Outlines of Ecclesiastical History

by B. H. Roberts

11. Still it became the custom in the latter part of the second century or early in the third to baptize infants. In the year 253 A. D., a council of sixty bishops, in Africa—at which Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, presided, took under consideration the question whether infants should be baptized within two or three days after birth, or whether it should be deferred until the eighth day, as was the custom of the Jews in respect to circumcision. The council decided that they should be baptized at once, that is within a day or two after birth.^[[36]] It will be observed that the question was not as to whether infants should be baptized or not, but when they should be baptized, within a day or two after birth or not until they were eight days old. The matter was treated in the council as if infant baptism was a custom of long standing. This proves, not that infant baptism is a correct doctrine, or that it was derived from the teachings and examples of the apostles—as some aver^[[37]]—but that in a century or so after the introduction of the gospel, men began to pervert it by changing and misapplying its ordinances. The false doctrine of infant baptism is now practiced by nearly all so-called Christian churches, Catholic and Protestant.

12. The Sacrament.—Much as the simple rite of baptism was burdened with useless ceremonies, changed in its form and misapplied, it was not more distorted than was the sacrament of the Lord's supper. The nature of the sacrament—usually called the eucharist—and the purposes for which it was instituted are so plain that he who runs may read.

13. From Paul's description of the ordinance, it is clear that the broken bread was an emblem of Messiah's broken body; the wine an emblem of his blood, shed for sinful man; and his disciples were to eat the one and drink the other in remembrance of him until he should return; and by this ceremony show forth the Lord's death.^[[38]]

14. It was designed as a memorial of Messiah's great atonement for mankind, a token and witness unto the Father that the Son was always remembered. It was to be a sign that those partaking of it were willing to take upon them the name of Christ, to always remember him, and keep his commandments. In consideration of these things being observed, the saints were always to have the Spirit of the Lord to be with them.^[[39]] In this spirit and without great ceremony (see note 7, end of section) the sacrament was administered for some time.

15. Administration of the Sacrament Corrupted.—In the third century there were longer prayers and more ceremony connected with the administration of the sacrament than in the century preceding. Disputations arose as to the proper time to administer it. Some considered the morning, others the afternoon, and some the evening the most suitable time. All were not agreed either as to how often the ordinance should be celebrated. Gold and silver vessels were used, and neither those doing penance, nor those unbaptized, though believers, were permitted to be present at the celebration of the ordinance; "which practice, it is well known, was derived from the pagan mysteries."^[[40]] Very much of mystery began to be associated with it even at an early date. The bread and the wine through the prayer of consecration were considered to undergo a mystic change by which they were converted into and became the very body and the very blood of Jesus Christ; so that they were no longer regarded as emblems of Messiah's body and blood, but the body and blood itself.^[[41]] This is the doctrine of transubstantiation.

16. The dogma established, it was but a short step to the "elevation of the host;" that is, the elevation of the bread and wine before they were distributed, so that they might be viewed with reverence by the people. Thus came the adoration of the symbols.

17. Institution of the Mass.—Hence came also the mass, or the idea of a sacrifice being connected with the celebration of the eucharist. It was held that as Jesus was truly present in the bread and wine he could be offered up, and was truly offered up as an oblation to his Eternal Father. The death of the victim was not supposed to occur in reality but mystically, in such a way, however, as to constitute a true sacrifice, commemorative of that of the cross, and not different from it in essence. The same victim was present, and offered up by Christ through his minister, the priest. The sacrifice at the cross was offered with real suffering; true shedding of blood, and real death of the victim; in the mass it was taught there was a mystical shedding of blood and a mystical death of the same victim.

18. Into such absurdities was the simple sacrament of the Lord's supper distorted! When attended with all the pomp and ceremony of splendid altars, lighted tapers, processions, elevations and chantings: offered up by priests and bishops clad in splendid vestments and in the midst of clouds of incense, accompanied by mystic movements and genuflections of bishops and priests, the church could congratulate itself on having removed the reproach at the first fastened upon the Christians for not having altars and sacrifice. The mass took away the reproach; and the new converts to Christianity were accustomed to see the same rites and ceremonies employed in this mystical sacrifice of the Son of God as they had seen employed in offering up of sacrifice to their pagan deities. (See notes 8 and 9, end of section.)

19. Suppression of Half the Sacrament.—In time the idea became prevalent that as the body and blood of Messiah were equally and entirely present under each "species"—that is, equally and entirely present in the bread and in the wine—it was equally and entirely given to the faithful whichever they received. This idea, of course, rendered it unnecessary to partake of both bread and wine—hence the practice of communion in one kind. That is, the sacrament was administered by giving bread alone to the communicant. To remark that this was changing the ordinance of the sacrament as instituted by Messiah—suppressing half of it in fact—can scarcely be necessary since it is so well known that Jesus administered both bread and wine when instituting the sacred ordinance.^[[42]]

NOTES.