is, without a divine Christ; and a Christ not divine--not God manifest
in the flesh, is no Christ. We had trusted that Jesus of Nazareth
had been he who would have redeemed not only all Israel, but all the
nations of the earth. We and our fathers had believed that he had
brought life and immortality to light through the gospel; but alas! it
turns out according to our new school of critics, that his "revelations
of blissful scenes of existence beyond death and the grave, are but
one of the many impostures which time after time have been palmed off
on credulous mankind!" Christ but a man, "the moralist and teacher of
Capernaum and Gennesaret"--nothing more! On a level with Socrates,
or Hillel, or Philo! What a void this new school of criticism makes!
A Christianity without the assurance of the resurrection! without
the hope of the glorious return of the Messiah, to reward every man
according to his works!

The new school of critics does not question so severely as other
critics have done the authenticity of the Christian documents, or the
date of their origin. Indeed, one of their chief apostles concedes the
authenticity of the gospels and their antiquity. [24] But after having
admitted the authenticity and antiquity of the Christian documents,
they then proceed to mutilate the story they relate--the gospel they
teach--as to render it practically valueless to mankind. This is
accomplished by regarding the Christian documents as legends, [25]
from which if we would arrive at historical truth must be excluded
all that is miraculous, [26] and hence all that makes Christ God. And
while to the imagination of the idealist much that is of value and
that is beautiful may remain in the attenuated Christianity which
the new criticism would leave us, yet for the great body of humanity
such a Christianity would be worthless. For however beautiful the
moral precepts of the merely human Jesus may be, they will have no
perceptible influence on the lives of the multitude unless back of
them stands divine authority, accompanied by a conviction of the fact
of man's immortality and his accountability to God for his conduct.
Shorn of these parts, what remains may be beautiful; but it would
be as the beauty of a man from whom the spark of life had fled--the
beauty of the dead. Of course the orthodox Christian denies that this
style of attack on the Christian religion has had any success. To him
it is an "attack" which has "failed." "In spite of all the efforts of
an audacious criticism," says one, "as ignorant as bold--the truth of
the sacred narrative stands firm, the stronger for the shocks that it
has resisted; the boundless store of truth and life which for eighteen
centuries has been the ailment of humanity is not (as Rationalism
boasts) dissipated. God is not divested of his grace, or man of his
dignity--nor is the tie between heaven and earth broken. The foundation
of God--the everlasting gospel--still standeth secure--and every effort
that is made to overthrow, does but more firmly establish it." [27]

Let us examine this matter more nearly, and with less partiality
than Rawlinson has done. If for the new school of critics to succeed
means that the orthodox view respecting Jesus of Nazareth, and the
religion he founded must be entirely overthrown by being driven out of
existence, then the new criticism is an "attack" which has "failed,"
for orthodox Christianity, that is, the Christianity which recognizes
Christ as divine--as God, and the New Testament as divinely inspired
and stating the substantial facts of Messiah's life--is still with us.

There are a number of reasons why the orthodox view of Christ has not
been entirely overthrown by the new criticism. First, the great body
of Christians which constitute the Catholic Church have been preserved
in the orthodox faith of Christ by the protecting aegis afforded by
the authority of that Church. Recognizing the church as superior to
the written word, alike its custodian and interpreter, and accepting
the meaning which the church attaches to the Bible as infallible,
Catholics, I say, have been preserved from the faith-shattering effects
of the New Criticism. Second, the criticism has been conducted, in the
main, and especially in the early stages of it, in the German language,
and hence has been largely confined to the German nation. Third, the
discussion wherever it has taken place has been carried on over the
heads of the laity; it has not been within their reach, hence to a
large extent it has been without effect upon them--an "attack that has
failed." But in each case, let it be remembered, its non-effect is
the result of not coming in contact with it. In one case it has been
kept away from the people by the authority of the church; in the other
through the inability of the laity, outside of Germany, to understand
the language in which the attack was written; and thirdly, through
the inability of the masses to bring the necessary scholarship to the
investigation.

But, on the other hand, if to attract to itself a large following,
both among clergymen and laity, and especially among scholars; if to
modify prevailing orthodox opinion concerning the historical character
of the Old Testament, and force concessions respecting the character
at least of some parts of the Christian documents; if to permeate
all Christendom--the Catholic Church perhaps excepted--with doubt
concerning the divinity of Christ, and to threaten in the future the
faith of millions of Christians--if to do this is to succeed, then
the new criticism is succeeding, for that is what it is doing. Forty
years ago it was the complaint of German orthodox writers that this
German neology, as the new criticism is sometimes called, had left "No
objective ground or standpoint," on which the believing theological
science can build with any feeling of security. [28] "Nor," says the
same authority, "is the evil in question confined to Germany. The
works regarded as most effective in destroying the historical faith
of Christians abroad, have received an English dress, and are, it is
to be feared, read by persons very ill-prepared by historical studies
to withstand their specious reasonings, alike in our country and in
America. The tone, moreover, of German historical writings generally is
tinged with the prevailing unbelief; and the faith of the historical
student is likely to be undermined, almost without his having his
suspicions aroused, by covert assumptions of the mythical character of
the sacred narrative, in works professing to deal chiefly, or entirely
with profane subjects." [29]

It is more than thirty years since these admissions were made; since
then the German works complained of have been more generally translated
and widely read than before. Besides, since then, Renan has given
his "_Origins of Christianity_" [30] to the world, and by his great
learning, but more especially by the power and irresistible charm of
his treatment of the subject, has popularized the conceptions of the
Rationalists, until now the virus of their infidelity may be said to be
poisoning all Protestant Christendom.

What must ever be an occasion for chagrin, not to say humiliation,
to orthodox Christendom, is, its inability to meet in any effectual
way the assaults of this new criticism. In Germany they complain
against Strauss for having written his "_Life of Jesus_" in the German
language. If he must write such a book, so full of unbelief in the
orthodox conception of Jesus, he ought at least to have had the grace
to have written it in Latin! [31]

For his rationalism Renan is driven out of the Church of Rome; but
this only gives notoriety to his views, creates a desire to read his
books and spreads abroad his unbelief. When the Presbyterian Church
takes to task one of its most brilliant scholars [32] for accepting
the results of the new criticism, he is sustained by the powerful
Presbyterian Synod of New York and acquitted; and when an appeal
is taken to the general assembly of the church and he is finally
condemned, he is able to retort that while he was condemned by the
general assembly, it was by numbers and not by intelligence that he
was overcome; it was the less intelligent Presbyteries of the rural
district that gave the necessary strength to his opponents. The better
informed members--members from the cities and centers of education
and enlightenment--were with him. [33] The defense commonly made for
orthodox Christianity is an appeal to its antiquity and its past
victories. Its defenders point with pride to the failure of the proud
boast of Voltaire, who was foolish enough to say: "In twenty years
Christianity will be no more. My single hand shall destroy the edifice
it took twelve apostles to rear." "Some years after his death," say
the orthodox, "his very printing press was employed in printing New
Testaments, and thus spreading abroad the gospel." Gibbon with solemn
sneer devoted his gorgeous history [34] to sarcasm upon Christ and his
followers. "His estate," say the orthodox, "is now in the hands of one
who devotes large sums to the propagation of the very truth Gibbon
labored to sap." [35]

All this may be very well, but even in their day these men of the
eighteenth century had a large following, and did much damage to
orthodox belief. In fact, it is not inconsistent to claim that, in an
indirect way, they were the forerunners of our new school of criticism;
for many Christian scholars not satisfied with the answers made to the
infidel writers of the eighteenth century have accepted the results of
this new criticism as a solution of the difficulties urged against
christianity by the infidels of the eighteenth century.

It is time now to pause and summarize what has been thus far discussed:

First, the divided state of Christendom of itself argues something
wrong; for nearly every page of holy scripture urges the unity of
Christ's Church. "Is Christ divided?" [36] is the ringing question that
the apostle of the Gentiles asks the schismatically inclined church
at Corinth. "I beseech you, brethren," says he, "by the name of our
Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there
be no division among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in
the same mind and the same judgment." [37] He then proceeds to tell
them that they are utterly at fault in one saying that he was of Paul;
another that he was of Apollos, and another that he was of Cephas. [38]
What he would say of divided, not to say warring Christendom of today,
one may not conjecture, further than to say that if the incipient
divisions in Corinth provoked his condemnation, the open rupture and
conflicting creeds of the Christianity of the nineteenth century would
merit still harsher reproof.

Second, the failure of Christianity to evangelize the world in nineteen
centuries, sixteen of which, to all human judgment, appear to have
been especially favorable to that evangelization, since at the back
of Christianity stood the powerful nations of Europe whose commerce
and conquests opened the gates of nearly all nations to Christian
missionaries--argues some weakness in a religion bottomed on divine
revelation and sustained through all these centuries (so Christians
claim) by divine power. To be compelled to admit after all these
centuries favorable to the establishment of Christianity that now only
a little more than one-fourth of the population of our earth is even
nominally Christian is to confess that the results do not do credit
to a religion making the claims and possessing the advantages of
Christianity.

Third, the existence of a broad and constantly widening stream of
unbelief, not only in Christian lands and apart from Christian
communion, but within the very churches claiming to be churches of
Christ, together with the inability of the orthodox to meet and silence
the infidel revilers of the Christian religion--tells its own tale of
weakness; and bears testimony of the insufficiency of the Christian
evidences to bring conviction to the doubting minds of many sincere and
moral people.

All these considerations proclaim in trumpet-tones

    "'Tis time that some new prophet should appear."

Mankind stand in need of a new witness for God--a witness who may speak
not as the scribes or the pharisees, but in the clear, ringing tones of
one clothed with authority from God. The world is weary of the endless
wrangling of the scholastics. They settle nothing. Their speculations
merely shroud all in profounder mystery, and beget more uncertainty.
They darken counsel by words without knowledge. Therefore, to heal
the schisms in Christendom; to bring order out of the existing chaos;
to stay the stream of unbelief within the churches; to convert the
Jews; to evangelize the world; to bring to pass that universal reign
of truth, of peace, of liberty, of righteousness that all the prophets
have predicted--the world needs a new witness for God.

Footnotes

1. Such is the language, slightly paraphrased, which Mrs. Humphrey Ward
puts in the mouth of the orthodox Ronalds in her dialogue entitled _The
New Reformation_ (See Agnosticism and Christianity--Humbolt Library
Series, page 151); and it accurately states the claims of the orthodox
Christian.

2. "Agnosticism and Christianity," p. 151. The passage is paraphrased.

3. I thus carefully qualify the statement for the reason that I believe
the Christian religion--that is, the Gospel, has a much earlier
existence than the birth of Christ. Messiah is spoken of in Scripture
as "the lamb slain from the foundation of the world," from which
expression in connection with many other evidences--too numerous to
mention here (see the Author's work "The Gospel," ch. xxxii.)--I get
the idea that the plan of man's redemption through the atonement of
Jesus Christ is at least as old as the foundation of the world. It was
revealed to Adam, and the Patriarchs, to Abraham, to Moses, and to some
of the prophets; and finally through the earthly ministry of the Son of
God himself; but it is an error to suppose that it came into existence
first through the ministry of Jesus of Nazareth on earth.

4. Æsop's Fables.

5. Mosheim's Ecclesiastical Institutes, book iii., cent. viii., part
i., chap. i. (Murdock's translation always quoted.)

6. Mosheim, book iii., cent. x., part i., chap. i.

7. Mosheim, book iii., cent. xii., part i., chap. i.

8. "What the World Believes," Gay Bros & Co., New York. Dr. Hurst's
"Outline History of the Church" (1875) gives the following population
to the creeds:

Christianity ........................ 407 Millions.

Judaism ............................... 7   "

Buddhism ............................ 340   "

Mohammedism ......................... 200   "

Brahmanism .......................... 175   "

Confucianism ......................... 80   "

All other forms of religious belief . 174   "

While this is a little different grouping of the religions than that in
the text, the computation is approximately the same. "Of the Christian
populations of the world, 131,007,449 are assigned to Protestantism,
200,339,390 to Roman Catholicism, and 76,390,040 to the oriental
churches. In the New World, comprising North and South America, the
Roman Catholics are in the majority, having about sixty millions" (Behm
& Wagner). The above is also quoted with favor by Dr. Joseph Faa Di
Bruno in his work "Catholic Belief," p. 397.

9. Burder's History of all Religions (1860), p. 140; also Buck's Theol.
Dic., Art. Greek Church.

10. Faith of our Fathers, p. 109.

11. Christianity and Agnosticism, p. 161.

12. "The true deist has but one Deity; and his religion consists
in contemplating the power, wisdom and benignity of the Deity in
his works, and in endeavoring to imitate him in everything moral,
scientifical and mechanical. * * * * The Almighty Lecturer (Deity), by
displaying the principles of science in the structure of the universe,
has invited man to study and to imitation. It is as if he had said to
the inhabitants of this globe we call ours, 'I have made an earth for
man to dwell upon, and I have rendered the starry heavens visible, to
teach him science and the arts. He can now provide for his own comfort,
and learn from my munificence to all, to be kind to each other.' * *
* * * In Deism our reason and our belief become happily united. The
wonderful structure of the universe, and everything we behold in the
system of the creation, prove to us far better than books can do, the
existence of a God and at the same time proclaim his attributes. It is
by exercise of our reason that we are enabled to contemplate God in his
works and imitate him in his ways. When we see his care and goodness
extended over all his creatures, it teaches us our duty towards each
other while it calls forth our gratitude to him."--_Thomas Paine._

13. "It is not in the name of this or that philosophy, but in the name
of constant experience that we banish miracle from history. We do
not say 'miracle is impossible'; we say: 'there has been hitherto no
miracle proved.' * * * * Till we have new light, we shall maintain,
therefore, this principle of historical criticism, that a supernatural
relation cannot be accepted as such, that it always implies credulity
or imposture." Renan, Life of Jesus, E. T. pp. 44, 45.

14. "Let the gospels be in part legendary, that is evident since they
are full of miracles and the supernatural." "Renan, Life of Jesus, p.
19." Renan is one of the chief writers of the rationalistic school.

"No just perception of the true nature of history is possible without a
just perception of the inviolability of the chain of finite causes, and
of the impossibility of miracles." Strauss, Leben Jesu, Vol. I., p. 64.
E. T.

15. "Canons," is the scientific term.

16. "Inquiry into the Credibility of Early Roman History." (Sir G. C.
Lewis) Vol. I., p. 2, of the Introduction.

17. The whole world of profane history has been revolutionized: * * *
* The views of the ancient world formerly entertained have been in ten
thousand points either modified or revised--a new antiquity has been
raised up out of the old--while much that was unreal in the picture
of past times which men had formed to themselves has disappeared,
consigned to that "Limbo large and broad" into which "all things
transitory and vain" are finally received, a fresh revelation has in
many cases taken the place of the old view, which has dissolved before
the wand of the critic; and a firm and strong fabric has arisen out
of the shattered _debris_ of the fallen systems.--George Rawlinson's
"Historical Evidences" (London Edition) pp. 28, 29.

18. A footnote scarcely affords the space necessary in which to discuss
the value of miracles as evidence to the truth of a religion or the
divine authority of the miracle worker; but a few observations at this
particular point will be, in the estimation of the author, _apropos._
It is a mistake on the part of the Protestants or any one else to
concede that the power to work miracles is absolute evidence of the
truth of a religion, or of the divine calling of the miracle worker.
Too much importance has been given to miracles as evidence of divine
authority. Looking upon what are commonly called miracles, not as
events or effects contrary to the laws of nature, but interventions on
the part of God (through the operation of natural, though perhaps to
man unknown laws) for the benefit of his children, and recognizing God
as the Father of all mankind, it would be an extremely narrow conception
of the love and mercy of the Deity to suppose that he would confine
these interventions to any one class of his children. Surely it is
egotism run mad for a people to suppose that they have succeeded so
far in becoming the special favorites of heaven that all God's special
providences will be confined to them. No, no; he who maketh his sun
to rise on the evil as well as the good, and sendeth rain on the
just and unjust alike, is capable of better things than men ascribe
to him in this matter of miracles. But it does not follow that those
who enjoy these special manifestations have correct religious creeds
or possess the fullness of truth. Equally erroneous is it to suppose
that the powers of evil cannot work what are called miracles; that is,
put into operation forces as yet unknown to man which produce effects
uncommon to his experience. Can it be that our Christian writers have
forgotten that "to win us to our harm, the instruments of darkness
tell us truths--win us with honest trifles, to betray us in deepest
consequences?" Have they forgotten that the miracles of Moses were well
nigh matched by those of the magicians of Egypt? That Simon Magus,
notwithstanding he had no lot nor part in the things of God, yet had
wrought miracles. Have they forgotten that in the description given us
in Holy Writ (II. Thess. ii.) of the rise of Anti-Christ, that Satan
shall have power to work "signs and lying wonders," and that God will
permit the strong delusions that those might be condemned who believe
not the truth but have pleasure in unrighteousness? Have they forgotten
that the word of prophecy hath said that even unclean spirits,
"devils," shall have the power of "working miracles," even calling down
fire from heaven, to deceive the inhabitants of the earth? (Rev. xvi)?
If miracles are to be taken as an absolute test of divine authority,
will not the unclean spirits, these miracle-working devils, prove the
divinity of their mission? Again, it said that "John" (the baptist),
than whom there is no greater prophet, "did no miracle" (John x. 41).
It appears, therefore, that not all that are sent of God work miracles;
and we see that devils have in the past and will in the future possess
that power; hence miracles are not as important a class of testimony as
they have usually been esteemed; and writers are utterly at fault who
regard them as an absolute test of true religion or divine authority.

19. I find it necessary to say another word on miracles. There is a
general misapprehension, I think, of what a miracle really is. The
commonly accepted definition of the term is, "an event or effect
contrary to the established constitution and course of things, or a
deviation from the known laws of nature." Renan defines a miracle
to be, "not simply the inexplicable, it is a formal derogation from
recognized laws in the name of a particular desire." What is especially
faulty in these definitions is this: Miracles are held to be outside or
contrary to the laws of nature. Let us examine this. Two hundred years
ago the only motive powers known to ocean navigators were wind and the
ocean currents. Suppose at that time those old mariners had seen one
of our modern ocean steamers running against both ocean currents and
the wind; and, withal, making better speed in spite of both wind and
tide than the old time sailing vessel could even when running before
the wind and the ocean currents in her favor. What would have been
the effect of such a sight on the mind of the old-time sailor? "It is
a miracle!" he would have exclaimed; that is, it would have been an
"effect contrary to the established constitution and course of things,"
"a derogation from recognized laws." But is such an effect to us who
know something of the force of steam contrary to the laws of nature?
No; it is simply the employment of forces in nature of which the
old-time mariner was ignorant; and while it would have been a miracle
to him, to us it is merely the application of a newly discovered
force of nature, and it is now so common that we cease to look upon
it with wonder. So with the things that we now in our ignorance call
miracles--such as the healing of the sick, restoring the blind to
sight, making the lame to walk, through the exercise of faith, and the
resurrection of the dead--instead of these things being in "derogation
from recognized laws," we shall yet learn that they are done simply by
the application of laws of which we are as yet in ignorance. With man's
limited knowledge of the laws of nature, how presumptuous it is in him
to say that the healing of the sick or even the resurrection of the
dead are in "derogation of the laws of nature," or that deviation from
those few laws of nature with which he is acquainted will never happen,
or is impossible! Better reasoners are they who, like George Rawlinson,
say, "Miraculous interpositions on fitting occasions may be as much a
regular, fixed, and established rule of his (God's) government as the
working ordinarily by what are called natural laws." In other words,
what we in our ignorance call miracles, are to God merely the results
of the application of higher laws or forces of nature not yet learned
by man. Miracles are to be viewed as a part of the divine economy.

20. It will be observed that throughout a difference between myth and
legend is recognized. Strauss thus distinguishes between them: "Mythus
is the creation of a fact out of an idea; legend the seeing of an idea
in a fact, or arising out of it." "The myth is therefore pure and
absolute imagination," says Rawlinson; "the legend has a basis of fact,
but amplifies, abridges, or modifies that basis at its pleasure." And
thus De Wette: "The myth is an idea in a vestment of facts; the legend
contains facts pervaded and transformed by ideas."

21. All this and a hundred other things equally silly and untrue which
mar rather than dignify the character of Jesus Christ are related
in the "First Gospel of the Infancy," translated by Mr. Henry Sike,
professor of Oriental Languages at Cambridge. "The Infancy" was
accepted by the Gnostics, a Christian sect of the second century.

22. "Life of Jesus" (Renan), p. 50, E. T.

23. "Life of Jesus" (Strauss), vol. III., p. 434, E. T.

24. "Upon the whole, I accept the four canonical gospels as authentic.
All, in my judgment, date back to the first century, and they are
substantially by the authors to whom they are attributed." "Renan's
Life of Jesus," Introduction, p. 34, E. T.

25. "Let the Gospels be in part legendary, that is evident since they
are full of miracles and the supernatural. . . . . The historic value
which I attribute to the Gospels is now, I think, quite understood.
They are neither biographies, after the manner of Suetonius, nor
fictitious legends, like those of Philostratus; they are legendary
biographies." Renan, "Life of Jesus," Introduction, p. 17 38.

26. "Till we have new light, we shall maintain, therefore, this
principle of historical criticism, that a supernatural relation cannot
be accepted as such, that it always implies credulity or imposture,
that the duty of the historian is to interpret it, and to seek what
portion of truth and what portion error it may contain. Such are the
rules which have been followed in this life" (of Christ). Renan, "Life
of Jesus," p. 45, E. T.

27. "Historical Evidences" (Rawlinson), p. 228.

28. "Historical Evidences," (Rawlinson), Preface.

29. "Historical Evidences" (Rawlinson), see Preface. See also Keil's
preface to his "Comment on Joshua."

30. "Origins of Christianity" in three volumes; "The Life of Jesus,"
"The Apostles," "Saint Paul."

31. See Preface to Strauss' "Life of Jesus."

32. Dr. C. A. Briggs.

33. The triumphant language of Dr. Briggs in the _North American
Review_ is: "The majority of votes in favor of the suspension was very
great. But if the votes are weighed as well as counted the disparity
will not be regarded as serious. The basis of representation in the
general assembly gives the small presbyteries in the country districts
and on the frontiers a vastly greater power than they are entitled
to by their numbers or influence, while the strong presbyteries in
our large cities and in the great communities are put at a serious
disadvantage. The general assemblies, as they are now constituted,
represent the least intelligent portion of the church, and not
unfrequently a majority in the Assembly really represents a minority of
the ministers and people in the denomination. A majority of a general
assembly is not taken seriously by intelligent Presbyterians."

34. "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire."

35. The remarks in relation to both Gibbon and Voltaire are to be found
in the _Christian Visitor_ for 1889.

36. 1 Cor. i. 13.

37. _Ibid_ verse 10.

38. 1 Cor. i. 12.



THESIS II.

The Church of Christ Was Destroyed: There Has Been an Apostasy from the
Christian Religion, So Complete and Universal, as to Make Necessary a
New Dispensation of the Gospel.



CHAPTER II.

THE EFFECT OF PAGAN PERSECUTION ON THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.

A variety of causes have operated to produce the result stated in
my second Thesis, among which I shall first consider those terrible
persecutions with which the saints were afflicted in the first
centuries of our era.

Let it not be a matter of surprise that I class those persecutions
as among the means through which the church was destroyed. The force
of heathen rage was aimed at the leaders and strong men of the body
religious; and being long-continued and relentlessly cruel, those
most steadfast in their adherence to the church invariably became its
victims. These being stricken down, it left none but weaklings to
contend for the faith, and made possible those subsequent innovations
in the religion of Jesus which a pagan public sentiment demanded, and
which so completely changed both the spirit and form of the Christian
religion as to subvert it utterly.

Let me further ask that no one be surprised that violence is permitted
to operate in such a case. The idea that the right is always victorious
in this world; that truth is always triumphant and innocence always
divinely protected, are old, fond fables with which well-meaning men
have amused credulous multitudes; but the stern facts of history
and actual experience in life correct the pleasing delusion. Do not
misunderstand me. I believe in the ultimate victory of the right,
the ultimate triumph of truth, the final immunity of innocence from
violence. These--innocence, truth and the right--will be at the last
more than conquerors; they will be successful in the war, but that does
not prevent them from losing some battles. It should be remembered
always that God has given to man his agency; and that fact implies that
one man is as free to act wickedly as another is to do righteousness.
Cain was as free to murder his brother as that brother was to worship
God; and so the pagans and Jews were as free to persecute and murder
the Christians as the Christians were to live virtuously and worship
Christ as God. The agency of man would not be worth the name if it did
not grant liberty to the wicked to fill the cup of their iniquity,
as well as liberty to the virtuous to round out the measure of their
righteousness. Such perfect liberty or agency God has given man; and it
is only so variously modified as not to thwart his general purposes.
Hence it comes that even when stealthy Murder in sight of his helpless
victim meditates the crime, no voice to prevent the act "speaks through
the blanket of the dark" crying, "Hold! hold!" Of course it follows
that running parallel with this fact of man's liberty is the solemn
truth of his full responsibility for the use he makes of it.

In the light of these reflections, then, I say that after Christ, as
before his day, the kingdom of heaven suffered violence and the violent
took it by force. [1] How far that violence, as manifested in the
persecutions of the first three Christian centuries, was effectual as
a factor in causing the destruction of the church is now to engage our
attention.

At the outset, however, there is a difficulty I cannot pass without
comment--the disagreement of eminent writers on the extent and severity
of the persecutions endured by the Christians up to the accession of
Constantine to the imperial throne of Rome. On the one hand infidel
writers, such as Gibbon and Dodwell, have sought to minimize the
suffering of the Christians under the persecutions, and on the other,
Christian writers, such as Milner, Paley and Fox, have sought to
magnify it. The motive on the part of both infidels and Christians is
obvious. The more violent and extensive the persecutions, the more
the martyrs, the more glorious the triumph for the church. While on
the other hand, if the persecutions can be proven to be limited, the
suffering made to appear trifling and the martyrs few in number, the
church is robbed of so much of her glory. Doubtless both parties have
gone to extremes in the contention. Unfortunately for the Christian
side of the controversy, there is much reason for believing that the
account of Christian suffering within the period named has been much
exaggerated. Their chief authority--Eusebius--has thrown more or
less suspicion upon the trustworthiness of all that he has written,
by declaring in the opening chapter of his Ecclesiastical History
and elsewhere that "Whatsoever, therefore, _we deem likely to be
advantageous to the proposed subject_, we shall endeavor to reduce
to a compact body by historical narration. For this purpose we have
collected the materials that have been scattered by our predecessors,
and culled, as from some intellectual meadows, the appropriate extracts
from ancient authors." [2]

On these passages Gibbon remarks: "The gravest of the ecclesiastical
historians, Eusebius himself, indirectly confesses that he has related
whatever might redound to the glory, and that he has suppressed all
that could tend to the disgrace of religion. Such an acknowledgment
will naturally excite a suspicion that a writer who has so openly
violated one of the fundamental laws of history, has not paid a very
strict regard to the observance of the other." [3] Draper also refers
to the same when, commenting upon the inaccuracies of early Christian
writers, he says: "In historical compositions there was a want of
fair dealing and truthfulness almost incredible to us; thus, Eusebius
naively avows that in his history he shall omit whatever might tend to
the discredit of the church, and magnify whatever might conduce to her
glory." [4]

But while it must be conceded that there is much reason for believing
that the Christian fathers exaggerated both the extent and severity
of those early persecutions, it remains clear that both the extent
and severity of them were greater and more baneful to the church than
infidel writers allow; and the truth of it may be proven independent
of the testimonies of the Christian fathers. The proofs I refer to
are the edicts themselves, considered in the light of the well-known
cruelty of the Roman people, intensified by the malice of religious
zeal aroused to suppress an obnoxious society whose doctrines were held
to be destructive of the ancient religion of Rome, and a menace to the
existence of the state itself.

Passing by the persecutions inflicted upon the Christians by the
Jews, an account of which is to be found in the New Testament, I call
attention to the first great pagan persecution under the cruel edict of
the Emperor Nero. For our information in respect to this persecution we
are indebted not to any Christian writer, but to the judicious Tacitus,
whom even "the most sceptical criticism is obliged to respect." [5]
Nero having set on fire the city of Rome, in order that he might
witness a great conflagration, and wishing to divert suspicion from
himself, first accused and then tried to compel the Christians to
confess the great crime--and now Tacitus:

"With this view he inflicted the most exquisite tortures on those men
who, under the vulgar appellation of Christians, were already branded
with deserved infamy. They derived their name and origin from Christ,
who, in the reign of Tiberius had suffered death by the sentence of
the procurator Pontius Pilate. For awhile this dire superstition was
checked; but it again burst forth; and not only spread itself over
Judea, the first seat of this mischievous sect, but was even introduced
into Rome, the common asylum which receives and protects whatever is
impure, whatever is atrocious. The confessions of those that were
seized discovered a great multitude of their accomplices, and they were
all convicted, not so much for the crime of setting fire to the city,
as for their hatred of human kind. They died in torments, and their
torments were embittered by insults and derision. Some were nailed on
crosses; others sewn up in the skins of wild beasts, and exposed to the
fury of dogs; others, again, smeared over with combustible materials,
were used as torches to illuminate the darkness of the night. The
gardens of Nero were destined for the melancholy spectacle, which was
accompanied with a horse-race, and honored with the presence of the
emperor, who mingled with the populace in the dress and attitude of
a charioteer. The guilt of the Christians deserved indeed the most
exemplary punishments, but the public abhorrence was changed into
commiseration, from the opinion that those unhappy wretches were
sacrificed, not so much to the public welfare as to the cruelty of a
jealous tyrant." [6]

Eminent scholars are divided in opinion as to whether this persecution
under Nero extended to the provinces or was confined to the city
of Rome. Gibbon assumes that it was both brief and confined to the
city. According to Milman "M. Guizot, on the authority of Suplicious
Severus and of Orosius inclines to the opinion of those who extend the
persecution to the provinces. Mosheim rather leans to that side on this
much disputed question. Neander takes the view of Gibbon, which is, in
general, that of the most learned writers." [7]

This controversy need not detain us a moment. It matters not to my
purpose whether the edicts of Nero extended to the provinces or were
limited in their operations to the Christians within the capital.
The testimony of Tacitus is sufficient to prove, first, that the
persecution was general within the city; second its terrible cruelty;
and third, the great abhorrence in which the Christians were held by
the Romans.

I submit to the consideration of the reader that a people so greatly
detested as the Christians, were not likely to meet with gentle
treatment from the Romans; and when, as subsequently it came to
pass, the people clamored for the sacrifice of the saints whom they
abhorred as the enemies of mankind, instead of looking upon them with
commiseration as the citizens of Rome did in their persecution under
Nero--when the Roman people, I say, clamored for the sacrifice of
the Christians and the emperors were cruel enough, and unjust enough
to issue edicts for their destruction, the persecutions of those
times were neither so limited nor so free from severity as Gibbon and
others would have us believe. Even in this persecution under Nero, if
no edicts were sent into the provinces commanding the execution of
Christians, it is not unreasonable to believe that the despisers of
the followers of Christ, finding warrant for their conduct by what was
taking place at Rome, under the supervision of the emperor himself,
would not hesitate to inflict hardships upon the saints without the
formality of his proclamation.

It was this unofficial persecution which, without doubt, arose in the
provinces as an indirect result of the persecution in the capital,
that has led a number of prominent writers to believe that Nero's
persecution extended throughout the empire. However that may be, a
"great multitude" suffered in the city of Rome, and were subject to
such tortures and cruel modes of death--described, mark you, by the
unfriendly Tacitus--that little is left to be added even by the fervid
imaginations of the Christian fathers. It is reasonable to believe
that the subsequent persecutions were not freer from cruelty than this
one under Nero; and therefore, though some allowance must be made
for exaggeration in the writings of the Christian fathers, it may be
safely concluded that those persecutions which preceded the reign of
Constantine were both widespread and horribly cruel.

What is usually denominated the third persecution of the Christian
Church occurred in the reign of Trajan, 98--117 A. D. Here, as in the
persecution under Nero, we may determine something of the severity and
manner of it from a Roman writer. Trajan intrusted the government of
Bithynia and Pontius to his personal friend, the younger Pliny. The new
governor, in his administration of the affairs of his provinces, found
himself perplexed as to what course he should pursue in regard to the
Christians brought before him for trial. He accordingly wrote to his
master for instruction; and I deem his letter of such importance as
showing the severity to which Christians were subject, the character of
the Christians, and the number of unfaithful members who had evidently
entered the church by that time, that I give it _in extenso_:

"Health.--It is my usual custom, sir, to refer all things, of which I
harbor any doubts, to you. For who can better direct my judgment in
its hesitation, or instruct my understanding in its ignorance? I never
had the fortune to be present at any examination of Christians, before
I came into this province. I am, therefore, at a loss, to determine
what is the usual object either of inquiry or of punishment, and to
what length either of them is to be carried. It has also been with me
a question very problematical, whether any distinction should be made
between the young and the old, the tender and the robust; whether any
room should be given for repentance, or the guilt of Christianity, once
incurred is not to be expiated by the most unequivocal retraction;
whether the name itself, abstracted from any flagitiousness of conduct,
or the crimes connected with the name, be the object of punishment. In
the meantime, this has been my method, with respect to those who were
brought before me as Christians: If they pleaded guilty, I interrogated
them twice afresh, with a menace of capital punishment. In case of
obstinate perseverance, I ordered them to be executed. For of this I
had no doubt, whatever was the nature of their religion, that a sullen
and obstinate inflexibility called for the vengeance of the magistrate.
Some who were infected with the same madness whom, on account of their
privilege of citizenship, I reserve to be sent to Rome, to be referred
to your tribunal. In the course of this business, information pouring
in, as is usual when they are encouraged, more cases occurred. An
anonymous libel was exhibited, with a catalogue of names of persons,
who yet declared they were not Christians then or ever had been; and
they repeated after me an invocation of the gods and of your image,
which for this purpose I had ordered to be brought with the images of
the deities. They performed sacred rites with wine and frankincense,
and execrated Christ, none of which things I am told a real Christian
can ever be compelled to do. On this account I dismissed them. Others
named by an informer, first affirmed and then denied the charge of
Christianity, declaring that they had been Christians, but had ceased
to be so, some three years ago, others still longer, some even twenty
years ago. All of them worshiped your image, and the statues of the
gods, and also execrated Christ. And this was the account which they
gave of the nature of their religion they once professed, whether it
deserves the name of crime or error, namely, that they were accustomed
on a stated day to meet before daylight, and repeat among themselves
a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by an oath with
an obligation of not committing any wickedness; but on the contrary,
of abstaining from thefts, robberies, and adulteries; also, of not
violating their promise, or denying a pledge; after which it was their
custom to separate, and to meet again at a promiscuous, harmless
meal, from which last practice they however desisted, after the
publication of my edict, in which, agreeably to your order, I forbade
any societies of that sort. On which account I judged it the more
necessary, to inquire, by torture, from two females, who were said to
be deaconesses, what is the real truth. But nothing could I collect,
except a depraved and excessive superstition. Deferring, therefore,
any further investigation, I determined to consult you. For the number
of the culprits is so great, as to call for serious consultation.
Many persons are informed against of every age, and of both sexes;
and more still will be in the same situation. The contagion of the
superstition hath spread not only through cities, but even villages and
the country. Not that I think it impossible to check and correct it.
The success of my efforts hitherto forbids such desponding thoughts;
for the temples, once almost desolate, begin to be frequented, and the
sacred solemnities which had long been intermitted, are now attended
afresh, and the sacrificed victims are now sold everywhere, which once
could scarcely find a purchaser. Whence, I conclude, that many might
be reclaimed, were the hope of impunity, on repentance, absolutely
confirmed." [8]

To this Trajan sent the following answer: "You have done perfectly
right, my dear Pliny, in the inquiry which you have made concerning
Christians. For truly no one general rule can be laid down which
will apply itself to all cases. These people must not be sought
after. If they are brought before you and convicted, let them be
capitally punished, yet with this restriction, that if anyone renounce
Christianity, and evidence his sincerity by supplicating our gods,
however suspected he may be for the past, he shall obtain pardon for
the future, on his repentance. But anonymous libels in no case ought
to be attended to; for the precedent would be of the worst sort, and
perfectly incongruous to the maxims of my government." [9]

Gibbon makes much of the perplexity of Pliny as to how to proceed
against the Christians. For since the life of that Roman had been
employed in the acquisition of learning and the business of the world;
since from the age of nineteen he had pleaded with distinction in
the tribunals of Rome; therefore, from the ignorance of this Roman
governor, the great historian of the Decline and Fall concludes
that there were no general laws or decrees of the senate in force
against the Christians previous to Pliny accepting the governorship
of Bithynia. [10] There is nothing, however, in the circumstance of
Pliny's ignorance to justify such a conclusion.

It is not difficult to conceive how laws and decrees against the
Christians could exist and yet a man employed as Pliny was have no
technical knowledge of the _modus operandi_ of procedure against them.
His very letter, quoted above, seems to recognize the existence of such
laws before he went into Bithynia; for he pleads as an excuse for his
ignorance of how to proceed in the business neither the non-existence,
nor the newness of the laws, but merely the fact that he had never been
present at the examination of Christians brought to trial previous to
accepting the governorship of his provinces.

In like spirit Gibbon points to the mildness of both the emperor and
the governor as being against the idea that this persecution was very
severe. Giving full credit for that mildness, what was the status of
the Christians as to liability to persecution in Bithynia and Pontus
after Pliny received the instruction of his master? (1) They were
not to be sought after, that is, hunted down for the mere sake of
destroying them; (2) anonymous complaints or libels were not to be
entertained against them; (3) if brought before the judge and they
would renounce their religion by supplicating the gods of Rome, they
were to receive pardon. So far the tender mercies of Trajan extended.
They could still be accused by any one bold enough to affix his name
to the charge; and if the accused Christians refused to deny the
faith, they were punished by sentence of death. When it is considered
how bitter was the malice of their enemies, and how wide-spread the
detestation of Christianity, it will be conceded that even in Bithynia
and Pontus, notwithstanding the mildness of the emperor and the
humanity of the governor, there was still left plenty of opportunity
to vex the church and make persecution contribute to its destruction.
I say even in Bithynia and Pontus this was the case; how much more
was it so in those provinces where less humane magistrates than Pliny
administered the laws, and who proceeded without asking for instruction
from the emperor! In such provinces the saints were liable to be
accused anonymously, put to the torture, not with a view to force from
them a confession, but a denial of the charge, failing in which they
were executed without mercy.

The limits of this inquiry forbids anything like an exhaustive
examination of the several persecutions endured by the Christians. I
shall therefore content myself with a brief reference to those most
disastrous to the church.

Passing by, then, the persecutions under Aurelius and Verus, in which
the sufferings of the Christians in Gaul were most severe--especially
in the cities of Lyons and Vienne, [11] where churches were well nigh
destroyed by its violence; and also passing by the persecutions which
arose under the edicts of Severus, which were issued more especially to
prevent the propagation of Christianity than to punish those already
converts to it, I come to that general and terrible persecution under
Decius Trajan, in the middle of the third century. The incentive which
prompted the action of Decius against the Christians is variously
ascribed to hatred of his predecessor, Philip, whom he had murdered,
and who was friendly to the church; to his zeal for paganism; and
lastly to his fear, feigned or real, that the Christians would usurp
the empire. Perhaps all these motives combined impelled him to make war
upon the church. According to the representations of one Dionysius,
quoted by Eusebius, the persecution, at least in Africa, began before
the edicts of Decius were issued. "The persecution with us," says the
writer referred to, "did not begin with the imperial edict but precede
it by a whole year. And a certain prophet and poet, inauspicious to the
city [Alexandria], whoever he was, excited the mass of the heathens
against us, stirring them up to their native superstition. Stimulated
by him, and taking full liberty to exercise any kind of wickedness,
they considered this the only piety, and the worship of their demons,
_viz,_ to slay us. * * But as the sedition and civil war overtook the
wretches, their cruelty was diverted from us to one another. We then
drew a little breath, while their rage against us was a little abated.
But, presently, that change from a milder reign was announced to us,
and much terror was now threatening us. The decree [of Decius] had
arrived, very much like that which was foretold by our Lord, exhibiting
the most dreadful aspects so that, if it were possible, the very
elect would stumble. All indeed were greatly alarmed, and many of the
more eminent immediately gave way to them; others, who were in public
offices, were led forth by their very acts; others were brought by
their acquaintances and when called by name, they approached the impure
and unholy sacrifices. But pale and trembling, as if they were not to
sacrifice but themselves to be the victims and the sacrifices to the
idols. They were jeered by many of the surrounding multitude, and were
obviously equally afraid to die and to offer the sacrifice. But some
advanced with greater readiness to the altar and boldly asserted that
they had never before been Christians, concerning whom the declaration
of our Lord is most true, that they will scarcely be saved. Of the
rest, some followed the one or the other of the preceding; some fled,
others were taken, and of these some held out as far as the prison and
bonds, and some after a few days' imprisonment abjured Christianity
before they entered the tribunal. And some, also, after enduring
the torture for a time, at last renounced. Others, however, firm
and blessed pillars of the Lord, confirmed by the Lord himself, and
receiving in themselves strength and power, suited and proportioned to
their faith, became admirable witnesses of his kingdom." [12]

Eusebius at great length recounts the suffering of individuals both
in the east and west divisions of the empire, but it is not necessary
to follow him through all those details. It will be sufficient to say
that this persecution was more terrible than any which preceded it.
It extended over the whole empire, and had for its avowed object the
enforced apostasy of the Christians. [13]

How unrelenting the efforts must have been to encompass either the
destruction or the apostasy of the Christians will appear when it is
known that the governors of the provinces were "commanded, on pain
of forfeiting their own lives, either to exterminate all Christians
utterly, or bring them back by pain and tortures to the religion
of their fathers." "During two years," continues Mosheim, "a great
multitude of Christians in all the Roman provinces were cut off by
various species of punishment and suffering. This persecution was more
cruel and terrific than any that 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." [14]

Gibbon, who never admits the severity of the persecutions under the
emperors, except when compelled by undeniable facts, says, of this
one under Decius: "The fall of Philip (the predecessor of Decius)
introduced with a change of masters, a new system of government so
oppressive to the Christians that their former condition, ever since
the time of Domitian, was represented as a state of perfect freedom
and security, if compared with the rigorous treatment which they
experienced under the short reign of Decius. * * * 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 the new election; and it was the opinion of the
Christians that the emperor would more patiently endure a competition
for the purple than a bishop for the capital." [15]

Milner, quoting Cyprian, says concerning the effect of this
persecution: "Vast numbers lapsed into idolatry immediately. Even
before men were accused as Christian many ran to the forum and
sacrificed to the gods as they were ordered; and the crowds of
apostates were so great that the magistrates wished to delay numbers
of them till the next day, but they were importuned by the wretched
suppliants to be allowed to prove themselves heathens that very night."
[16]

The reign of Decius was brief, lasting only two years, and toward the
close of it, as if surfeited with slaughter, the violent persecution
against the saints relaxed somewhat of its severity; but his
successors, Gallus and his son Volusian, renewed it. A pestilential
disease broke out about this time and spread through a number of the
provinces, and this the pagan priests persuaded the populace was a
curse sent upon the people on account of the toleration shown to the
Christians. This was sufficient to re-kindle the flames of hatred and
for two years more the Church of Christ suffered violence as it had
done under Decius.

There remains but one more persecution to notice, that which is
commonly known as the Diocletian. It could be called more properly the
Galerian persecution; for Galerius, son-in-law to the emperor, and one
with two others--Constantius Chlorus and Maximian--who shared with
him the responsibility of governing the empire, [17] had most to do
with it. It is said that Galerius was urged to secure the edicts of
Diocletian against the Christians by his mother, Romlia, a very haughty
woman, who had taken offense because the saints had excluded her from
their sacrament meetings. Be that as it may, it is generally conceded
that this severest of all persecutions against the Church of Christ was
inaugurated and carried on through the hatred and influence of Galerius.

According to Eusebius [18] the persecution began in the nineteenth
year of the reign of Diocletian--303 A. D. The emperor in issuing his
first edict could not be brought to the infamy of aiming at the lives
of the saints; it appears he could only be brought to that by degrees.
His first edict ordered the destruction of the Christian churches, and
the surrender of the holy scriptures and the degradation of Christians
from office. Shortly after this the royal palace at Nicomedia was twice
set on fire, and from it Galerius fled, giving out that he feared
Christian malice had attempted his life. The Christians being charged
with the crime the incident was made the excuse for issuing a second
edict, "in consequence of which whole families of the pious were slain
at the imperial command, some with the sword, some also with fire. But
the populace, binding another number upon planks, threw them into the
depths of the sea." [19]

A rebellion which occurred in Syria about this time was also charged
to Christian intrigue, and a third edict was issued commanding that
the heads of the church everywhere should be thrust into prison. "The
spectacle of affairs after these events exceeds all description.
Innumerable multitudes were imprisoned in every place, and the
dungeons formerly destined for murderers and the vilest criminals
were then filled with bishops, and presbyters, and deacons, readers
and exorcists, so that there was no room left for those condemned for
crimes." [20] It was ordered after a time that the prisoners should be
granted their liberty on condition that they offer sacrifice at the
shrine of the heathen gods. To effect that purpose the judges were
commanded to employ the most excruciating tortures.

Diocletian thought to destroy the Christian "superstition" by
overcoming the constancy of the leaders; but meeting with more
resistance than he anticipated, he at last issued a fourth edict,
directing the magistrates to compel all Christians, irrespective of
age, sex, or official position, to offer sacrifice to the gods; and
to employ tortures to compel that apostasy. The magistrates yielded
strict obedience to the edict of the emperor, and the Christian church
was reduced to the last extremity. [21] The scenes of suffering from
tortures and bloodsheds throughout the empire, except in Gaul, where
Constantine reigned, defy description. "Thousands, both men, and women
and children," says Eusebius, speaking of those who suffered in Egypt,
"despising the present life for the sake of our Savior's doctrine,
submitted to death in various shapes. Some, after being tortured with
scrappings [22] and the rack, and the most dreadful scourgings, and
other innumerable agonies which one might shudder to hear, were finally
committed to the flames; and some plunged and drowned in the sea,
others voluntarily offering their own heads to their executioners,
others dying in the midst of their torments, some wasted away by
famine, and others again fixed to the cross. Some, indeed, were
executed as malefactors usually were; others, more cruelly, were nailed
with the head downwards, and kept alive until they were destroyed by
starving on the cross itself." [23]

After describing similar but still more cruel tortures endured by the
Christians of Thebais, Eusebius continues: "And all these things were
doing not only for a few days or some time but for a series of whole
years. At one time ten or more, at another more than twenty, at another
time not less than thirty, and even sixty, and again at another time,
a hundred men with their wives and little children were slain in one
day, whilst they were condemned to various and varied punishments. We
ourselves have observed when on the spot, many crowded together in
one day suffering decapitation, some the torments of the flames; so
that the murderous weapon was completely blunted, and having lost its
edge, broke to pieces; and the executioners themselves wearied with the
slaughter, were obliged to relieve one another." [24]

Gibbon, whose very reluctance to concede the severity of these
persecutions induces me to quote him as often as admissions are forced
from his unwilling lips, says of this persecution: "The magistrates
were commanded to employ every method of severity which might reclaim
them from their odious superstition, and obliged them to return to the
established worship of the gods. This rigorous order was extended, by a
subsequent edict, to the whole body of Christians, who were exposed to
a violent and general persecution. Instead of those salutary restraints
which had required the direct and solemn testimony of an accuser,
it became the duty as well as the interest of the imperial officer
to discover, to pursue, and to torment the most obnoxious among the
faithful. Heavy penalties were denounced against all who should presume
to save a prescribed sectary from the just indignation of the gods and
the emperors." [25]

This persecution lasted for ten years; and at the end of that time the
church presented a melancholy spectacle. Everywhere, even in Gaul, the
Christian houses of worship were laid in ruins. Streams of Christian
blood had flowed in every province of the empire, excepting in Gaul,
where Constantine governed; and there, it will be remembered, a
previous persecution under Aurelius and Verus had well-nigh destroyed
the churches. Public worship was suspended. The saints were either
driven to apostasy by tortures, had fled from the provinces to the
barbarians, or kept themselves concealed. Meantime the magistrates
incited as much by avarice as by hatred of Christianity, confiscated
not only the church property, but also the private possessions of the
ministers. In other cases the church leaders were either slain, or
mutilated and sent to the mines or banished from the country. "Many
through dread of undergoing torture had made way with their own lives,
and many apostatized from the faith; and what remained of the Christian
community, consisted of weak, poor and timorous persons." [26]

After adopting these measures for the destruction of the church,
severities of another character were put in operation. "It was thought
necessary to subject to the most intolerable hardships the condition
of those perverse individuals who should still reject the religion
of nature, of Rome, and of their ancestors. Persons of liberal birth
were declared incapable of holding any honors or employments; slaves
were forever deprived of the hopes of freedom, and the whole body of
the people were put out of the protection of the law. The judges were
authorized to hear and determine every action that was brought against
a Christian. But the Christians were not permitted to complain of any
injury which they themselves had suffered; and thus those unfortunate
sectaries were exposed to the severity, while they were excluded from
the benefits of public justice. This new species of martyrdom, so
painful and lingering, so obscure and ignominious was, perhaps, the
most proper to weary the constancy of the faithful; nor can it be
doubted that the passions and interest of mankind were disposed on this
occasion to second the designs of the emperors." [27] That the Romans
considered the destruction of the Christian church completed by the
Diocletian persecution is witnessed by the inscriptions upon monuments
and medals. Two pillars in Spain, erected to commemorate the reign of
Diocletian bore the following; on the first--

"DIOCLETIAN, JOVIAN, MAXIMIAN HERCULIUS, CAESARES AUGUSTI, FOR HAVING
EXTENDED THE ROMAN EMPIRE IN THE EAST AND WEST, AND FOR HAVING
EXTINGUISHED THE NAME OF CHRISTIANS, WHO BROUGHT THE REPUBLIC TO RUIN;"

On the second,

"DIOCLETIAN, ETC., FOR HAVING ADOPTED GALERIUS IN THE EAST, FOR HAVING
EVERYWHERE ABOLISHED THE SUPERSTITION OF CHRIST, FOR HAVING EXTENDED
THE WORSHIP OF THE GODS."

And on the medal of Diocletian this: "THE NAME OF CHRISTIAN BEING
EXTINGUISHED." [28]

When it is remembered that these persecutions, to which I have briefly
referred, ran through more than three centuries; that the emperors
whose edicts inaugurated them possessed unlimited power to execute
their decrees; that the age in which they occurred was cruel beyond
modern comprehension; that Roman, that is to say, pagan hatred of
Christians was venomously bitter, because they were made to believe
that the existence of the ancient religion of Rome and latterly the
existence of the empire itself depended upon the destruction of
Christianity--when all this is remembered, it is not to be wondered
at that the saints were worn out, or so nearly so that only "weak and
timorous" men were left to ineffectually resist the paganization of
Christianity--the destruction of the Church of Christ.

Footnotes

1. Matt. xi. 12.

2. "Euseb. Eccl. Hist.," Book VIII., ch. ii. and ch. xii.

3. "Decline and Fall," Vol. I., p. 486, Ed. of 1880.

4. "Intellectual Development of Europe," Vol. I., p. 360.

5. Of the burning of Rome, the punishment of the Christians and this
celebrated passage in the writings of the famous Roman annalist,
Gibbon, from whom I quote the phrase above, says: "The most sceptical
criticism is obliged to respect the truth of this extraordinary fact
and the integrity of this celebrated passage of Tacitus. The former
[the burning of Rome and the punishment of the Christians] is confirmed
by the diligent and accurate Suetonius, who mentions the punishment
which Nero inflicted on the Christians, a sect of men who had embraced
a new and criminal superstition. The latter may be proved by the
consent of the most ancient manuscripts, by the imimitable character of
the style of Tacitus, by his reputation, which guarded his text from
the interpolation of pious fraud." "Decline and Fall," Vol. i., p. 448.

6. "Tacitus Annl.," lib, XV., ch. 44.

7. See Milman's Note in "Decline and Fall," Vol. I., p. 450.

8. I have taken Milner's translation of the Epistle. See "Ch. Hist.,"
Vol I., p. 145.

9. "Milner's Ch. Hist.," Vol. I., p. 148.

10. "Decline and Fall," Vol. I., p. 453.

11. An account of these persecutions at great length will be found in
the letters of the survivors sent to the churches of Asia and Phrygia.
"Eusebius," Book V., ch. i.

12. That is, they were executed. Eusebius, Bk. vi., Ch. xli.

13. See Murdock's note in Mosheim's Eccl. Hist., Bk. i, Cent. iii, Ch.
ii.

14. Mosheim, (Murdock) Bk. i, Cent. iii, Ch. ii.

15. "Decline and Fall," Vol i., Ch. xvi.

16. Milner's Church Hist., Vol. i, Cent. iii, Ch. viii.

17. The situation was this: A year after his elevation to the imperial
throne, Diocletian, believing the government of the vast empire of
Rome a task too great for a single mind, chose Maximianus Herculius,
commonly called Maximian, to be his colleague and to share with him
the title of Augustus. After a few years each of the emperors chose a
colleague in order to still further divide the labor of administration.
These were Constantius Chlorus and Galerius Maximianus, usually called
by his first name. Constantius and Galerius occupied an inferior
position to that of Diocletian and Maximian, and were honored only with
the title of "Caesar."

18. Eusebius Eccl. Hist., Bk. viii, Ch. ii.

19. Eusebius Eccl. Hist., Bk. viii, Ch. vi.

20. Eusebius Eccl. Hist., Bk. viii, Ch. vi.

21. Mosheim's Eccl. Hist., Cent, iv, Part i, Ch. i.

22. This torture was raking the flesh from the body by means of an
iron-toothed instrument.

23. Eusebius Eccl. Hist., Bk. viii, Ch. viii.

24. Eusebius Eccl. Hist., Bk. viii, Ch. ix.

25. "Decline and Fall," Vol. i, p. 481. Gibbon claims, however, that
"notwithstanding the severity of this law, the virtuous courage of many
of the pagans in concealing their friends or relatives, affords an
honorable proof, that the rage of superstition had not extinguished in
their minds the sentiments of nature and humanity."--_Ibid_.

26. Schlegel, quoted by Murdock, see note Mosheim's Eccl. Hist., Cent.
iv, Bk. ii. Ch. i.

27. "Decline and Fall," Vol. i, ch. xvi, p. 477. Gibbon undertakes
to modify what he has here written by saying that the policy of a
well-ordered government must sometimes have interposed in behalf of the
oppressed Christians. "This wants proof," says Milman in a footnote
on the remark, "the edict of Diocletian was executed in all its rigor
during the rest of the reign;" and gives reference to Eusebius Eccl.
Hist., Bk. viii, ch. xiii.

28. See Milner's Church History, Vol. ii, cent. iv, ch. ii, I also give
the following in evidence of the severity of the persecution of the
Christians in the early centuries of our era; and since it is taken
from the funeral oration pronounced by Libanius over the body of his
friend, the Emperor Julian, commonly called the apostate--because in
manhood he renounced that Christianity which had been forced on him in
childhood, and attempted to restore the ancient religion of Rome--it
is of the same character of evidence as that already found in the
statements of Tacitus and Pliny--it is the testimony of one unfriendly
to Christianity, who could have no motive for exaggerating the
sufferings of the Christians. Referring to the mildness of the methods
of persecution adopted by Julian against the Christians, Labanius says:
"They who adhered to corrupt religion [he means the Christians] were
in great terrors [on his accession to the throne] and expected that
their eyes would be plucked out, that their heads would be cut off, and
that rivers of their blood would flow from the multitude of slaughters.
They apprehended their new master would invent new kinds of torment,
in comparison of which mutilation, sword, fire, drowning, being buried
alive, would appear slight pains. _For the preceding emperors had
employed against them all these kinds of punishments_."



CHAPTER III.

THE EFFECT OF PEACE, WEALTH AND LUXURY ON CHRISTIANITY.

Disastrous as the persecutions of the early Christian centuries were,
still more mischievous to the church were those periods of tranquility
which intervened between the outbursts of rage that prompted them.
Peace may have her victories, no less renowned than those of war; and
so, too, she has her calamities, and they are not less destructive than
those of war. War may destroy nations, but ease and luxury mankind
corrupt--the body and the mind. Especially is peace dangerous to the
church. Prosperity relaxes the reins of discipline; people feel less
and less the need of a sustaining providence; but in adversity the
spirit of man feels after God, and he is correspondingly more devoted
to the service of religion.

We shall find the early Christians no exception to the operation of
this influence of repose. Whenever it was accorded them, either through
the mercy or the indifference of the emperors, internal dissensions,
the intrigues of aspiring prelates and the rise of heresies
characterized those periods. Even Milner, who wrote his great work to
counteract the influence of the too candid Mosheim; who takes to task
other ecclesiastical writers for making too much of the wickedness
that has existed in the church; who declares in the introduction of
his Church History that genuine piety is the only thing he intends to
celebrate, and announces it to be his purpose to write the history
of those men only, irrespective of the external church to which they
belonged, who have been real not nominally Christians [1]--even Milner,
I say, admits and deplores the mischief wrought by these periods of
peace which came to the church between the storms of persecution which
plagued it; and refers in several places to the marked and steady
declension of the Christian spirit in those centuries with which at
present I am dealing. He admits that a gloomy cloud hung over the
conclusion of the first century; and argues that the first impressions
made by the effusion of the spirit are generally the strongest; that
human depravity, overborn for a time, arises afresh, particularly in
the next generation--hence the disorders of schism and heresy that
arose in the church, the tendency of which was to destroy the work of
God. [2]

The same writer upon the authority of Origen says that the long peace
granted the church in the third century produced a great degree of
luke-warmness and religious indecorum. "Let the reader," says he, "only
notice the indifference which he [Origen] here describes, and the
conduct of the Christians both in the first and second century, and he
will be affected with the greatness of the declension." Then follows
the picture drawn by Origen: "Several come to church only on solemn
festivals; and then not so much for instruction as diversion. Some go
out again as soon as they have heard the lecture, without conferring
or asking the pastors questions. Others stay not till the lecture is
ended; and others hear not so much as a single word; but entertain
themselves in a corner of the church."

Coming to the middle of the third century, just previous to that severe
persecution inaugurated by the Emperor Decius, and speaking of Cyprian,
bishop of Carthage: Milman exclaims: "A star of the first magnitude!
when we consider the times in which he lived. Let us recreate ourselves
with the contemplation of it. _We are fatigued with hunting for
Christian goodness; and we have discovered but little and that little
with much difficulty_. We shall find Cyprian to be a character who
partook indeed of the declension which we have noticed and lamented;
but who was still far superior, I apprehend, in real simplicity and
piety to the Christians of the East." [3] This same Cyprian, in whom
Milner delights, speaking of the effects of the long peace which
preceded the Decian persecution, says: "Each had been bent on improving
his own patrimony; and had forgotten what believers had done under the
apostles, and what they ought always to do. They were brooding over the
arts of amassing wealth; the pastors and the deacons each forgot their
duty; works of mercy were neglected, and discipline was at the lowest
ebb; luxury and effeminacy prevailed; meritricious arts in dress were
cultivated; fraud and deception practiced among brethren. Christians
would unite themselves in matrimony with unbelievers; could swear
not only without reverence but even without veracity. With haughty
asperity they despised their ecclesiastical superiors; they railed
against one another with outrageous acrimony, and conducted quarrels
with determined malice. Even many bishops, who ought to be guides and
patterns to the rest, neglected the peculiar duties of their stations,
gave themselves up to secular pursuits. They deserted their places of
residence and their flocks; they traveled through distant provinces in
quest of pleasure and gain; gave no assistance to the needy brethren;
but were insatiable in their thirst of money. They possessed estates
by fraud and multiplied usury. What have we not deserved to suffer
for such conduct? Even the divine word hath foretold us what we might
expect: 'If his children forsake my law and walk not in my judgments, I
will visit their offenses with the rod and their sins with scourges.'
These things had been denounced and foretold, but in vain. Our sins
had brought our affairs to that pass, that because we had despised
the Lord's directions, we were obliged to undergo a correction of our
multiplied evils and a trial of our faith by severe remedies." [4]

The last forty years of the third century were years of peace to the
church. That period began with the ascension of Gallienius, a man of
taste, indolence, philosophy and toleration, to the throne; and his
example was followed by the emperors to the end of the century. A new
scene this, Christianity tolerated by a pagan government for forty
years! "This new scene did not prove favorable to the growth of grace
and holiness," writes Milner. "In no period since the apostles was
there ever so great a general decay as in this; not even in particular
instances can we discover during this interval, much of lively
Christianity." [5]

Though conscious of having already quoted copiously upon the point
under consideration, I cannot withhold the testimony of Eusebius who
was a witness of the effects of that peace granted the church previous
to the last great pagan persecution, the Diocletian. After describing
the multitudes which flocked into the church before the declension
in the spirit of true Christianity so greatly prevailed, he remarks:
"Nor was any malignant demon able to infatuate, no human machinations
prevent them so long as the providential hand of God superintended and
guarded his people as the worthy subjects of his care. But when by
reason of excessive liberty, we sunk into negligence and sloth, one
envying and reviling another in different ways, and we were almost, as
it were, upon the point of taking up arms against each other with words
as with darts and spears, prelates inveighing against prelates, and
people rising up against people, and hypocrisy and dissimulation had
arisen to the greatest height of malignity, then the divine judgment,
which usually proceeds with a lenient hand, whilst the multitudes were
yet crowding into the church, with gentle and mild visitation began
to afflict the episcopacy; the persecution having begun with those
brethren in the army. But as if destitute of all sensibility, we were
not prompt in measures to appease and propitiate the Deity; some indeed
like atheists, regarding our situation as unheeded and unobserved
by a Providence, we added one wickedness and misery to another. But
some that appeared to be our pastors deserting the law of piety, were
inflamed against each other with mutual strifes, only accumulating
quarrels and threats, rivalship, hostility and hatred to each other,
only anxious to assert the government as a kind of sovereignty for
themselves." [6]

Let it be remembered that this is quoted from a writer contemporary
with the events, and who says in the very chapter following the one
from which the foregoing is taken that it was not for him to record the
dissensions and follies which the shepherds of the people exercised
against each other before the persecution. He also adds: "We shall
not make mention of those that were shaken by the persecution, nor of
those that suffered shipwreck in their salvation, and of their own
accord were sunk in the depths of the watery gulf." [7] Then in his
Book of Martyrs, referring to events that occurred between the edicts
ordering the persecution, he says: "But the events that occurred in
the intermediate times, besides those already related, I have thought
proper to pass by; I mean more particularly the circumstances of the
different heads of the churches, who from being shepherds of the
reasonable flocks of Christ, that did not govern in a lawful and
becoming manner, were condemned, by divine justice, as unworthy of
such a charge, to be the keepers of the unreasonable camel, an animal
deformed in the structure of his body; and condemned further to be the
keepers of the imperial horses. * * * Moreover, the ambitious aspirings
of many to office, and the injudicious and unlawful ordinations that
took place, the divisions among the confessors themselves, the great
schisms and difficulties industriously fomented by the factions among
the new members, against the relics of the church, devising one
innovation after another, and unmercifully thrusting them into the
midst of all these calamities, heaping up affliction upon affliction.
All this, I say, I have resolved to pass by, judging it foreign to my
purpose, wishing, as I said in the beginning, to shun and avoid giving
an account of them." [8]

Hence, however bad the condition of the church is represented to be
by ecclesiastical writers, we must know that it was still worse than
that; however numerous the schisms; however unholy the ambition of
aspiring prelates; however frequent and serious the innovations upon
the primitive ordinances of the gospel; however great the confusion
and apostasy in the church is represented to be; we must know that it
is still worse than that, since the church historians contemporaneous
with the events refused to record these things in their fullness lest
it should prove disastrous to the church; just as some of our modern
scholars professing to write church history express their determination
to close their eyes to the corruption and abuses which form the greater
part of the melancholy story of ecclesiastical history, for fear
that relating these things would make it appear that real religion
scarcely had any existence. [9] But it is all in vain. "It is idle,
it is disingenuous," remarks the editor [10] of Gibbon's great work,
"to deny or to dissemble the early depravations of Christianity, its
gradual but rapid departure from its primitive simplicity and purity,
still more from its spirit of universal love." If the intermittent
peace accorded to the church in the first three troubled centuries of
its existence was productive of the evils admitted by the writers who
have felt that the cause of religion demanded that these evils as much
as possible should be covered up, naturally enough one exclaims, what
then must have been the result of that repose which came to the church
after the elevation of Constantine to the imperial throne! When from
a proscribed religion Christianity was exalted to the dignity of the
state religion of the empire; and her prelates and clergy, recalled
from exile and suffering, poverty and disgrace, were loaded with the
wealth and the honors that the lords of the Roman world could bestow!
Let imagination do her best or worst in picturing the rapid decline of
whatever remained of true Christianity, conjecture can scarcely outrun
the facts. If when the office of bishop was attended with danger and
scant revenues it aroused the inordinate ambition of men to possess it,
how infinitely more must it have become the object of envy, strife and
ambition when by the patronage of Constantine it became not only free
from danger but endowed with revenues that a prince might envy, and
accorded an influence in the palace scarcely second to that granted to
the governors of the provinces!

If before the Decian persecution the rivarly between the bishops of
Rome and Carthage prompted a bitter controversy which threatened the
unity of the church, how much more likely were such conflicts to arise
between the bishops of Rome and Constantinople--rival bishops of rival
cities, Rome proud of her past, Constantinople vain of her present
glory; the former jealous of the place she had filled in the world's
history; the latter ambitious of future influence! If heresies were
fomented and schisms created when to be a Christian invited espionage
and perhaps death, what an increase there must have been in these and
other disintegrating influences when it became a reproach rather than
a praise _not_ to be a Christian, and the door of the church stood
wide open to the evil-minded, who sought membership, not to enjoy the
consolation of religion but for worldly advantage!

Footnotes

1. Church History, Vol. i, Introduction. In justification of his
course, in a foot note he argues that "A history of the perversions and
abuses of religion is not properly a history of the church; as absurd
were it to suppose a history of the highwaymen that have infested their
country to be a history of England." He appears oblivious to the fact
that he throws himself open to the retort: A history of the blessedness
and charity of the purely good men alone is not properly a history of
the church; as absurd were it to suppose a history alone of the honest
men of England that have blessed their race to be a history of that
country. Milner's work is more properly a history of piety than of the
church. In every age and country he seeks out the good men who have
nearest conformed their lives to Christian precepts and celebrates them
in his pages. Therefore, whatever admissions we find this author making
as to the corruptions and abuses which found their way into the church:
we shall be justified in considering as of special weight since they
are admitted by him only on compulsion, and when there is no chance of
either denying or excusing them. I have already called attention to the
same disposition in Eusebius, p. 37; and hence his testimony may also
be regarded as of special value in relation to the decline of the true
Christian spirit.

2. Ch. Hist., Vol. i, ch. xv.

3. Milner's Ch. Hist., Vol. i, cent. iii, ch. vi.

4. Milner's Ch. Hist., Vol. i, cent. iii, ch. viii.

5. Milner's Ch. Hist., Vol. i, cent. iii, ch. xvii.

6. Eusebius' Eccl. Hist., Bk. viii, ch. i.

7. Eusebius' Eccl. Hist., Bk. viii, ch. ii.

8. Book of Martyrs, ch. xii.

9. See Milner's Introduction to his Church Hist., Vol. i.

10. This is the Rev. H. H. Milman who edited and annotated Gibbon's
"Decline and Fall." The above quotation will be found in the editor's
preface.



CHAPTER IV.

CHANGES IN THE FORM AND SPIRIT OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT--CORRUPTION OF THE
POPES.

It is now my purpose to notice those alterations actually made in
the form and spirit of the Christian church government. Necessarily
my reference to these matters must be brief; sufficient only to
demonstrate the fact for which I am contending in these chapters.

I am forced to admit that the description of the church organization in
the New Testament is not all one could wish it to be. Only the faintest
outline may be traced in those documents which all Christians accept as
authority, and as they are fragmentary the description of the church
contained in them is necessarily imperfect.

From what is written it appears that the quorum of the Twelve Apostles
exercised a universal jurisdiction over the church, and a sort of
primacy seems to be accorded to three of their number, Peter, James and
John. Before the crucifixion Jesus also called into existence quorums
of seventies to whom he gave similar powers to those bestowed upon the
Twelve; [1] but for some reason, doubtless the imperfection of the
Christian records, we can learn nothing more of them than is set down
in the tenth chapter of Luke.

After the departure of the resurrected Messiah from his disciples
at Bethany, the apostles, as fast as men were brought to faith and
repentance through their preaching, organized in the various cities
where they labored branches of the church, over which they appointed
elders or bishops to preside; [2] and these evidently were assisted in
their duties by deacons. [3] In an enumeration of the church officers
given by Paul, we have other officers named besides apostles, prophets,
seventies; _viz.,_ evangelists, pastors and teachers. [4]

It is difficult from the New Testament to determine the exact nature
and full extent of the duties of these respective officers in the
church, or their gradation. But that there was a prescribed duty
to each officer, a limit to the authority of each, and a gradation
among them, which made a harmonious whole--a complete ecclesiastical
government, with all the parts properly adjusted and assigned their
respective duties, there can be no question. For Paul likens the church
of Christ to the body of a man, which, though it hath many members,
yet is it one body; and all the members are necessary; one cannot say
to the other, "I have no need of thee." So all these officers in the
church, the apostle argues, are necessary; and as the head in the
natural body cannot say to the foot, "I have no need of thee," neither
in the church can the apostle say to the deacon, "I have no need of
thee;" much less can the deacon say to the apostle, "I have no need of
thee." [5] "Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers?" he
asks. The implied answer is, No; but, as he elsewhere says, the whole
body--i. e., the church--"is fitly joined together, and compacted by
that which every joint supplieth." [6]

This organization as given by the Master had for its purpose the
perfecting of the saints; the work of the ministry; edifying the body
of Christ; and to prevent the saints being carried about by every wind
of doctrine, by the sleight and cunning of men. [7] The apostle who
thus specifies the purposes of the church organization also intimates
that it was to be perpetuated until the saints all come to the "unity
of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God--unto a perfect
man, unto the measure of the fullness of the stature of Christ." [8]
Furthermore, it is obvious that since the church organization was
given for the purposes above enumerated, so long as there are saints
to be perfected, or a necessity for work in the ministry; so long as
the church needs edifying or the saints guarding from heresy, and the
deceitfulness of false teachers--just so long will this organization of
the church with apostles and prophets, seventies and elders, bishops
and pastors, teachers and deacons be needed; and since the kinds of
work enumerated in the foregoing will always be necessary, we arrive
at the conclusion that the church organization as established by
the apostles was designed to be perpetual. [9] But that it was not
perpetuated is clearly demonstrated by writers of the second century,
who, with the single exception of Clement of Alexandria, who calls
Clement of Rome an "Apostle," recognize no other officers in the
church than bishops, presbyters (elders) and deacons. It is difficult
to account for the sudden loss of so many orders of officers in the
church, unless, indeed, the apostasy for which I contend had made very
great progress as early as the opening of the second century, which, I
believe, was the case.

It appears from a statement of Clement of Rome [10] that persons
selected by the apostles to be bishops, and after the death of the
apostles those selected by other men of repute in the church, were
submitted to the people for their approval, and this was the custom
until the fourth century. It was also the custom of the bishops to
employ the elders as a sort of council; and to call upon the people for
their assent in the important matters of church government. In course
of time, however, early in the fourth century, this respect for the
principle of common consent was lost. The people were first altogether
excluded from a voice in ecclesiastical affairs; and the next step was
to deprive the elders of their former authority. [11] Thus power was
centralized in the hands of the bishops, which enabled them to control
everything at their discretion, and paved the way for those abuses of
power which bear evidence of the awful apostasy of the church.

So far as can be learned from the Christian annals, the churches that
grew up under the preaching of the apostles recognized in that quorum
a general presidency over all the churches established; and in fact
seemed to regard each separate church as but a member of the one great
household of faith. But after the death of the apostles, these several
branches seem to be considered separate and independent organizations,
united in faith and charity, it is true, but in nothing more. There
is no evidence that there was such a thing as subordination among the
churches, or rank among the bishops. As might be expected, however,
there was a peculiar respect paid to the churches founded by the
apostles. 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. 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 cities, very naturally 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,
wherever they presided over bishops in outlying districts, soon came to
be designated as archbishops.

Gradually, and perhaps almost imperceptibly, the church in the west
in its government followed the civil divisions of the Roman empire.
The bishop 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, and soon it became the custom to style them metropolitans.

The bishops of the great cities of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria,
and Antioch, after the ascension of Constantine, were made to
correspond to the four praetorian prefects created by Constantine in
the civil government; and before the end of the fourth century received
the title of patriarchs. [12] It is also said by Mosheim, though denied
by other writers, that next to the patriarchs were bishops whose
jurisdiction extended over several provinces and corresponded to the
civil exarchs; next came the metropolitan bishops whose jurisdiction,
as already stated, was limited to a single province, and corresponded
to the governor of the provinces. The arch-bishops presided over a
district including several bishoprics within a province; and lastly
came the bishops of churches.

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 mattes of common interest to
their churches. At first the attending bishops looked upon themselves
as merely the representatives of their respective churches, without
further jurisdiction 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 wont to advise or entreat. 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 from the lower clergy, but it was
quickly overcome by the activity and ambition of the bishops, who were
only too glad to escape the restraints imposed upon their movements by
the doctrine of common consent. It is said also that as many changes
occurred among the lower order of the clergy as among the bishops.
The elders and deacons aping the conduct of their file leaders became
too proud to attend to the humble duties of their offices, and hence
a number of other officers were added to the church--subdeacons,
acolythi, ostiarii, lectors, exorcists and copiatae [13]--while the
elders and deacons spent much of their time in indolence and pleasure.

If the ambition of rival bishops distracted the church in the second
and third centuries, much more did ambitious prelates--patriarchs
and metropolitans--of the fourth and fifth centuries disturb its
tranquility. They contended about the limits of their respective
jurisdiction with all the bitterness of temporal kings seeking an
enlargement of their dominions. They made conquests and reprisals
upon each other in much the same spirit, and at times were not above
resorting to violence to attain their ends. It soon happened that
the patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem sank below their
fellow patriarchs of Rome and Constantinople in wealth and dignity. The
prelates of these latter cities fiercely contended for the title of
universal bishop; and in that contest the bishop of Constantinople was
not always unsuccessful.

Over the protest of Leo the Great, in the fifth century, the council of
Chalcedon decreed that the bishop of "New Rome" ought to enjoy the same
honors and prerogatives with the pontiff of ancient Rome, on account of
the equal rank and dignity of the two cities. In the following century,
encouraged by past successes the bishop of "New Rome,"--John, surnamed
the Faster, because of the austerity of his life, assembled a council
of eastern bishops on his own account, to decide on charges brought
against the patriarch of Antioch. It was on this occasion that he made
such an assumption of the title of acumenical or universal bishop, that
Gregory the Great supposed him to be aiming at a supremacy over all the
Christian churches. In spite of the opposition of Gregory, the Faster,
sustained by the emperor, continued to wear the title, though, it is
said, not in the sense that Gregory supposed. The contest continued
from this time forward with little interruption until that fatal
schism came between the east and the west with which the reader has
already been made acquainted. [14] The patriarchs of New Rome retained
their hold upon the east; but the decay, moral and spiritual, which
blighted those churches steadily went on, until at the last, Mohammedan
civilization displaced Christian civilization. The crescent rose
triumphantly above the cross, and the east sank into a settled gloom
out of which it has not yet been able to rise.

In the west it was otherwise. There all was activity. The Roman
pontiffs not only sent their missionaries to the barbarians to preach
the supremacy of the popes, 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 the empire. But if imperial Rome was vanquished,
there arose above its ruins papal Rome, in majesty no less splendid
than that possessed by 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
standard of the emperors. Moreover, the barbarous nations that fell
under the influence of the Roman missionaries were accustomed to hold
their priests in a superstitious reverence. In portions of Western
Europe the Druid priests had reigned over both people and magistrates,
controlling absolutely the jurisdiction of the latter; and, in the
case of the supreme priest, according to some authorities, [15] the
reverence of the barbarians amounted to worship. This reverence,
on their conversion to Christianity, was readily transferred to
the supreme pontiff of the Catholic Church; and made possible that
spiritual and temporal despotism before which monarchs trembled and the
world stood in abject fear.

Having traced the rise of the Church of Rome to this point, it yet
remains to say that the corruption of her clergy and members kept pace
with the developing splendor of the hierarchy. The pride, ambition and
wickedness which bishops and other ministers of the church practiced
in the second and third centuries have already been pointed out, and
at the same time it was suggested that in these matters there was not
likely to be any improvement after ease and luxury--ever the panderers
to immorality--had increased the appetite for sensual pleasures and
supplied the means of gratification.

Early in the history of the church the morality of the times not only
excused but justified lying and deceit whenever it was supposed that
the interests of religion could be promoted by it; and hence the
existence of that mass of childish fable and falsehood respecting
the infancy and youth of Messiah, and the wonder-working power of
the relics of the saints and martyrs which has brought the Christian
religion into contempt. Not even the greatest and most pious teachers
of the first five or six centuries are free from this leprosy; [16] and
if such characters as Ambrose, Hilary, Augustine, Gregory Nazianzen,
and Jerome are not free from it, how much more may we expect to find it
a vice with men of less reputation!

The attempt to live in a state of celibacy gave rise to many scandals
in the church. Ambitious of a peculiar sanctity, the clergy began
to abstain from marriage, but not from the pleasures supposed to be
peculiar to the married state. It became the custom for the priests
to live with "sub-introduced women," who "passed as sisters of the
priests, the correctness of whose taste was often exemplified by the
remarkable beauty of their sinful partners." [17] It is only fair to
say that a law of Honorius condemned this practice, but it is to be
feared that the only effect of the law upon those undertaking to live
in the unnatural condition which celibacy imposes was merely to drive
the practice from the public gaze.

Of all the writers who have given us a description of the moral
condition of the church in the period of which I write, I think
Salvian, who wrote about the middle of the fifth century, is the most
vivid, and hence I quote in part his arraignment:

"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? Why enter the church to deplore
their former sins, and upon going forth--what do I say?--in those very
courts they commit fresh sins, their mouths and their hearts contradict
one another. Their prayers are criminal meditations rather than vows
of expiation. Scarcely is 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.

"It may be urged that we are better at heart 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 laws and of the rules of truth
and of what that law enjoins. 'Christians, indeed, to the shame of
Jesus Christ,' say they." [18]

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 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. Treves has been taken four
times, and has only increased in wickedness under her misfortunes. The
same state of things exists in Cologne--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
dissoluteness of our morals, of which our calamities are the just
punishment."

The moral condition of the church did not improve in the sixth nor the
seventh century. It kept getting worse and worse until in the tenth
century those writers most interested in upholding the purity of the
church declare that this was an iron age, barren of all goodness; a
leaden age, abounding in all wickedness; and a dark age, remarkable for
the scarcity of writers and men of learning. Christ is represented as
in a very deep sleep, the ship as covered with waves, and there were no
disciples who by their cries might wake him, being themselves asleep.
[19] "Infidel Malice," says Milner, "has with pleasure recorded the
vices and 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
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." [20]

As already remarked, it is the contention of the Roman Catholic Church
that from Peter to Leo XIII. there has been an uninterrupted line
of bishops in the see of Rome who have held divine authority; who
succeeded both to the divine authority and mission of St. Peter; with
power to bind and loose on earth and in heaven; who were, in fact, the
vicars of Christ on earth, presidents of the church universal.

It now becomes my duty to refute that claim and give further proof
of the complete apostasy of the church by presenting the history of
the popes for three hundred years, from the middle of the eighth to
the middle of the eleventh century. I quote the sketch from Draper's
Intellectual Development of Europe:

"On the death of Pope Paul I., who had attained the pontificate
A. D. 757, the Duke of Nepi compelled some bishops to consecrate
Constantine, one of his brothers, as pope; but more legitimate electors
subsequently, A. D. 768, choosing Stephen IV., the usurper and his
adherents were severely punished; the eyes of Constantine were put
out; the tongue of Bishop Theodorus was amputated, and he was left
in a dungeon to expire in the agonies of thirst. The nephews of Pope
Adrian seized his successor, Pope Leo III., A. D. 795, in the street,
and forcing him into a neighboring church, attempted to put out his
eyes and cut out his tongue; at a later period this pontiff trying to
suppress a conspiracy to depose him, Rome became a scene of rebellion,
murder and conflagration. His successor, Stephen V., A. D. 816, was
ignominiously driven from the city; his successor, Paschal I., was
accused of blinding and murdering two ecclesiastics in the Lateran
Palace; it was necessary that imperial commissioners should investigate
the matter, but the pope died, after having exculpated himself by
oath before thirty bishops. John VIII., A. D. 872, unable to resist
the Mohammedans, was compelled to pay them tribute; the Bishop of
Naples, maintaining a secret alliance with them, received his share
of the plunder they collected. Him John excommunicated, nor would he
give him absolution unless he would betray the chief Mohammedans and
assassinate others himself. There was an ecclesiastical conspiracy
to murder the pope; some of the treasures of the church were seized;
and the gate of St. Pancrazia was opened with false keys, to admit
the Saracens into the city. Formosus, who had been engaged in these
transactions, and excommunicated as a conspirator for the murder of
John, was subsequently elected pope, A. D. 891; he was succeeded by
Boniface VI., A. D. 896, who had been deposed from the diaconate, and
again from the priesthood, for his immoral and lewd life. By Stephen
VII., who followed, the dead body of Formosus was taken from the grave,
clothed in papal habiliaments, propped up in a chair, tried before a
council, and the preposterous and indecent scene completed by cutting
off three of the fingers of the corpse and casting it into the Tiber;
but Stephen himself was destined to exemplify how low the papacy had
fallen; he was thrown into prison and strangled. In the course of five
years from A. D. 896 to A. D. 900, five popes were consecrated. Leo
V., who succeeded in A. D. 904, was in less than two months thrown
into prison by Christopher, one of his chaplains, who usurped his
place, and who, in his turn, was shortly expelled from Rome by Sergius
III., who, by the aid of a military force, seized the pontificate, A.
D. 905. This man, according to the testimony of the times, lived in
a criminal intercourse with the celebrated prostitute Theodora, who,
with her daughters Marozia and Theodora, also prostitutes, exercised an
extraordinary control over him. The love of Theodora was also shared
by John X.: she gave him the first arch-bishopric of Ravenna, and then
translated him to Rome, A. D. 915, as pope. John was not unsuited to
the times; he organized a confederacy which perhaps prevented Rome
from being captured by the Saracens, and the world was astonished and
edified by the appearance of this warlike pontiff at the head of his
troops. By the love of Theodora, as was said, he maintained himself
in the papacy for fourteen years; by the intrigues and hatred of
her daughter, Marozia, he was overthrown. She surprised him in the
Lateran palace; killed his brother Peter before his face; threw him
into prison, where he soon died, smothered, as was asserted, with a
pillow. After a short interval Marozia made her own son pope as John
XI., A. D. 931. Many affirmed that Pope Sergius was his father, but
she herself inclined to attribute him to her husband Alberic, whose
brother Guido she subsequently married. Another of her sons, Alberic,
so called from his supposed father, jealous of his brother John, cast
him and his mother Marozia into prison. After a time Alberic's son was
elected pope, A. D. 956; he assumed the title of John XII., the amorous
Marozia thus having given a son and a grandson to the papacy. John was
only nineteen years old when he thus became head of Christendom. His
reign was characterized by the most shocking immoralities, so that
the Emperor Otho I. was compelled by the German clergy to interfere.
A synod was summoned for his trial in the Church of St. Peter, before
which it appeared that John had received bribes for the consecration
of bishops, that he had ordained one who was but ten years old, and
had performed that ceremony over another in a stable; he was charged
with incest with one of his father's concubines, and with so many
adulteries that the Lateran Palace had become a brothel; he put out
the eyes of one ecclesiastic and castrated another, both dying in
consequence of their injuries; he was given to drunkenness, gambling,
and the invocation of Jupiter and Venus. When cited to appear before
the council, he sent word that 'he had gone out hunting;' and to the
fathers who remonstrated with him, he threateningly remarked 'that
Judas, as well as the other disciples, received from his master the
power of binding and loosing, but that as soon as he proved traitor
to the common cause, the only power he retained was that of binding
his own neck.' Hereupon he was deposed, and Leo VIII. elected in his
stead, A. D. 963; but subsequently getting the upper hand, he seized
his antagonists, cut off the hand of one, the nose, finger, tongue of
others. His life was eventually brought to an end by the vengeance of a
man whose wife he had seduced.

"After such details it is almost needless to allude to the annals of
succeeding popes; to relate that John XIII. was strangled in prison;
that Boniface VII. imprisoned Benedict VII., and killed him by
starvation; that John XIV. was secretly put to death in the dungeons
of the castle of St. Angelo; that the corpse of Boniface was dragged
by the populace through the streets. The sentiment of reverence for
the sovereign pontiff, nay, even of respect, had become extinct in
Rome; throughout Europe the clergy were so shocked at the state of
things that, in their indignation, they began to look with approbation
on the intention of the Emperor Otho to take from the Italians their
privilege of appointing the successor of St. Peter, and confine it to
his own family. But his kinsman, Gregory V., whom he placed on the
pontifical throne, was very soon compelled by the Romans to fly; his
excommunications and religious thunders were turned into derision by
them; they were too well acquainted with the true nature of these
terrors; they were living behind the scenes. A terrible punishment
awaited the Anti-pope John XVI. Otho returned into Italy, seized
him, put out his eyes, cut off his nose and tongue, and sent him
through the streets mounted on an ass, with his face to the tail, and
a wine-bladder on his head. It seemed impossible that things could
become worse; yet Rome had still to see Benedict IX., A. D. 1033, a
boy of less than twelve years, raised to the apostolic throne. Of this
pontiff, one of his successors, Victor III., declared that his life was
so shameful, so foul, so execrable, that he shuddered to describe it.
He ruled like a captain of a banditti rather than a prelate. The people
at last, unable to bear his adulteries, homicides and abominations any
longer, rose against him. In despair of maintaining his position, he
put up the papacy to auction. It was bought by a presbyter named John,
who became Gregory V., A. D. 1045."

"More than a thousand years had elapsed since the birth of our Savior,
and such was the condition of Rome. Well may the historian shut the
annals of those times in disgust; well may the heart of the Christian
sink within him at such a catalogue of hideous crime; well may he ask,
Were these the viceregents of God upon earth--those who had truly
reached that goal beyond which the last effort of human wickedness
cannot pass?" [21]

Is it not difficult to reconcile one's mind to the thought that
these men who ruled the Catholic Church for three centuries were the
viceregents of God on earth? Or that through them a divine authority
and a divine mission has been transmitted to later and happier times?
To do so one would be under the necessity of maintaining that no amount
of immorality, however infamous, can possibly disqualify men from
acting as God's representatives. And such a position would be contrary
to all the evidence of scripture, as well as revolting to sound reason.

Footnotes

1. Compare Luke x with Matt. x.

2. Acts xiv: 23. Acts xx: 17, 28.

3. Phillip i: 1. I Tim. iii. This also is the view of Clement of Rome
who, in writing to the Corinthians in the third century, says of the
apostles: "So preaching everywhere in country and town, they appointed
their first fruits when they had proved them by the spirit, to be
bishops and deacons unto them that should believe. And this they did do
in no new fashion; for indeed it had been written concerning bishops
and deacons from very ancient times; for thus saith the scriptures in a
certain place: 'I will appoint their bishops in righteousness and their
deacons in faith.'"

4. Eph. iv.

5. I Cor. xii.

6. Eph. iv.

7. Eph. iv.

8. "Ibid."

9. In this connection it may be observed that the vacancy in the
quorum of the Twelve, occasioned by the apostasy of Judas, was filled
(Acts i: 24-26). Paul, too, though not in the original Twelve was an
Apostle, and so subscribes himself in nearly all his letters. Clement
of Alexandria, an elder and writer of the second century, calls Clement
of Rome, the "Apostle Clement." Though whether this is meant in a
rather loose sense or because he had been ordained such by one of the
apostles--for he was an associate of both Peter and Paul--does not
appear. (Philip iv: 3.)

10. See epistle of Clement to the Corinthians.

11. Mosheim's Eccl. Hist., Cent. iv, Bk. ii, Part ii, ch. ii. See also
his remarks on the government of the church in Cent. iii and ii.

12. The bishops of Jerusalem, in the 5th century, also contended for
and at last secured the title of Patriarch. (Mosheim's E. Inst., Cent.
v, Part ii, ch. ii.)

13. Mosheim's Eccl. Inst., Cent. iii, Part ii, ch. ii.

14. See pp. 21, 22.

15. Schlegel among them.

16. Mosheim's Eccl. Inst., Cent. iv, Part ii, ch. ii.

17. Intellectual Development of Europe, Vol. i, p. 359. Draper remarks
also that "the children arising from these associations do not appear
to have occasioned any extraordinary scandal."--_Ibid_.

18. The above quotation is taken from the third and fourth books on
"The Providence of God," by Salvian.

19. Such are the representations of Caesar Baronius, a Catholic
historian of the 16th century. He was a candidate for the papacy in
1605, and hence his devotion to the Catholic church cannot be doubted.

20. Milner's Ch. Hist., vol. III, Cent. x, ch. i.

21. Intellectual Development of Europe, Vol. i, pp. 378-382.



CHAPTER V.

CHANGE IN PUBLIC WORSHIP--IN THE ORDINANCES OF THE GOSPEL.

It yet remains to note some of those changes in the public worship of
the church, and in the ordinances of the gospel, which contributed to
the great apostasy.

The simplicity of the Christian religion was made a reproach to the
Church of Christ by the pagan priests. "The Christians have no temples,
therefore they have no gods," was an argument sufficiently convincing
to the heathens. It was but natural, perhaps, to seek to cast off this
reproach; but the effort to do so led to the introduction of many
ceremonies quite at variance with the gospel. The early Christian
Saints were accustomed to meet on the first day of the week for public
worship; the meetings, during the first century at least, being held,
for the most part, 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," [1]--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.

But all this was soon changed. 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, [2] "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 theatres; nay, they were instructed both to applaud
and to clap the preachers." 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.

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. [3] It first became a
custom to use it at funerals against offensive smells; then in public
worship to disguise the bad air of crowded assemblies; then at the
consecration of bishops and magistrates, and by these steps its use at
last degenerated into a superstitious rite.

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 and the
same privileges assigned as had been attributed to the pagan temples,
statues and lustrations before the advent of Christ. [4]

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 martyrs was made to conform with that which the
pagans had in former times paid to their gods. [5] This was done out of
indiscreet eagerness to allure the pagans to embrace Christianity. [6]
"When Gregory [surnamed Thaumaturgus on account of the numerous miracle
she 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 sensuous 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 feast 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 correct manner of life." [7]

While pagan rites and ceremonies 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 extra-ordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost must not be expected.
Catholic writers, on the other hand, insist that miracles have 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. The virtues and prodigies ascribed to
the bones and other relics of the martyrs and saints are purile 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 apostles. [8]
There is nothing in the scriptures or in reason that would lead one to
believe that the miraculous gifts 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 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. [9]

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.

The manner in which excommunication was performed 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 form of
excommunication was changed, by being burdened with many rites and
ceremonies borrowed from pagan sources. [10] 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 punishment as God Himself might see proper 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 church fellowship, but
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.

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.

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. [11] 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
was 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. [12] 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 fount for baptism, an exorcist
by a solemn, menacing formula declared them free from the bondage of
Satan, and hailed them servants of Christ. [13] 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." [14] We have already noted
the fact that baptism was administered in the days of the apostles as
soon as profession of faith and repentance was made, but in the second
and third centuries baptism was only administered twice a year, and
then only to such candidates as had gone through a long preparation and
trial. [15] The times chosen for the administration of the ordinance
were on the vigils of Easter and Whitsuntide, [16] 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. [17]

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.
[18] The first case of this kind of baptism is related by Eusebius. The
person to whom it was so administered was Novatus, 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--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." [19]

This innovation continued to spread until now the general rule among
Christians 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 birth--a death unto sin, a birth
unto righteousness. It is one of those innovations which changed an
ordinance of the everlasting covenant. [20]

About the same 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 doctrine or
practice of the apostles or any New Testament writer. 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, and of exercising faith, or of repenting,
evidently they are not fit subjects for baptism.

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--considered the question whether infants should be baptized
within two or three days after birth, or whether baptism 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, within a day or two after birth. [21] 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 of the apostles--as
some aver [22]--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.

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 Eucharist--and the purposes for which
it was instituted are so plain that he who runs may read. From Paul's
description of the ordinance, it is clear' that the broken bread was
intended to be an emblem of the 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. [23] 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 remember him always 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.

In this spirit and without great ceremony the sacrament was
administered for some time. But 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 of administering 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." [24] 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. [25] This is the doctrine of transubstantiation. This dogma
established, it was but a short step to the "elevation of the host;"
that is, the elevation of the bread and wine before it was distributed,
so that it might be viewed and worshiped by the people. This was called
the adoration of the symbols. It was idolatry--the worship of the bread
and wine falsely taught to be the Lord Jesus. [26]

Hence came 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 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 suffering, a
mystical shedding of blood and a mystical death of the same Victim.

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 the 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 a 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 sacrifices
to the pagan deities.

In time the idea became prevalent that 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; and was
equally and entirely given to the faithful which ever 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 he administered both bread
and wine when instituting the sacred ordinance. [27]

Thus, through changing the ordinances of the gospel; by misapplying
them in some cases, and adding pagan rites to them in others; by
dragging into the service of the church the ceremonies employed in
heathen temples in the worship of pagan gods; by departing from the
moral law of the gospel, until the pages of Christian church history
are well nigh as dark in immorality, as cruel and bloody as those
that recount the wickedness of pagan Rome; [28] by changing the form
and departing from the spirit of government in the church as fixed
by Jesus, coupled with the corrupting influence of luxury which came
with repose and wealth, together with the destruction visited upon
the noblest and best of the servants and saints of God by the pagan
persecutions which continued through three centuries--all this, I
say, brought to pass the apostasy for which I am contending in these
pages--the destruction of the Church of Christ on earth.

Footnotes

1. Justin Martyr, First Apology to the Emperor Antoninus Pius.

2. Mosheim.

3. Tertullian's Apology, ch. xiii.

4. Mosheim's Eccl. Hist., vol. I, bk. ii, ch. 4.

5. Historie de Manicheism, tom ii, p. 642.

6. Eccl. Hist. (Mosheim), vol. I, bk. ii, part ii.

7. Nyssen's Life of Gregory Thaumaturgus.

8. I Cor. xii: 8--10.

9. "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
Christians. 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 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).

10. "That it was proper for the Christian bishops to increase
restraints upon the licentiousness of transgressors will be readily
granted by all who consider the circumstances of those times. But
whether it was for the advantage of Christianity to borrow rules
for this salutary ordinance from the enemies of truth, and thus to
consecrate, as it were, a part of pagan superstition, many persons very
justly call in question."--Eccl. History (Mosheim), book i, cent, ii,
part ii, ch. iii.

11. Acts ii: 41. Acts viii: 12, 35--40.

12. Mosheim, vol. i, book i, part ii, ch. iv.

13. 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 Militis._ 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.)

14. Mosheim, vol. i, book i, part ii, ch. iv.

15. According to Schlegel, the so-called apostolic constitution (b.
viii. ch. xxxii) enjoined a three years' course of preparation; yet
with allowance of some exceptions.

16. That is, in 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.)

17. Mosheim, vol. i, book ii, part ii, ch. iv.

18. Cyprian's Epistles, letter 76.

19. Eusebius Eccl. Hist., b. vi, ch. 43.

20. In writing to the saints of Rome, Paul says: "Know ye not, that so
many of us as were baptized into 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 the likeness of his resurrection in that; but
in immersion there is.--"The Gospel" (Roberts), page 185.

21. Milner's Church Hist., vol. i, pp. 429, 430.

22. Such is the opinion of Milner--Church Hist., vol. i, p. 430.

23. "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 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." (I Cor. xi: 23--26.)

24. Mosheim's Eccl. Hist., bk. i, cent. iii, part ii, ch. iv.

25. 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 Eucharist and oblations,
because they do not believe the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior
Jesus Christ, who suffered for our sins." (Epistle 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 wine) 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 Antoninus.) 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.

26. As evidence of the superstition which was connected 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 is washed be cast into the fire."
Decisions of Pope Gregory III.--Harduin's Concilia.

27. Luke xxii. Matt. xxvi.

28. The wickedness of the Christian world in the dark ages and during
the progress of the "Reformation" was such that the author of the
"Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire," in closing his famous sixteenth
chapter which deals with the persecution of the Christians during
the first three centuries of our era, can say, and his arraignment
cannot be successfully contradicted: "We conclude this chapter by a
melancholy truth which obtrudes itself on the reluctant mind; that
even admitting without hesitation or inquiry, all that history has
recorded, or devotion has feigned, on the subject of martyrdom, it
must still be acknowledged, that the Christians, in course of their
intestine dissensions, have inflicted far greater severities on each
other, than they had experienced from the zeal of infidels. During the
ages of ignorance which followed the subversion of the Roman Empire
in the west, the bishops of the imperial city extended their dominion
over the laity as well as the clergy of the Latin church. The fabric of
superstition which they had erected, and which might long have defied
the feeble efforts of reason, was at length assaulted by a crowd of
daring fanatics, who from the twelfth to the sixteenth century assumed
the popular character of reformers. The church of Rome defended by
violence the empire which she had acquired by fraud; a system of peace
and benevolence was soon disgraced by proscriptions, war, massacres
and the institution of the holy office (the Inquisition). And as the
reformers were animated by the love of civil as well as of religious
freedom, the Catholic princes connected their own interest with that of
the clergy, and enforced by fire and the sword the terrors of spiritual
censurers. In the Netherlands alone more than one hundred thousand of
the subjects of Charles V. are said to have suffered by the hand of the
executioner; and this extraordinary number is attested by Grotius (See
Grotius Annal. de Rebus Belgiers). * * * If we are obliged to submit
our belief to the authority of Grotius, it must be allowed, that the
number of Protestants who were executed in a single province and a
single reign, far exceed that of the primitive martyrs in the space of
three centuries, and of the Roman Empire." "Decline and Fall," vol. i,
ch. xvi.



CHAPTER VI.

THE TESTIMONY OF PROPHECY TO THE APOSTASY.

"What is prophecy but history reversed?" Nothing. Prophecy is a record
of things before they transpire. History is a record of them after
they have occurred; and of the two prophecy is more to be trusted for
its accuracy than history: for the reason that it has for its source
the unerring inspiration of Almighty God; while history--except in the
case of inspired historians--is colored by the favor or prejudice of
the writer, depends for its exactness upon the point of view from which
he looks upon the events; and is likely to be marred in a thousand
ways by the influences surrounding him--party considerations, national
interest or prejudice; supposed influence upon present conditions and
future prospects--all these things may interfere with history; but
prophecy is free from such influences. Historians are self-constituted,
or appointed by men; but prophets are chosen of God. Selected by divine
wisdom, and illuminated by that spirit which shows things that are to
come, [1] prophets have revealed to them so much of the future as God
would have men to know, and the inspired writers record it for the
enlightenment or warning of mankind, without the coloring or distortion
so liable to mar the work of the historian. Thus Moses recorded what
the history of Israel would be on condition of their obedience to God;
and what it would be if they were disobedient. Israel was disobedient,
and historians have exhausted their art in attempts to tell of their
disobedience and suffering; but neither in vividness nor accuracy do
the the histories compare with the prophecy. [2] So with the prophecy
of Daniel in respect to the rise and succession of the great political
powers that should dominate the earth, and the final triumph of the
Kingdom of God. [3] So with well nigh all of the prophecies.

With these observations upon the trustworthiness of prophecy it is
my purpose to show that prophecy no less than the facts of history,
sustains the conclusion arrived at in the foregoing chapters on the
apostasy from the Christian religion, and the destruction of the
Christian Church.

Paul warned the church at Ephesus that after his departing grievous
wolves would enter in among them, not sparing the flock; and "also of
your own selves," said he, "shall men arise, speaking perverse things
to draw away disciples after them." [4] "Preach the word," said the
same apostle in writing to Timothy, "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 teachers to themselves having itching
ears; and they shall turn their ears from the truth and be turned to
fables." [5] The prophet Peter also warned the church of the rise of
false teachers, who privily would bring in damnable heresies; deny the
Lord who bought them; bring upon themselves swift destruction, speak
evil of the way of truth and through covetousness, with feigned words
would make merchandise of the saints. [6]

Referring again to Paul's prophecies we have him foretelling the rise
of anti-Christ before the glorious coming of the 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: "We beseech you,
brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus 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. [7] Let no man deceive you by any means, for
that day shall not come except there be 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 knew what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth
will let, 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 s

Showing first 200,000 characters. Full text: gutenberg.org/ebooks/46202