The Great Apostasy, Considered in the Light of Scriptural and Secular History

by James E. Talmage

CHAPTER IX.

**Internal Causes.—Continued**.

1. Among the controlling causes leading to the general apostasy of the Church, we have specified as third in the series: Unauthorized changes in Church organization and government.

2. A comparison between the plan of organization on which the Primitive Church was founded and the ecclesiastical system which took its place will afford valuable evidence as to the true or apostate condition of the modern Church. The Primitive Church was officered by apostles, pastors, high priests, seventies, elders, bishops, priests, teachers, and deacons.—(See Luke 6:13 and Mark 3:14; Eph. 4:11; Heb. 5:1-5; Luke 10:1-11; Acts 14:23; 15:6; I Peter 5:1; I Tim. 3:1; Titus 1:17; Rev. 1:6; Acts 13:1; I Tim. 3:8-12.) We have no evidence that the presiding council of the Church, comprising the twelve apostles, was continued beyond the earthly ministry of those who had been ordained to that holy calling during the life of Christ or soon after His ascension. Nor is there record of any ordination of individuals to the apostleship, irrespective of membership in the council of twelve, beyond those whose calling and ministry are chronicled in the New Testament, which, as a historical record, ends with the first century.

3. Ecclesiastical history other than the holy scriptures informs us, however, that wherever a branch, or church, was organized, a bishop or an elder (presbyter) was placed in charge. There is no doubt that while the apostles lived, they were recognized and respected as the presiding authorities of the Church. As they established branches or churches, they selected the bishops, and submitted their nominations to the vote of the members. As already stated, the principle of self-government, or common consent, was respected in apostolic days with a care amounting to sacred duty. We read that the bishops were assisted in their local administration by presbyters and deacons.

4. After the apostles had gone, bishops and other officers were nominated by, or at the instance of, the existing authorities. The affairs of each church or branch were conducted and regulated by the local officers, so that a marked equality existed among the several churches, none exercising or claiming supremacy except as to the deference voluntarily paid to those churches that had been organized by the personal ministry of the apostles. Throughout the first and the greater part of the second century, "the Christian churches were independent of each other; nor were they joined together by association, confederacy, or other bonds but those of charity. Each Christian assembly was a little state, governed by its own laws, which were either enacted, or, at least, approved by the society."— (Mosheim, "Eccl. Hist.," Cent. II, Part II, ch. 2:2.)

5. As with the churches, so with their bishops,—there was a recognized equality among them. Late in the second, and throughout the third century, however, marked distinctions and recognitions of rank arose among the bishops, those of large and wealthy cities assuming authority and dignity above that accorded by them to the bishops of the country provinces. The bishops of the largest cities or provinces, took to themselves the distinguishing title of Metropolitans,—(See Mosheim, "Eccl. Hist.," Cent. II, Part II, ch. 2:3; also Cent. IV, Part II, ch. 2:3, and compare Cent. I, Part II, ch. 2:14.) and assumed a power of presidency over the bishops of more limited jurisdiction.

6. The second century was marked by the custom of holding synods or church councils; the practice originated among the churches in Greece, and thence became general. These councils grew rapidly in power, so that in the third century we find them legislating for the churches, and directing by edict and command in matters which formerly had been left to the vote of the people. Needless to say that with such assumptions of authority came arrogance and tyranny in the government of the Church. As the form of church government changed more and more, many minor orders of clergy or church officers arose; thus in the third century we read of sub-deacons, acolytes, ostiars, readers, exorcists, and copiates. As an instance of the pride of office, it is worthy of note that a sub-deacon was forbidden to sit in the presence of a deacon without the latter's express consent.

7. Rome, so long the "mistress of the world" in secular affairs, arrogated to herself a pre-eminence in church matters, and the bishop of Rome claimed supremacy. It is doubtless true that the church at Rome was organized by Peter and Paul. Tradition, founded on error, said that the apostle Peter was the first bishop of Rome; and those who successively were acknowledged as bishops of the metropolis claimed to be, in fact, lineal successors of the presiding apostle. The high but none the less false claim is made by the Catholic Church in this day, that the present pope is the last lineal successor—not alone to the bishopric but to the apostleship.

8. The rightful supremacy of the bishops of Rome, or Roman pontiffs as they came to be known, was early questioned; and when Constantine made Byzantium, or Constantinople, the capital of the empire, the bishop of Constantinople claimed equality. The dispute divided the Church, and for five hundred years the dissension increased, until in the ninth century (855 A. D.) it developed into a great disruption, in consequence of which the bishop of Constantinople, known distinctively as the patriarch, disavowed all further allegiance to the bishop of Rome, otherwise known as the Roman pontiff. This disruption is marked today by the distinction between Roman Catholics.

9. The election of pontiff, or bishop of Rome, was long left to the vote of the people and clergy; later the electoral function was vested in the clergy alone; and in the eleventh century the power was lodged in the college of cardinals, where it remains vested today. The Roman pontiffs strove with unremitting zeal to acquire temporal as well as spiritual authority; and their influence had become so great that in the eleventh century we find them claiming the right to direct princes, kings, and emperors in the affairs of the several nations. It was at this, the early period of their greatest temporal power, that the pontiffs took the title of pope, the word meaning literally papa or father, and applied in the sense of universal parent. The power of the popes was increased during the twelfth century, and may be said to have reached its height in the thirteenth century.

10. Not content with assumed supremacy in all church affairs, the popes "carried their insolent pretensions so far as to give themselves out for lords of the universe, arbiters of the fate of kingdoms and empires, and supreme rulers over the kings and princes of the earth."—(Mosheim, "Eccl. Hist.," Cent. XI, Part II, ch. 2:2.) They claimed the right to authorize and direct in the internal affairs of nations, and to make lawful the rebellion of subjects against their rulers if the latter failed to keep favor with the papal power.

11. Compare this arrogant and tyrannical church of the world with the Church of Christ. Unto Pilate our Lord declared, "My kingdom is not of this world."—(John 18:36.) and on an earlier occasion, when the people would have proclaimed Him king with earthly dominion,—(John 6:15.) He departed from them. Yet the Church that boasts of its divine origin as founded by the Christ, who would not be a king, lifts itself above all kings and rulers, and proclaims itself the supreme power in the affairs of nations.

12. In the fourth century the Church had promulgated what has been since designated as an infamy, viz.: that "errors in religion, when maintained and adhered to after proper admonition, were punishable with civil penalties, and corporal tortures."—(Mosheim, "Eccl. Hist.," Cent. IV, Part II, ch. 3:16.) The effect of this unjust rule appeared as more and more atrocious with the passage of the years, so that in the eleventh century, and later, we find the Church imposing punishment of fine, imprisonment, bodily torture, and even death, as penalties for infraction of church regulations, and, more infamous still, providing for mitigation or annulment of such sentences on payment of money. This led to the shocking practice of selling indulgences or pardons, which custom was afterwards carried to the awful extreme of issuing such before the commission of the specific offense, thus literally offering for sale licenses to sin, with assurance of temporal and promise of spiritual immunity.

13. The granting of indulgences as exemptions from temporal penalties was at first confined to the bishops and their agents, and the practice dates as an organized traffic from about the middle of the twelfth century. It remained for the popes, however, to go to the blasphemous extreme of assuming to remit the penalties of the hereafter on payment of the sums prescribed. Their pretended justification of the impious assumption was as horrible as the act itself, and constitutes the dreadful doctrine of supererogation.

14. As formulated in the thirteenth century, this doctrine was thus set forth: "That there actually existed an immense treasure of merit, composed of the pious deeds and virtuous actions which the saints had performed beyond what was necessary for their own salvation, and which were therefore applicable to the benefit of others; that the guardian and dispenser of this precious treasure was the Roman pontiff, and that of consequence he was empowered to assign to such as he thought proper a portion of this inexhaustible source of merit, suitable to their respective guilt, and sufficient to deliver them from the punishment due to their crimes."—(As cited by Mosheim; see "Eccl. Hist.," Cent. XII, Part II, ch. 3:4.)

15. The doctrine of supererogation is as unreasonable as it is unscriptural and untrue. Man's individual responsibility for his acts is as surely a fact as is his agency to act for himself. He will be saved through the merits and by the atoning sacrifice of our Redeemer and Lord; and his claim upon the salvation provided is strictly dependent on his compliance with the principles and ordinances of the gospel as established by Jesus Christ. Remission of sins and the eventual salvation of the human soul are provided for; but these gifts of God are not to be purchased with money. Compare the awful fallacies of supererogation and the blasphemous practice of assuming to remit sins of one man in consideration of the merits of another, with the declaration of the one and only Savior of mankind: "But I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment."—(Matt. 12:36.) His inspired apostles, seeing in prophetic vision the day of awful certainty, solemnly testifies, "And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works."—(Rev. 20:12, 13. Italics intro.)

16. The scriptures proclaim the eternal fact of individual accountability;—(For a concise treatment of the doctrine of man's responsibility see the author's "Articles of Faith," Lecture 3.) the Church in the days of its degeneracy declares that the merit of one may be bought by another and paid for in worldly coin. Can such a Church be in any measure the Church of Christ?

17. In illustration of the indulgences as sold in Germany in the sixteenth century, we have the record of the doings of John Tetzel, agent of the pope, who traveled about selling forgiveness of sins. Says Milner: "Myconius assures us that he himself heard Tetzel declaim with incredible effrontery concerning the unlimited power of the pope and the efficacy of indulgences. The people believed that the moment any person had paid the money for the indulgence he became certain of his salvation; and that the souls for whom the indulgences were bought were instantly released out of purgatory. * * * John Tetzel boasted that he had saved more souls from hell by his indulgences than St. Peter had converted to Christianity by his preaching. He assured the purchasers of them, their crimes, however enormous, would be forgiven; whence it became almost needless for him to bid them dismiss all fears concerning their salvation. For, remission of sins being fully obtained, what doubt could there be of salvation?"—(Milner, "History of the Church," Cent. XVI, ch. 2.)

18. A copy of an indulgence written by the hand of Tetzel, the vendor of popish pardons, has been preserved to us as follows: "May our Lord, Jesus Christ, have mercy upon thee and absolve thee by the merits of His most holy passion. And I, by His authority, that of His Apostles Peter and Paul, and of the most holy pope granted and committed to me in these parts, do absolve thee, first from all ecclesiastical censures, in whatever manner they have been incurred; and then from all the sins, transgressions, and excesses, how enormous soever they may be, even for such as are reserved for the cognizance of the holy see; and as far as the keys of the holy church extend, I remit to thee all the punishment which thou deservest in purgatory on their account; and I restore thee to the holy sacraments of the church, to the unity of the faithful, and to that innocence and purity which thou possessedst at baptism; so that when thou diest, the gates of punishment shall be shut, and the gates of the paradise of delight shall be opened; and if thou shalt not die at present, this grace shall remain in full force when thou art at the point of death. In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost."—(Milner, "Church History," Cent. XVI, ch. 2.)

19. By way of excuse or defense, it has been claimed for the Roman Catholic Church that a profession of contrition or repentance was required of every applicant for indulgence, and that the pardon was issued on the basis of such penitence, and not primarily for money or its equivalent; but that recipients of indulgences, at first voluntarily, and later in compliance with established custom, made a material offering or donation to the Church. It is reported, moreover, that some of the abuses with which the selling of indulgences had been associated were disapproved by the Council of Trent, about the middle of the sixteenth century. Nevertheless, the dread fact remains that for four hundred years the Church had claimed for its pope the power to remit all sins, and that the promise of remission had been sold and bought.—(See Note 1, end of chapter.)

20. The awful sin of blasphemy consists in taking to one's self the divine prerogatives and powers. Here we find the pope of Rome, the head of the only church recognized at the time, assuming to remit the punishment due in the hereafter for sins committed in mortality. A pope assuming to sit in judgment as God Himself! Is this not a fulfilment of the dread conditions of apostasy foreseen and foretold as antecedent to the second advent of Christ? Read for yourselves: "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped: so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God."—(Thess. 2:3, 4. Italics introduced. See Note 4, end of chapter.)

21. Another abuse perpetrated by the councils through which assemblies the supreme pontiffs exercised their autocratic powers, is seen in the restrictions placed on the reading and interpretation of scripture. The same Council of Trent, which had disclaimed authority or blame for the acts of church officials regarding the scandalous traffic in indulgences, prescribed most rigid regulations forbidding the reading of the scriptures by the people. Thus: "A severe and intolerable law was enacted, with respect to all interpreters and expositors of the scriptures, by which they were forbidden to explain the sense of these divine books, in matters of faith and practice, in such a manner as to make them speak a different language from that of the church and the ancient doctors. The same law further declared that the church alone (i. e., its ruler, the Roman pontiff) had the right of determining the true meaning and signification of scripture. To fill up the measure of these tyrannical and iniquitous proceedings, the church of Rome persisted obstinately in affirming, though not always with the same imprudence and plainness of speech, that the holy scriptures were not composed for the use of the multitude, but only for that of their spiritual teachers; and, of consequence, ordered these divine records to be taken from the people in all places where it was allowed to execute its imperious demands."—(Mosheim, "Eccl. Hist.," Cent. XVI, Part I, ch. 1:25. The italics are introduced by the present writer.)

22. Is it possible that a church teaching such heresies can be the Church established by Jesus Christ? The Lord Jesus commanded all: "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."—(John 5:39; compare verse 46; also Isaiah 8:20; Luke 16:29; and Acts 17:11.)

23. Surely a pall of darkness had fallen upon the earth. The Church of Christ had long since ceased to exist. In place of a priesthood conferred by divine authority, a man-created papacy ruled with the iron hand of tyranny and without regard to moral restraint. In a scholarly work Dr. J. W. Draper gives a list of pontiffs who had stood at the head of the Church from the middle of the eighth to the middle of the eleventh centuries, with biographical notes of each.—(See Note 3, end of chapter.) And what a picture is there outlined! To win the papal crown no crime was too great, and for a period of centuries the immoralities of many of the popes and their subordinates are too shocking for detailed description. It may be claimed that the author last cited, and whose words are given below, was an avowed opponent of the Roman Catholic Church, and that, therefore, his judgment is prejudiced; in reply let it be said that the attested facts of history support the dread arraignment. In commenting on the facts set forth, Dr. Draper says:

24. "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 crimes. Well may we ask, Were these the vicegerents of God upon earth—these, who had truly reached the goal beyond which the last effort of human wickedness cannot pass? Not until several centuries after these events did public opinion come to the true and philosophical conclusion—the total rejection of the divine claims of the papacy. For a time the evils were attributed to the manner of the pontifical election, as if they could by any possibility influence the descent of a power which claimed to be supernatural and under the immediate care of God. * * * No one can study the development of the Italian ecclesiastical power without discovering how completely it depended on human agency, too often on human passion and intrigue; how completely wanting it was of any mark of the divine construction and care—the offspring of man, not of God, and therefore bearing upon it the lineaments of human passions, human virtues, and human sins."—(Draper, "Intellectual Development of Europe;" Vol. 1, p. 382.)

25. By increasing changes and unauthorized alterations in organization and government, the earthly establishment known as "the Church," with popes, cardinals, abbots, friars, monks, exorcists, acolytes, etc., lost all semblance to the Church as established by Christ and maintained by His apostles. The Catholic argument that there has been an uninterrupted succession of authority in the priesthood from the Apostle Peter to the present occupant of the papal throne, is untenable in the light of history, and unreasonable in the light of fact. Authority to speak and act in the name of God, power to officiate in the saving ordinances of the gospel of Christ, the high privilege of serving as a duly commissioned ambassador of the court of Heaven,—these are not to be had as the gifts of princes, nor are they to be bought for money, nor can they be won as trophies of the bloody sword. The history of the papacy is the condemnation of the Church of Rome.—(See Notes 2 and 3, end of chapter.)