OUTLINES
OF
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY
BY
ELDER B. H. ROBERTS
AUTHOR OF
"The Life of John Taylor" "The Gospel" "New Witness for God" "Missouri
Persecutions" "Rise and Fall of Nauvoo," etc.
THIRD EDITION
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH.
1902.
DEDICATION
TO THE SEVENTIES:
THAT BODY OF MEN
UPON WHOM—UNDER THE
DIRECTION OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES—
DEVOLVES THE RESPONSIBILITY OF PREACHING
THE GOSPEL, AND DEFENDING THE TRUTH
IN ALL THE WORLD, THIS WORK
IS AFFECTIONATELY
DEDICATED.
A WORD WITH STUDENTS AND TEACHERS.
Before you take up the study of OUTLINES OF ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY, I beg leave to call your attention to the structure of the work, and the purpose for which it was written. First, then, as to its structure.
The work is divided into four parts, each with a distinct idea running through it. Part I deals with THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CHURCH through the ministry of Messiah and his apostles; Part II with THE APOSTASY, brought about through the severe persecution to which the early saints were subjected, the rise of false teachers, changing the ordinances of the gospel, intermingling pagan philosophy with Christian doctrine, and a transgression of the laws of God; Part III deals with "THE REFORMATION," treating it, however as a revolution instead of a reformation since the so-called reformation by no means re-established primitive Christianity, either in its form or essence, but it did overthrow the power of the Catholic Church in the greater part of Western Europe, gave larger liberty to the people, and thus prepared the way for the great work which followed it—the introduction of the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times; Part IV treats of THE RESTORATION OF THE GOSPEL, in the aforesaid dispensation, through the revelations which God gave to the Prophet Joseph Smith.
The parts above enumerated are separated into sections, these subdivisions being determined by the several subjects into which the main idea of the respective parts naturally divides. The sections are again separated into topics, the titles of which are printed in bold-face type, and the paragraphs are numbered. These divisions, it is believed, will better enable the student to discern the relation of the respective parts to the main subject, and at the same time afford a convenient division for the assignment of lessons to classes. Ordinarily it will be found that a section will be sufficient for a lesson for either a class or quorum; but in some instances two of the shorter sections may be taken for a lesson; but some of the longer sections should be divided into two or more.
At the end of each section will be found a collection of notes bearing upon the important points treated in the text of the work, at which place reference will be found to the note at the end of the section. The author cannot, in his opinion, too emphatically urge upon the student the importance of turning to the notes to which he is directed in the text and reading them. They will be found to throw additional light upon the subject treated in the text, either by giving the statement of a recognized authority, supplying pointed argument—with which it has been thought best not to burden the body of the work—or giving illustrations to the statement made in the text. Another purpose for placing these notes at the end of the sections has been to arouse an interest in the works of the authors quoted; that the students of this text book may be induced to delve deeper into the study of Ecclesiastical History than a perusal of these pages will enable them to do. And here let the author confess, while he believes he is presenting a very valuable collection of facts to those who will take up the study of his work—yet if the study of these pages shall result in merely awakening in the minds of the elders and the youth of Israel an interest in the subject, he will account the objects of his efforts successfully attained.
At the end of each section also will be found Review Questions, covering the main points treated in the text and in the notes. It is hoped that they will be found useful in conducting class exercises, and to the private student who wishes to ascertain if he has mastered the subject matter of each section. Let him put to himself the questions found in the review at the end of the section, when completing it, and if he can give a satisfactory answer to each one, the author feels assured that the student has mastered the salient points.
The purpose of the work is two-fold: First, it is to sustain the position taken by the church of Christ in the last days. What that position is may be readily discerned by the very first revelation the Lord gave to Joseph Smith. In answering the young prophet's question—which of all the sects of religion was acknowledged of him as his church and kingdom—the Lord said they were all wrong; that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that they drew near to him with their lips, but their hearts were far from him; that they taught for doctrine the commandments of men—having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof.[[1]]
It has been to bring together the historical evidences of the truth of this divine announcement that, in part, this work has been written; and therefore prominence has been given to those facts of history which support that announcement. But no fact has been suppressed that has a tendency to support the opposite view. No such fact either of history or prophecy exists. The whole stream of evidence proves that there has been a universal apostasy from the religion taught by Jesus Christ and his apostles; and the existing differences between the present teachings of "Christendom" and the doctrines of the scriptures is a proof so palpable that it admits of no contradiction. As this position of the church is one which the seventies and elders will have to maintain against all the world, it is of first importance that they become familiar with those facts of history and of prophecy that will enable them to maintain that position intelligently and successfully.
The second purpose of the work is to teach the principles of the gospel. This, the author is convinced, can best be done in connection with their history. Relate the historical events which resulted in the introduction and establishment of the gospel and the church of Christ; then in all the centuries from the second to the tenth show how the doctrines of Messiah were departed from, how the ordinances were changed and the laws of God transgressed; relate the principal events of the sixteenth century revolution—miscalled the "Reformation"—and point out how that revolution, however salutary in bringing to pass an enlargement of popular liberty, failed to re-establish the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, or re-organize the church as at first founded by Messiah; then relate the events connected with the restoration of the gospel through the revelations given to the great prophet of the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times, Joseph Smith—and in so doing you are not only teaching the interesting facts of Ecclesiastical History to your students, but at the same time you are making them acquainted with the principles of the gospel. Under such a presentation the students, without being conscious of it, perhaps, will examine those principles under a variety of circumstances. They will see them stated in connection with the leading events of the Messiah's life; they will see them corrupted by an apostate church; they will hear them discussed by men during the attempt at Reformation; and after witnessing the unavailing efforts of the "Reformers" to re-establish the gospel and the church of Christ, they will see how the heavens were opened and every principle, doctrine, ordinance, law, officer and institution known to the church of Christ, restored. Such a presentation of the principles of the gospel, we repeat, must lead to a very comprehensive understanding of them, and such is one of the purposes of this work, and one which the author hopes will give it a claim upon the attention of all those desiring information on the subject of the gospel, as well as to the quorums of seventies and elders to whom we believe it will be of special service.
Before the work went to press the manuscript was submitted to a committee of brethren appointed by the First Presidency. Elders John Nicholson, George Reynolds and James E. Talmage constituted that committee. The author is very much indebted to them for their patient consideration of his manuscript, and for the very valuable suggestions and corrections made by them. They reported favorably to the First Presidency on the work, and it is now presented to the students of Ecclesiastical History—in which the church of Christ should abound—in the hope that it will be of service to them in their researches in this most interesting department of knowledge.
This, the fifth edition, is uniform with the previous edition, in every respect.
The Publishers
Footnotes
[1]. Pearl of Price, page 85.
CONTENTS
[PART I.]
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CHURCH
[PART II.]
THE APOSTASY
[PART III.]
THE REFORMATION
[PART IV.]
THE RESTORATION OF THE GOSPEL
PART I.
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CHURCH.
SECTION I.
1. Birth of Messiah.—Jesus Christ, the Son of God and Savior of the world, was born, most probably, in the year of Rome 753; at a period of the year corresponding to our month of April (see notes 1, 2, end of section). The place of his birth was Bethlehem [Beth-le-hem],[[1]] a small town about four miles south of Jerusalem. The birth-place of Messiah was foretold by Micah [Mi-kah], the prophet, more than seven hundred years before the event, in the following prophecy:
But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah [Ef-ra-tah], though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.[[2]]
2. Parentage of Christ.—Messiah was born of the virgin Mary, a descendant of David, and the espoused wife of Joseph, a carpenter in the little village of Nazareth [Naz-a-reth], who, notwithstanding his humble station in life, was also a descendant of the royal house of David. An angel appeared unto Mary previous to her conception, and thus addressed her:
Hail thou that art highly favored, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be. And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favor with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shall call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shalt be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: and he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God. * * * And Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word.[[3]]
3. These two, the mother of Jesus and her betrothed husband, had left their home in Nazareth to enroll their names as members of the house of David, in a census which had been ordered by the Emperor Augustus, and while at Bethlehem Mary was delivered of her son. The enrollment ordered by the emperor had called so many strangers into the little town of Bethlehem that on the arrival of Joseph and Mary there was no room at the inn for them, and they had to take up quarters in the stable adjacent. There, among the hay and straw spread for the food and rest of the cattle, Christ was born. (Note 2, end of section.)
4. The Angelic Announcement.—The birth of Christ was announced to a few shepherds watching their flock by night—about a mile distant from the village of Bethlehem—by an angel, surrounded about by the glory of God, who said:
Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger. And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host, praising God, and saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.[[4]]
A visit to the village confirmed the strange proclamation of the angel—they found the mother and child.
5. The Inquiry of the Magi.—Not alone by voice of angels was the birth of Messiah announced, but "wise men from the east" who had seen his star in the firmament came to Jerusalem about the time of his birth, inquiring—"Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him."[[5]]
6. Nor were signs of Messiah's birth seen alone on the eastern hemisphere; to the people of the western hemisphere signs were also given; "a new star did appear," according to the words of the Nephite prophets, at Zarahemla; the Nephites saw it and to them, as well as to the wise men of the east, a star announced the birth of him who was to be King of the Jews[[6]] and the Savior of the world. Another sign was given to the Nephites, which had also been predicted by their prophets; the night before[[7]] Jesus was born remained beautifully light on the western hemisphere. This event is thus recorded in the Book of Mormon:
And it came to pass that the words which came unto Nephi were fulfilled, according as they had been spoken; for behold at the going down of the sun, there was no darkness; and the people began to be astonished, because there was no darkness when the time of night came. * * * There was no darkness in all that night, but it was light as though it was midday. And it came to pass that the sun did rise in the morning again, according to its proper order; and they [the Nephites] knew that it was the day that the Lord should be born, because of the sign which had been given.[[8]]
7. The Alarm of King Herod.—The inquiry made by the "wise men" from the east concerning the one who was "born King of the Jews," alarmed the jealousy of Herod, and learning from the chief priests and scribes that Bethlehem was the place where the deliverer of Israel was to be born, he sent the wise men there, strictly charging them to search diligently, and when they had found the child to bring him word that he too might worship him. On the way to Bethlehem the star they had seen in the east went before them until it stood over where the child was. They found the babe with Mary his mother and they worshipped him, giving him presents of gold and frankincense and myrrh. They were commanded of God in a dream, however, not to return to Herod, so they departed into their own country another way.
8. Joseph, too, after the departure of the wise men, was warned in a dream to flee out of the land, for Herod would seek the young child to destroy him. He was commanded to go into Egypt and remain there until the Lord should call him to return. In obedience to these divine commandments, Joseph took the mother and child and fled in the night into Egypt.
9. Herod's wrath knew no bounds when he found that the wise men had not obeyed him; and in order that he might not be baffled in his determination to destroy the one he feared would supplant himself or his posterity in the throne of Israel, he sent out an edict commanding that all the children in Bethlehem two years old and under should be slain. Then was fulfilled the prophecy of Jeremiah:
In Rama [Ra-ma] was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted because they were not.[[9]] (See note 3, end of section.)
10. Death of Herod.—(note 4 end of section). After Herod's death, Joseph was again visited, in a dream, by an angel, who commanded him to return with the child and his mother into the land of Israel; for they who had sought the young child's life were dead. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by the prophet of the Lord, (Hosea), "Out of Egypt have I called my son." Joseph obeyed the commandment, but as he approached Judea and learned that Archelaus [Ar-ke-la-us] the son of Herod reigned in his father's stead, he was fearful and instead of remaining in Judea, he went into Galilee [Gal-i-lee] and dwelt in the little town of Nazareth—his former home—"that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene"[[10]] [Naz-a-reen].
NOTES.
1. The Year of Messiah's Birth.—"The Birth of Christ was first made an era, from which to reckon dates," says the learned translator of Dr. Mosheim's Institutes,—Murdock—"by Dionysius Exiguus, [Di-o-nish-i-us Exs-ig-u-us] about A. D. 532. He supposed Christ to have been born on the 25th of December, in the year of Rome 753, and this computation has been followed in practice to this day; notwithstanding the learned are well agreed that it must be incorrect." It will be seen, however, from what follows, from the same author, that all is uncertainty with the learned in respect to this subject:
"To ascertain the true time of Christ's birth, there are two principal data afforded by the Evangelists: I. It is clear, from Matt. ii: 1, etc., that Christ was born before the death of Herod the Great, who died about Easter, in the year of Rome 749 or 750. Now, if Christ was born in the December next before Herod's death, it must have been in the year of Rome 748 or 749; and, of course, four, if not five years anterior to the Dionysian or Vulgar era: II. It is probable, from Luke iii: 1, 2, 23, that Jesus was 'about' thirty years of age in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar. Now, the reign of Tiberius may be considered as commencing at the time he became sole emperor, in August of the year of Rome 767; or (as there is some reason to suppose that Augustus made him partner in the government two years before he died), we may begin his reign in the year of Rome 765. The fifteenth year of Tiberius will therefore be either the year of Rome 781 or 779. From which deduct 30, and we have the year of Rome 751 or 749 for the year of Christ's birth; the former two and the latter four years earlier than the Dionysian computation. Comparing these results with those obtained from the death of Herod, it is generally supposed the true time of Christ's birth was the year of Rome 749, or four years before the Vulgar era. But the conclusion is not certain, because there is uncertainty in the data. (1.) It is not certain that we ought to reckon Tiberius' reign as beginning two years before the death of Augustus. (2.) Luke says 'about thirty years of age.' This is indefinite and may be understood of twenty-nine, thirty, or thirty-one years. (3.) It is not certain in which of the two years mentioned Herod died; nor how long before that event the Savior was born. Respecting the month and day of Christ's birth, we are left almost wholly to conjecture."
It will be demanded on what authority I have gone counter to the conclusions of the learned on this subject by keeping to the Dionysian date,—so far, at least, as the year is concerned. My answer is that in the revelation on Church government in the Doctrine and Covenants (sec. xx), the following in respect to the rise of the Church is given: "The rise of the Church of Christ in these last days, being one thousand eight hundred and thirty years since the coming of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in the flesh, it being regularly organized and established agreeable to the laws of our country, by the will and commandments of God, in the fourth month, and on the sixth day of the month, which is called April."
I believe that this—better than any other authority, fixes the time of the birth, or the "coming of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in the flesh;" and that, as to the year at least, agrees with the Dionysian computation. It must be remembered that this revelation in section twenty of the Doctrine and Covenants was given before the Church was organized—at sundry times between the first and the sixth of April—and that the prophet was instructed to organize the Church on the sixth day of April, 1830, hence it was not mere chance that determined the day on which that organization took place, (History Joseph Smith, "Millennial Star Supplement" to vol. xiv, p. 22) a fact that is significant in view of the above considerations and those which follow in note 2.—Roberts.
2. The Day of Messiah's Birth.—Strictly speaking, if this Church was organized "one thousand eight hundred and thirty years since the coming of our Lord and Savior in the flesh," then the sixth of April must have been the anniversary of the Savior's birthday. If the organization of the Church had been before or subsequent to that date, if only by one or any number of days, the great event would have been more or less than one thousand eight hundred and thirty years by just so many days. [This argument also holds good as to the year of Christ's birth.] Options formed by the study of chronological events may or may not be accurate. But we would scarcely think the Lord would make any mistake about dates. Least of all he who was born on that day, and on that day thirty-three years later was crucified.—Joseph F. Smith.
Let us inquire if the day observed by the Christian world as the day of His [Christ's] birth—the 25th of December—is or is not the real Christmas day. A great many authors have found out from their researches, that it is not. I think that there is scarcely an author at the present day that believes that the twenty-fifth of December was the day that Christ was born on * * * It is generally believed and conceded by the learned who have investigated the matter, that Christ was born in April. * * * It is stated that according to the best of their [the learned] judgment from the researches they have made, Christ was crucified on the sixth of April. That is the day on which this Church was organized. But when these learned men go back from the day of his crucifixion to the day of his birth, they are at a loss, having no certain evidence or testimony by which they can determine it.—Orson Pratt.
In support of Elder Pratt's contention relative to the uncertainty of Christian scholars as to the day on which Jesus was born, I quote the statement of Rev. Charles F. Deem, author of "The Light of the Nation," and president of the American Institute of Christian Philosophy. "It is annoying to see learned men use the same apparatus of calculation and reach the most diverse results." In a foot note at page 32, in "Light of the Nation," he refers to fifteen different authors all of whom are writers of note, who give different years for the birth of Christ varying from B. C. 1 to B. C. 7
3. Humble Nativity of Messiah.—In the rude limestone grotto attached to the inn as a stable, among the hay and straw spread for the food and rest of the cattle, weary with their day's journey, far from home, in the midst of strangers, in circumstances so devoid of all earthly comfort or splendor that it is impossible to imagine a humbler nativity, Christ was born. Distant but a few miles, on the plateau of the abrupt and singular hill now called Jebel Fureidis or "Little Paradise Mountain," towered the palace—fortress of the great Herod. The magnificent houses of his friends and courtiers crowded around its base. The humble wayfarers, as they passed near it, might have heard the hired and voluptuous minstrelsy with which its feasts were celebrated, or the shouting of the rough mercenaries whose arms enforced obedience to its despotic lord. But the true King of the Jews—the rightful Lord of the universe—was not to be found in palace or fortress. They who wear soft clothing are in kings' houses. The cattle stables of the lowly caravan-serai were a more fitting birthplace for him who came to reveal that the soul of the greatest monarch was no dearer or greater in God's sight than the soul of his meanest slave; for him who had not where to lay his head; for him who, from his cross of shame, was to rule the world!—Canon Farrar.
4. Character of Herod.—Now some there are who stand amazed at the diversity of Herod's nature and purposes; for when we have respect to his magnificence, and the benefits which he bestowed on all mankind, there is no possibility for even those who had the least respect for him, to deny, or not openly confess, that he had a nature vastly beneficent; but when anyone looks upon the punishment he inflicted and the injuries he did, not only to his subjects, but to his nearest relatives, and takes notice of his severe and unrelenting disposition there, he will be forced to allow that he was brutish, and a stranger to all humanity. * * * If anyone was not very obsequious to him in his language, and would not confess himself to be his slave, or but seemed to think of any innovation in his government, he was not able to contain himself, but prosecuted his very kindred and friends and punished them as if they were enemies; and this wickedness he undertook out of a desire that he might be himself alone honored. * * * A man he was of great barbarity towards all men equally, and a slave to his passion; but above the consideration of what was right.—Josephus.
5. Last Illness of Herod.—But now Herod's distemper greatly increased upon him after a severe manner, and this by God's judgment upon him for his sins; for a fire glowed in him slowly, which did not so much appear to the touch outwardly, as it augmented his pains inwardly; for it brought upon him a vehement appetite to eating, which he could not avoid to supply with one sort of food or other. His entrails were exulcerated, and the chief violence of his pain lay on his colon; an aqueous and transparent liquor also had settled itself upon his feet; * * * and when he sat upright, he had a difficulty of breathing which was very loathsome, on account of the stench of his breath, and the quickness of his returns. He had also convulsions in all parts of his body, which increased his strength to an unsufferable degree. It was said by those who pretended to divine, and who were endowed with wisdom to foretell such things, that God inflicted this punishment on the king on account of his great impurity; yet was he still in hopes of recovering, though his afflictions seemed greater than anyone could bear.—Josephus.
REVIEW.
1. In what year of Rome was Messiah born?
2. State the reasons for placing the date of Messiah's birth in the year of Rome 753. (See notes 1 and 2.)
3. Give the name of Messiah's birthplace.
4. For what is Ephratah noted? (Note.)
5. Who was the mother of Jesus?
6. Relate what you can of Mary, and the announcement that she should be the mother of the Son of God.
7. Relate the circumstances under which Christ was born.
8. Give an account of the visitation of the angels to the shepherds.
9. What is Canon Farrar's translation of the title of the angelic song?
10. Give an account of the magi's visit to Jerusalem in search of the Christ.
11. What signs were given of Messiah's birth to the people on the Western Hemisphere?
12. By what divine providence was Messiah's life preserved in infancy?
13. What was the character of Herod the Great? (Note 4.)
14. Describe Herod's last illness and death. (Note 5.)
15. Where did Joseph settle on his return from Egypt?
16. What prophecies were fulfilled by Messiah being taken into Egypt and Nazareth?
Section II.[[11]]
1. State of the Religious World at Messiah's Birth.—At the time of the birth of the Son of God, the enfeebled world was tottering on its foundations. The national religions which had satisfied the parents, no longer proved sufficient for the children. The new generations could not repose contented within the ancient forms. The gods of every nation, when transported to Rome—then the dominant political power in the world—there lost their oracles, as the nations themselves had there lost their liberty. Brought face to face in the capital they had destroyed each other, and their divinity had vanished. A great void was thus occasioned in the religion of the world.
2. A kind of deism, destitute alike of spirit and of life, floated for a time above the abyss in which the vigorous superstitions of antiquity had been engulfed. But like all negative creeds it had no power to reconstruct. All nations were plunged in the grossest superstition. Most of them, indeed all except the Jews, supposed that each country and province was subjected to a set of very powerful beings whom they called gods, and whom the people, in order to live happily, must propitiate with various rites and ceremonies. These deities were supposed to differ materially from each other in sex, power, nature and offices. Some nations went beyond others in impiety of worship, but all stood chargeable with absurdity, if not gross stupidity in matters of religion. (See note 1, end of section.)
3. Thus every nation had a class of deities peculiar to itself, among which one was supposed to be pre-eminent over the rest, and was their king, though subject himself to the laws of fate, or to an eternal destiny. The oriental nations had not the same gods as the Gauls, the Germans, and the other northern nations; and the Grecian deities were essentially different from those of the Egyptians, who worshipped brute animals, plants, and various productions of nature and art. Each nation, likewise, had its own method of worshiping its gods; differing widely from the rites of other nations. But, from their ignorance or from other causes the Greeks and Romans maintained that their gods were universally worshipped; and they therefore gave the names of their own gods to the foreign deities which has caused great confusion and errors in the history of ancient religions even in the works of the learned.
4. Heathen Toleration—Its Cause.—The variety of gods and religions in the pagan nations produced no wars or feuds among them. Each nation without concern allowed its neighbors to enjoy their own views of religion, and to worship their own gods in their own way. Nor need this tolerance greatly surprise us. For they who regard the world as divided like a great country into numerous provinces each subject to a distinct order of deities, cannot despise the gods of other nations nor think of compelling all others to pay worship to their national gods. The Romans in particular, though they would not allow the public religions to be changed or multiplied, yet gave the citizens full liberty to observe foreign religions in private, and to hold meetings and feasts and to erect temples and groves to these foreign deities, in whose worship there was nothing inconsistent with the public safety and existing laws. (See note 2, end of section.)
5. Character of Heathen Gods.—The greater part of the gods of all nations were ancient heroes, famous for their achievements and their worthy deeds; such as kings, generals and the founders of cities; and likewise females who were highly distinguished for their deeds and discoveries, whom a grateful posterity had deified. To these some added the more splendid and useful objects in the natural world, among which the sun, moon, and stars being pre-eminent, received worship from nearly all, and some were not ashamed to pay divine honors to mountains, rivers, trees, the earth, the ocean, the winds, and even to diseases, to virtues and vices, and to almost every conceivable object, or, at least, to the deities supposed to preside over these objects.
6. The worship of these deities consisted in numerous ceremonies with sacrifices, offerings, and prayers. The ceremonies, for the most part, were absurd and ridiculous; and what was worse yet, debasing, obscene and cruel. The whole pagan system had not the least efficacy to excite and cherish virtuous emotions in the soul. For in the first place, the gods and goddesses to whom the public homage was paid, instead of being patterns of virtue, were patterns rather of enormous vices and crimes. They were considered as superior to mortals in power and as exempt from death, but in all things else as on a level with man. In the next place, the ministers of this religion, neither by precept nor by example, exhorted the people to lead honest and virtuous lives, but gave them to understand that all the homage required of them by the gods was comprised in the observance of the traditional rites and ceremonies. And lastly, the doctrines inculcated respecting the rewards of the righteous and the punishments of the wicked in the future world were some of them dubious and uncertain, and others more adapted to promote vice than virtue. Hence the wiser pagans themselves, about the time of the Savior's birth, contemned and ridiculed the whole system.
7. Mysteries of Paganism.—It is contended by those who would dignify paganism, that back of its common worship, among the orientals and Greeks at least, certain recondite and concealed rites called mysteries—containing in them the essence of true religion—existed: and that back of its idolatry stood and was recognized the true God, of which the images worshiped were but the material representatives. To these mysteries, however, very few were admitted. Candidates for initiation had first to give satisfactory proof of their good faith and patience, by various most troublesome ceremonies. When initiated they could not divulge anything they had seen without exposing their lives to imminent danger. Hence the interior of these hidden rites is at this day but little known, and therefore but an imperfect judgment may be formed as to their virtue. But what glimpses are obtained of the rites of these mysteries do not prepossess one in their favor; for in many of them many things were done which are repugnant to modesty and decency, and in all of them that are known the discerning may see that the deities there worshipped were more distinguished for their vices than for their virtues. (See note 3, end of section.)
8. Paul's Arraignment of the Pagan World.—Paul, the great apostle of the Gentiles, brings a terrible indictment against the pagan world of his day, and also against the more ancient pagans, and avers that there was no excuse for their idolatry or wickedness:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves; who changed the truth of God into a lie and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator. * * * For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections; * * * and even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.[[12]] (See note 4, end of section.)
9. Political State of the World at Messiah's Birth.—At the birth of Jesus Christ the greater part of the civilized world on the eastern hemisphere was subject to the Romans. Their remoter provinces they either ruled by means of temporary governors and presidents sent from Rome, or suffered them to live under their own kings and laws, subject to the control of the Roman emperors.
10. The senate and people of Rome, though they had not lost all the appearance of liberty, were really under the authority of one man, Augustus; who was clothed with the titles of emperor, sovereign pontiff, censor, tribune of the people, pro-consul; in a word, with every office which conferred general power and pre-eminence in the commonwealth.
11. The Roman government, if we regard only its form and laws, was sufficiently mild and equitable. But the injustice and avarice of the nobles and provincial governors, the Roman lust of conquest and dominion, and the rapacity of the publicans who farmed the revenues of the state, brought many and grievous evils upon the people. The magistrates and publicans fleeced them of their property on the one hand, while, on the other, the Roman lust of dominion required armies to be raised in the provinces—a thing which was very oppressive to them, and the occasion of almost perpetual insurrection. This, however, is true more especially of the days which preceded the reign of Augustus [Au-gus-tus]. The principal conquests of the Romans were achieved under the republic. It was left for Augustus to adopt that policy which aimed merely to preserve those dominions which had been acquired by the policy of the senate, the active emulation of the consuls and the martial enthusiasm of the people. Under his reign the Roman people themselves seem to have relinquished the ambitious design of subduing the whole earth. (See note 5, end of section.)
12. This widely extended dominion of one people, or rather, of one man, was attended with several advantages: (1), it brought into union a multitude of nations differing in customs and languages; (2,) it gave freer access to the remotest nations; (3,) it gradually civilized the barbarous nations, by introducing among them the Roman laws and customs; (4), it spread literature, the arts and philosophy in countries where they were not before cultivated, and guaranteed the protection of its laws to the people even in the remotest provinces. (See note 6, end of section.)
13. Moreover, at the birth of Messiah, the Roman empire was freer from commotion that it had been for many years. Though it cannot be said that the whole world was in profound peace, yet there can be no doubt that the period when the Savior was born, if compared with the preceding times, was peculiarly peaceful—a condition quite essential to the introduction of the gospel and the extensive preaching of it. Nor is it too much to say that the Lord raised up the great Roman empire that under its beneficent yet powerful sway, the glad tidings of great joy, the gospel of Jesus Christ, might be widely preached among men.
14. Of the state of those nations which lay beyond the boundaries of the Roman empire we may not learn so much as of Rome. It is sufficient to know, however, that the Oriental nations were pressed down by a stern despotism, which their effeminacy of mind and body, and even their religion, led them to bear with patience; while the northern nations enjoyed much greater liberty, which was protected by the rigor of their climate and the consequent energy of their constitutions, aided by their mode of life.
15. Political and Religious State of the Jews.—The condition of the Jewish people among whom the Savior was born was scarcely any better than that of other nations. Herod, called the Great, then governed, or rather, oppressed the Jewish nation, though only a tributary king under the Romans. He drew upon himself universal hatred by his cruelties, jealousies and wars; and he exhausted the wealth of the unhappy nation by his mad luxury, his excessive magnificence, and his immoderate largesses. Under his administration Roman luxury and licentiousness spread over Palestine. In religion he was professedly a Jew, but he copied the manners of those who despise all religion.
16. The Romans did not wholly prohibit the Jews from retaining their national laws, and the religion established by Moses.
They had their high priests, council or senate (Sanhedrim)[[13]], and inflicted lesser punishments. They could apprehend men and bring them before the council; and if a guard of soldiers was needful, could be assisted by them upon asking the governor for them; they could bind men and keep them in custody; the council could summon witnesses, take examinations, and when they had any capital offenders, carry them before the governor. This governor usually paid a regard to what they offered, and if they brought evidence of the fact, pronounced sentence according to their laws. He was the proper judge in all capital causes.[[14]]
17. The measure of liberty and comfort allowed to the Jews by the Romans was well nigh wholly dissipated, first by the cruelty and avarice of the governors, and by the frauds and rapacity of the publicans; and second, by the profligacy and crimes of those who pretended to be patriots and guardians of the nation. Their principal men, their high priests, were abandoned wretches, who had purchased their places by bribes or by deeds of iniquity, and who maintained their ill-acquired authority by every species of dishonest acts. The other priests and all who held any considerable office, were not much better. The multitude, excited by such examples, ran headlong into every sort of iniquity, and by their unceasing robberies and seditions they excited against themselves both the justice of God and the vengeance of man.
18. Religious Divisions.—Two religions may be said to have flourished in Palestine at the times of which we write; viz., the Jewish and the Samaritan; between the followers of which there was a deadly hatred. The nature of the former is set forth in the Old Testament. But in the age of the Savior it had been corrupted by the traditions of the people, who were divided into sects filled with bitterness against each other. Chief among these sects were the Pharisees [Fa-ri-sees,] and Sadducees [Sad-du-seez.]
19. Pharisees and Sadducees.—While these two sects agreed as to a number of fundamental principles of the Jewish religion, they differed on questions of the highest importance, and such as related to the salvation of the soul. First, they disagreed respecting the law which God had given them. The Pharisees superadded to the written law an oral or unwritten law, handed down by tradition, which the Sadducees rejected, adhering alone to the written law. They differed, too, as to the import of the law. The Pharisees held to a double sense of the scripture, the one literal, the other figurative; while the Sadducees held only to the literal sense of the Bible. To these contests concerning the laws were added others on subjects of the highest moment; particularly in respect to the rewards and punishments announced in the sacred writings. The Pharisees supposed them to affect both body and spirit—in whose pre-existence and eternal existence they believed—and that punishments and rewards extended beyond the present life. The Sadducees believed in no future retributions. They were sceptical of the miraculous; and denied the existence of spiritual beings, the immortality of the soul, the resurrection of the body. They were deists, in fact; viewing the Supreme Being as a quiescent Providence calmly surveying and ruling the regular working of natural laws. They gave themselves up to ease, luxury, self-indulgence, and were not indisposed to view with indifferent liberality the laxity of heathen morals and the profanity of idol worship. They included in their numbers the leading men of the nation, were the aristocracy in fact, while the Pharisees, on the other hand, were the common people; proud of their unblemished descent from Abraham, exclusive, formal, self-righteous, strict observers of external rites and ceremonies, even beyond the requirements of the law.
20. Such were the chief sects among the Jews. There were others but they were of minor importance. Both Sadducees and Pharisees looked for a deliverer; not, however, such a one as God had promised; but a powerful warrior and a vindicator of their national liberties, a king, a ruler. All placed the sum of religion in an observance of the Mosaic ritual, and in certain duties toward their countrymen. All excluded the rest of mankind from the hope of salvation, and, of course whenever they dared, treated them with hatred and inhumanity. To these fruitful sources of vice, must be added the various absurd and superstitious opinions concerning the Divine Nature, genii, magic, etc., which they had imbibed from surrounding nations.
21. Samaritans.—The Samaritans [Sa-mar-i-tans] were colonists sent by the king of Assyria [As-syr-rya], Shalmaneser [Shal-ma-ne-zer,] to people the land after he had carried captive the Israelites, in the latter part of the eighth century, B. C. They were a mixed people from various eastern nations, conquered by this same king—and they brought with them their various forms of national idolatry. A plague breaking out among them, however, led them to petition for a priest of the god of the country, to teach them the old form of worship. He was stationed at Bethel [Beth-el,] and the Samaritans endeavored to combine a formal reverence of God with the practice of their own idolatrous rites. After the captivity of Judah, they sought an alliance with the returned Jews (536 B. C.,) with whom they intermarried. On Ezra enforcing the Mosaic law against mixed marriages—three-quarters of a century later—Manasses [Ma-nas-ses,] a Jewish priest, who had married the daughter of Sanballat [San-bal-lat,] chief of the Samaritans, headed a secession at Shechem [Shek-em.] The Samaritans taught the Mosaic ritual and erected a rival temple to that at Jerusalem, on Mount Gerizim [Ger-i-zim]. This mixed community before the time of the Savior began to claim descent from the patriarchs and a share in the promises. Their religion was less pure than that of the Jews, as they adulterated the doctrines of the Old Testament with the profane rites of the pagan religion.
22. Such was the state of the world—such the condition of the Jews at the time of Messiah's birth; and surely that condition justified the pity and also the stern reproofs—nay, the severe rebukes administered, as we shall see, by the Son of God in the course of his ministry.
NOTES.
1. State of the World at Messiah's Birth.—The world had grown old, and the dotage of its paganism was marked by hideous excesses. Atheism in belief was followed, as among all nations it has always been, by degradation of morals, iniquity seemed to have run its course to the very farthest goal. Philosophy had abrogated its boasted functions except for the favored few. Crime was universal, and there was no known remedy for the horror and ruin which it was causing in a thousand hearts. Remorse itself seemed to be exhausted, so that men were past feeling. There was a callosity of heart, a petrifying of the moral sense, which even those who suffered from it felt to be abnormal and portentous. Even the heathen world felt that "the fullness of the time" had come.—Canon Farrar.
2. Policy of Rome in Respect to Religion.—The policy of the emperors and the senate, so far as it concerned religion, was happily seconded by the reflections of the enlightened, and by the habits of the superstitious part of their subjects. The various modes of worship, which prevailed in the Roman world, were all considered by the people as equally true; by the philosopher as equally false; and by the magistrate as equally useful. And this toleration produced not only mutual indulgence, but even religious concord. * * * Avarice and taste very frequently despoiled the vanquished nations of the elegant statues of their gods and the rich ornaments of their temples; but in the exercise of the religion which they derived from their ancestors, they uniformly experienced the indulgence, and even protection of the Roman conquerors. The province of Gaul seems, and indeed only seems, an exception to this universal toleration. Under the specious pretext of abolishing human sacrifices, the emperors Tiberius and Claudius suppressed the dangerous power of the Druids; but the priests themselves, their gods and their altars, subsisted in peaceful obscurity till the final fall of paganism. * * * Rome gradually became the common temple of her subjects; and the freedom of the city was bestowed on all the gods of mankind.—Gibbon.
3. Mysteries of the Pagan Religion.—It has been maintained that the design of at least some of these mysteries was to inculcate the grand principles of natural religion, such as the unity of God, the immortality of the soul, the importance of virtue, etc., and to explain the vulgar polytheism as symbolical of these great truths. But this certainly needs better proof. It is more probable that the later pagan philosophers, who lived after the light of Christianity had exposed the abominations of polytheism, were the principal authors of this moral interpretation of the vulgar religion, which they falsely pretended was taught in the mysteries, while in reality, those mysteries were probably mere supplements to the vulgar mythology and worship, and of the same general character and spirit.—Murdock.
4. State of Religion in Rome.—A modern writer describing the religious state of Rome at the time of Julius Caesar—it could not have been much changed at the birth of Messiah, sixty years later—says: "Religion, once the foundation of the laws and rule of personal conduct, had subsided into opinion. The educated in their hearts disbelieved it. Temples were still built with increasing splendor; the established forms were scrupulously observed. Public men spoke conventionally of Providence, that they might throw on their opponents the odium of impiety; but of genuine belief that life had any serious meaning, there was none remaining beyond the circle of the silent, patient, ignorant multitude. The whole spiritual atmosphere was saturated with cant—cant moral, cant political, cant religious; an affectation of high principle which had ceased to touch the conduct, and flowed on in an increasing volume of insincere and unreal speech. The truest thinkers were those who, like Lucretius, spoke frankly out their real convictions, declared Providence was a dream, and that man and the world he lived in were material phenomena, generated by natural forces out of cosmic atoms, and into atoms to be again resolved."—Froude.
5. Policy of Augustus as to Conquests.—Inclined to peace by his temper and situation, it was easy for him to discover that Rome, in her present exalted situation, had much less to hope than to fear from the chance of arms; and that, in the prosecution of remote wars, the undertaking every day became more difficult, the event more doubtful and the possession more precarious and less beneficial. The experience of Augustus added weight to these salutary reflections, and eventually convinced him that by prudent vigor of his counsels, it would be easy to secure every concession which the safety or the dignity of Rome might require from the most formidable barbarians * * * On the death of the emperor, his testament was publicly read in the senate. He bequeathed, as a valuable legacy to his successors, the advice of confining the empire within those limits which nature seemed to have placed as its permanent bulwarks and foundations; on the west the Atlantic ocean; the Rhine and Danube on the north; the Euphrates on the east; and towards the south the sandy deserts of Arabia and Africa.—Gibbon, "Decline and Fall", vol. i, chap. 1.
6. Mission and Character of the Roman Empire.—As the soil must be prepared before the wheat can be sown, so before the kingdom of heaven could throw up its shoots there was needed a kingdom of this world, where the nations were neither torn to pieces by violence nor were rushing after false ideals [as to governments] and spurious ambitions. Such a kingdom was the empire of the Caesars—a kingdom where peaceful men could work, think and speak as they pleased, and travel freely among provinces ruled for the most part by Gallios who protected life and property, and forbade fanatics to tear each other to pieces for their religious opinions. "It is not lawful for us to put a man to death," was the complaint of the Jewish priests to the Roman governor. Had Europe and Asia been covered with independent nations, each with a local religion represented in its ruling powers, Christianity must have been stifled in its cradle. If St. Paul had escaped the Sanhedrim of Jerusalem, he would have been torn to pieces by the silversmiths at Ephesus. The appeal to Caesar's judgment seat was the shield of his mission, and alone made possible his success.—Froude.
7. The Sanhedrin of the Jews.—"The council" of the Jewish church and people was a theocratic oligarchy, which after the return from the captivity (536 B. C.,) ruled the new settlement, being in all causes and over all persons, ecclesiastical and civil, supreme. It is supposed to be suggested by the old institution of seventy-two Elders (six from each tribe,) appointed by Moses, at Jethro's [Jeth-ro] suggestion, to relieve him in the administration of justice (Ex. xviii:14; Num. xi:16.) Having died out in the age succeeding Joshua, and being superceded under the monarchy, it was revived either by Ezra, or after the Macedonian ascendancy. It consisted of an equal number of priests, scribes and elders all of whom must be married, above thirty years of age, well instructed in the law, and of good report among the people. This constituted the Supreme Court of judicature and administrative council, taking cognizance of false doctrine and teaching, as well as breaches of the Mosaic Law, and regulating both civil and religious observances peculiar to the Jewish nation. The power of life and death had been taken from it by the Roman government which otherwise covenanted to respect its decrees. The council usually met in the hall Gazith, within the Temple precincts, though special meetings were sometimes held in the house of the high priest, who was generally (though not necessarily) the president. There were also two vice-presidents, and two scribes—clerks—or "heralds," one registering the votes of acquittal (or nos), and the other those of convictions (or ayes), and a body of lictors or attendants. The assembly set in the form of a semi-circle, the president occupying the center of the arc, the prisoner that of the center of the chord, while the two "heralds" sat a little in advance of the president, on his right and his left.—"Oxford Teacher's Bible"—Addenda.
REVIEW.
1. State the religious condition of the world at Messiah's birth.
2. What was the cause of heathen religious toleration?
3. What was the policy of Rome in respect to religion? (Note 2.)
4. What was the nature of the heathen gods?
5. Describe the character of heathen worship.
6. What can you say of pagan mysteries? (Note 3.)
7. Give the substance of Paul's arraignment of the pagan world.
8. What was the political state of the world at Messiah's birth?
9. Describe the general character of the Roman government.
10. Enumerate the advantages the Roman government gave to the world.
11. How did these advantages affect the work of the Christ?
12. What was the state of the nations outside of the Roman empire?
13. Who was the king of the Jews at Messiah's birth?
14. What was the political state of the Jews at that time?
15. What can you say of religion among the Jews at this period?
16. What were the religious divisions in Palestine?
17. State the doctrines of the Pharisees. The Sadducees.
18. What was the character of the Deliverer expected by both Pharisees and Sadducees?
19. Did Jesus Christ answer their expectations?
20. Tell what you can of the Samaritans.
21. Describe the Sanhedrim of the Jews. (Note 7.)
SECTION III.
1. Childhood and Youth of Messiah.—Returning from Egypt in obedience to the commandment of God, Joseph, the husband of Mary, with the infant Savior, went into Galilee, and lived at Nazareth—the most despised village of the most despised province in all Palestine. (Note 1, end of section.) Of his childhood but little information can be obtained from any authentic source. All that may be learned from the biographies in the Gospels is that after the settlement in Nazareth, the child grew and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom; and the grace of God was upon him.
2. Luke tells us that when twelve years of age, Jesus accompanied his mother and Joseph to Jerusalem, to attend the feast of the Passover. (See note 2, end of section.) When they started on the return to Nazareth, Jesus remained behind at Jerusalem without their knowledge. They supposed him to be in the company, but when after a whole day's journey he did not appear, they made inquiry for him among their kindred, and not finding him, returned to Jerusalem in search of him. After three days' anxious inquiry they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them and asking questions. Answering his mother's gentle reproof for remaining behind, he said:
How is it that ye sought me? Wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?
Thus early in life, just emerging from childhood, it seems that the Son of God had the inspiration of his mission resting upon him. Yet in loving obedience he went with them down into Nazareth, "and was subject unto them." With the return to Nazareth the authentic history of the childhood and youth of the Son of God ends; further than we learn from the remark of Luke that "Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man." But what the details of his life and development were for the next eighteen years, we do not know. (See note 3, end of section.)
3. In the New Testament apocrypha there are wonderful and miraculous stories of his carrying spilt water in his robe; of his pulling a short board to its requisite length; of moulding sparrows out of clay and then clapping his hands at which they are made alive and fly away; how he vexes and shames and silences those who wish to teach him; how he rebukes Joseph or turns his playmates into kids; how he strikes dead with a curse the boys who offend or run against him, until at last there is a storm of popular indignation, and his mother fears to have him leave the house[[15]]—and a hundred other things equally absurd which mar rather than embellish the childhood and youth of Jesus, which the silence of his reliable biographers dignifies and exalts.
4. John the Baptist.—In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, there came preaching throughout the wilderness of Judea [Ju-de-a] a strange character, called John the Baptist. He was the son of Elizabeth, who was a descendant of Aaron, and a cousin to Mary, the mother to Jesus. His father was a priest of the temple, named Zacharias. Zacharias and Elizabeth were both well stricken in years, when there appeared unto the former, in the temple, as he was burning incense upon the altar, the angel Gabriel [Ga-bri-el], who announced to him that his wife should bear him a son, and that he must call his name John. The angel also said that John should be great in the eyes of the Lord; that he should be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb. He was to have power also to turn unto their God many of the children of Israel, and to go before the Lord in the spirit and power of Elias to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.[[16]]
5. In due time all that the angel promised came to pass. The child was born, and when eight days old he was circumcised and named John. On that occasion his father who had been dumb from the time of the visitation of the angel prophesied that the child should be called the prophet of the Highest; that he should go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways; give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins, through the tender mercy of God; and give light to them that sit in darkness, and in the shadow of death.[[17]]
6. That the child grew and waxed strong in spirit, and was in the deserts till the day of his showing unto Israel;[[18]] that he had his raiment of camel's hair; a leathern girdle about his loins; that his food was locusts and wild honey[[19]] is all we know of him until the word of the Lord came to him in the wilderness[[20]] commanding him to cry repentance, and proclaim the coming of the kingdom of heaven.
7. The Voice from the Wilderness.—The burden of John's message consisted of three great declarations: Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand; prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight; there cometh one after me mightier than I am, whose shoe latchet I am unworthy to loose, he will baptize you with fire and with the Holy Ghost.
8. When the multitude flocked to hear the teaching of John the Pharisees and Sadducees came also—with guile in their hearts and deceit on their lips, he rebuked them, called them a generation of vipers and told them to bring forth fruits meet for repentance, and not to pride themselves on being the children of Abraham, for God was able of the very stones about them to raise up children unto Abraham. He warned them that the ax was laid at the root of every tree, and that tree which brought not forth good fruit was to be destroyed.
9. That was a strange voice to the people of that generation, accustomed as they were to hear only the accents of flattery or subserviency. Without a tremor of hesitation he rebuked the tax gatherers for their extortion; the soldiers for their violence; the Sadducees and Pharisees for their pride and formalism; and warned the whole people that their cherished privileges were worse than valueless if without repentance they regarded them as a protection against the wrath to come.
10. So unusual a teacher as John the Baptist could not fail to attract attention in Judea where all men were anticipating the coming of a deliverer. Hence, as the Jews listened to his teachings so inspired with the power of God, they wondered if he were not the Messiah. This he denied. They asked him then if he were not Elias. This too he denied (see note 5, end of section); and claimed only to be the voice of one crying in the wilderness: "Make straight the way of the Lord."[[21]]
11. The Baptism of Jesus.—When John came into the region about Bethabara [Beth-ab-a-rah], on the Jordan,[[22]] among others who came to be baptized was Jesus. When John saw him he hesitated, and knowing by the inspiration within him what he was soon to know by a more splendid manifestation of God's power, viz., that this was the Son of God, he said: "I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?" "Suffer it to be so now," replied Jesus, "for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness."[[23]]
12. Then John baptized him, and as Jesus came up out of the water the heavens were opened unto him (that is, unto John; see note 6, end of section), and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting upon him; and he heard a voice from heaven saying: "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."[[24]] This splendid spiritual manifestation was a sign to John that this was the Son of God, the One who was to baptize with fire and the Holy Ghost, the Messiah, who was to take away the sins of the world. For he who had sent him to baptize with water, had said to him: "Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost."[[25]]
13. The Martyrdom of John.—Having borne witness that Jesus was the Son of God, John seems to have completed the mission given to him at that time, and soon after fell a victim to the malice of a wicked woman and a weak prince. Herod Antipas [Anti-pas], the son of Herod the Great, who was made Tetrarch of Galilee on the death of his father, married the daughter of Aretas [Ar'-e-ta], king of Arabia. But forming also an unholy attachment for Herodias [He-ro'-di-as], his brother Philip's wife, he soon became involved in a course of guilt with her. For this he was reproved by John, who told him it was not lawful for him to have her. Herod at the instance of Herodias cast John into prison for his temerity in reproving their wicked course, and would have put him to death, but he feared the multitude, who esteemed John a prophet.
14. The revengeful spirit of Herodias, however, was not satisfied with the bonds and imprisonment of John; she determined to have his life. On Herod's birthday, in the midst of the feast, she sent her daughter to dance for the amusement of the company, which greatly pleased Herod, and he promised her with an oath that he would give her whatsoever she should ask; and the damsel being instructed of her mother demanded the head of John the Baptist. It was with sorrow that Herod, bad as he was, heard this demand, yet for his oath's sake, and ashamed to manifest weakness in the presence of those who sat at meat with him, he sent and beheaded John in the prison, and had the head brought in and given to the damsel in a charger. Thus fell the first martyr in that dispensation. (See note 7, end of section.)
NOTES.
1. Nazareth.—Nazareth was in Galilee, a part of Palestine, which was held in disesteem for several reasons: it had a provincial dialect; lying remote from the capital, its inhabitants spoke a strange tongue, which was rough, harsh, and uncouth, having a peculiar combination of words, and words also peculiar to themselves. Its population was impure, being made up not only of provincial Jews but also of heathens of several sorts, Egyptians, Arabians, Phoenicians. As Galilee was a despised part of Palestine, so was Nazareth a despised part of Galilee, being a small, obscure, if not mean place. Accordingly its inhabitants were held in little consideration by other Galileans, and, of course, by those Jews who dwelt in Judea. Hence the name of Nazarene came to bear with it a bad odor and was nearly synonymous with a low, ignorant and uncultivated, if not un-Jewish person.—"Biblical Literature", Kitto.
2. The Passover.—The Passover, like the Sabbath and other institutions had a two-fold reference—historical and typical. As a commemorative institution, it was designed to preserve among the Jews a grateful sense of their redemption from Egyptian bondage, and with the protection granted to their first born, on the night when all the first born of the Egyptians were destroyed (Exodus xii: 27,) as a typical institute its object was to shadow forth the great facts and consequences of the Christian sacrifices (I. Cor. v: 7). That the ancient Jews understood this institution to prefigure the sufferings of the Christ is evident, not only from the New Testament, but from the Mishna, where, among the five things said to be contained in the Great Hallel (a hymn composed of several songs and sung after the Paschal supper,) one is, the suffering of Messiah, for which they refer to Psalm cxvi. * * * * * The Passover also denotes the whole solemnity, commencing on the fourteenth and ending on the twenty-first day of Nisan.—Kitto.
3. The Youth of Christ.—It is written that there was once a pious, godly bishop who had often earnestly prayed that God would manifest unto him what Jesus had done in his youth. Once the bishop had a dream to this effect. He seemed in his sleep to see a carpenter working at his trade, and beside him a little boy who was gathering up chips. Then came in a maiden clothed in green, who called them both to come to the meal, and set porridge before them. All this the bishop seemed to see in his dream, himself standing behind the door that he might not be perceived. Then the little boy began and said: Why does that man stand there? Shall he not also eat with us? And this so frightened the bishop that he awoke. Let this be what it may, a true history or a fable, I none the less believe that Christ in his childhood and youth looked and acted like other children, yet without sin; in fashion like a man.—Martin Luther.
4. Messiah's Life for Thirty Years.—What was his manner of life during those thirty years? It is a question which the Christians cannot help asking in deep reverence, and with yearning love; but the words in which the Gospels answer it are very calm and very few. * * * * * His development was a strictly human development. He did not come to the world endowed with infinite knowledge, but, as St. Luke tells us, he gradually advanced in wisdom. He was not clothed with infinite power, but experienced the weakness and imperfections of human infancy. He grew as other children grow, only in a childhood of stainless and sinless beauty—as the "flower of roses in the spring of the year and as lilies by the waters." * * * * * It was in utter stillness, in prayerfulness, in the quiet round of daily duties—like Moses in the wilderness, like David among the sheep folds, like Elijah among the tents of the Bedouin, like Jeremiah in his quiet home at Anathoth, like Amos in the sycamore groves of Tekoa—that the boy Jesus prepared himself, amid a hallowed obscurity, for his mighty work on earth. His outward life was the life of all those of his age, and station and place of birth. He lived as lived other children of peasant parents in that quiet town, and in great measure as they live now.—Canon Farrar.
5. Was John the Elias?—"Art thou Elias?" said the messengers from Jesus to John. "And he saith, I am not" (John i). Afterwards, as Jesus, Peter, James and John were descending the mountain on whose summit they had seen in vision Moses and Elias, the following conversation occurred:
JESUS: Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead.
DISCIPLES: Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come?
JESUS: Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things; but I say unto you that Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. * * * * Then the disciples knew that he spake unto them of John the Baptist. (Matt. xvii.) From this it appears that John denied being Elias, while Jesus declared that he was, and in consequence much controversy has arisen on this subject. The matter may be easily understood, however, when it is known that Elias is the name of a person, the name of a prophet who lived, doubtless, in the days of Abraham (Doc. and Cov. sec cx: 12), and who also appeared to Jesus on the occasion above named; Elias is also the name of an office—the office of Restorer. "The spirit of Elias," said the Prophet Joseph (March 10, 1844) "is to prepare the way for a greater revelation of God, which is the priesthood of Elias. * * * * And when God sends a man into the world to prepare for a greater work holding the keys of the power of Elias, it was called the doctrine of Elias, even from the early ages of the world." Hence any man who came to prepare the way for a greater revelation was an Elias, and in this sense John the Baptist was pre-eminently Elias; but it is equally true that he was not Elias, the prophet who lived in the days of Abraham, who appeared unto Jesus in the mountain and who also appeared to the Prophet Joseph and Oliver Cowdery in the Kirtland Temple.
In the revision of the New Testament, by the Prophet Joseph Smith, often improperly called the new translation, the difficulty in respect to the denial of John that he was Elias is easily understood. We quote the passage: "This is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and seventies from Jerusalem, to ask him: Who art thou? And he confessed and denied not that he was Elias; but he confessed, saying, I am not the Christ. And they asked him, saying: How art thou then Elias? And he said, I am not that Elias who was to restore all things. And they asked him, saying, Art thou that Prophet? And he answered, No." (St. John i: 20-22.) From the above it may be plainly seen that while John was not the particular Elias who is to restore all things, yet he is an Elias because he restored some things in respect to the gospel.—Roberts.
6. John the Only Witness of the Descent of the Holy Ghost.—I suppose that John the Baptist was the only one who was a witness of the Holy Ghost resting upon Jesus in the form of a dove. In all the accounts given of this event, except by Luke, the pronoun "he," referring to John, is used. While in Luke it is not said that anyone else saw it, but it is merely stated that "the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him." John's own testimony is as follows: "I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost."—"The Gospel" (note), Roberts.
7. The Fate of Herod Antipas.—He was not allowed to enjoy his prosperity long. His nephew Agrippa having obtained the title of king, Herodias urged him to make a journey to Italy and demand the same honor. He weakly assented to his wife's ambitious representations; but the project proved fatal to them both. Agrippa anticipated their design; and when they appeared before Caligula, they were met by accusations of hostility to Rome, the truth of which they in vain attempted to disprove. Sentence of deposition was accordingly passed upon Herod, and both he and his wife [Herodias] were sent into banishment and died at Lyons in Gaul.—Kitto.
8. The Sign of the Dove.—The Holy Ghost descended in the form of a dove, or rather in the sign of a dove, in witness of that administration [Messiah's baptism]. The sign of the dove was instituted before the creation of the world, a witness for the Holy Ghost, and the devil cannot come in the sign of a dove. The Holy Ghost is a personage, and is in the form of a personage. It (he) does not confine itself to the form of a dove, but in the sign of a dove. The Holy Ghost cannot be transformed into a dove; but the sign of a dove was given to John to signify the truth of the deed, as the dove is an emblem or token of truth and innocence.—Joseph Smith.
REVIEW.
1. State what you can of the childhood of Christ.
2. What can you say of Nazareth?
3. What happened when Jesus was twelve years old?
4. Describe the Passover. (Note 2.)
5. What can you say of the fabulous stories related of the childhood and youth of Christ?
6. At what time did John the Baptist appear as a preacher?
7. Who were the parents of John? What their descent?
8. Relate all you can concerning John's birth and childhood.
9. What was the burden of John's message?
10. How did he treat the deceitful Pharisees and Sadducees?
11. As whom did some of the Jews regard John?
12. What was the extent of his pretensions?
13. What can you say of Elias? (Note 5.)
14. Relate the baptism of Jesus.
15. Tell the story of John's martyrdom.
16. What was the fate of Herod Antipas? (Note 7.)
SECTION IV.
1. The Temptations of Jesus.—After his baptism Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, where he fasted for forty days and forty nights. Then at the moment of his great physical weakness Lucifer came tempting him, but all the allurements of the wily foe were thwarted, from the challenge to turn the stones into bread to the offer of the kingdoms of this world and the glory of them. After his failure to seduce Jesus to sin, Lucifer left him—"for a season," and angels came and administered unto him. (See notes 1 and 2, end of section.)
2. Commencement of Christ's Ministry.—Having in all things resisted the temptations of Lucifer, Jesus returned from the wilderness into Galilee, the Spirit of God resting upon him in mighty power. It was then that he began his great ministry among the people, teaching in their synagogues, astonishing all with the graciousness of his doctrines, and his power in healing the sick, until his fame extended throughout the land and great multitudes of people from Galilee, and also from Decapolis (De-kap-o-lis), Jerusalem and other parts of Judea followed him.
3. The Doctrines Christ Taught.—The burden of his teaching at this period of his ministry seems to have been: "Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."[[26]] In addition to this, he also taught beautiful truths and moral precepts in brief, emphatic sentences (see note 3, end of section), that were especially comforting to the poor; such as, "Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted: Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled. * * * Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God."
4. In some things His teachings seemed to come in conflict with the traditions of the people; and, indeed with the law of Moses itself, as witness the following: "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: but I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment; and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca,[[27]] shall be in danger of the council; but whosoever shall say Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." Again: "Ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shall perform unto the Lord thine oaths: but I say unto you, Swear not at all; * * * but let your communications be Yea, yea; Nay, nay. * * * Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: but I say unto you, That ye resist not evil. * * * Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that despitefully use you, and persecute you."
5. Yet Jesus claimed that He came not to destroy the law nor the prophets, but to fulfill them, and declared that though heaven and earth should pass away not one jot nor tittle of the law should pass away but all should be fulfilled. Still it cannot be denied that some of his teachings set aside many parts of the law of Moses, and seemed to be in conflict with its spirit.
6. The Gospel Supplants the Law.—The seeming conflict, referred to in the last paragraph, between the law of Moses and the teachings of Messiah disappears when it is understood that the gospel of Jesus Christ was about to supplant the law. The gospel, under Moses was offered to ancient Israel before they received the law of carnal commandments; but they would not live in accordance with its divine precepts, but hardened their hearts against it until the gospel, as also the higher priesthood, was taken from among them. The lesser priesthood, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels and the preparatory gospel, repentance and baptism, and the law of carnal commandments (the spirit of which is an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth) remained with them,[[28]] to educate and instruct them, that they might be prepared eventually for the fullness of the gospel. When Jesus began his ministry by proclaiming his gospel, the law of Moses was about fulfilled, and many of the carnal commandments and precepts were being pushed aside by the more excellent precepts of the gospel, even as many of the sacrifices and burnt offerings were to be discontinued after Messiah should be offered up as a sacrifice, of which the sacrifices before mentioned were but types and symbols. (See note 4, end of section.)
7. Twelve Apostles Called.—From among the disciples which followed him Jesus selected twelve men whom he called apostles. Their names were: Simon, commonly called Peter; Andrew, brother to Peter; James, the son of Zebedee, sometimes called James the Elder; John, brother to James above named; Philip; Bartholomew; Thomas; Matthew, the publican, author of the book of Matthew in the New Testament; James, the son of Alphaeus, also called James the less, perhaps to distinguish him from James the elder, or because of his small stature;[[29]] Lebbaeus usually called by his surname Thaddaeus; Simon, the Canaanite; Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.
8. These twelve men Jesus sent out on a mission to the cities of Israel, forbidding them to go into the way of the Gentiles, or into the cities of the Samaritans. Their mission was to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.[[30]] They were sent without purse and without scrip, nor were they to provide themselves with two coats nor take thought as to what they should eat, or wherewithal they would be clothed; but they were to trust to the Lord, being assured that the laborer is worthy of his hire.
9. The burden of their message was to be: "The kingdom of heaven is at hand." They also received power from their Master to heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: and were admonished, since they had received freely, to give as freely to others. Jesus told them they were going as sheep among wolves; that they would be brought before governors and kings for his sake; that they would be delivered up to councils, and scourged in the synagogues; that they would be hated of all men for his sake; but they were also given the comforting assurance that they who would endure to the end should be saved.[[31]] These apostles went forth through the towns of Judea preaching the gospel and healing the sick.
10. Seventies Called.—The harvest being great and the laborers few, Jesus called seventies into the ministry to aid the twelve apostles. He sent them two and two before him into every city and place where he himself expected to go. The commission, powers and instructions which the seventies received were nearly the same as those given to the twelve apostles.[[32]] These seventies went forth as the apostles had done and returning from their labor bore record that the power of God was with them in their ministry and that the very devils were subject to them in the name of Jesus.[[33]]
11. The Order of Events.—It would be difficult if not impossible to relate even the chief events in the life of Messiah in the order in which they occurred, since no little confusion exists in respect to the succession of events in the narratives of the New Testament. (See note 5, end of section.) Nor is it necessary to our purpose to dwell in detail or in sequence upon those matters. It is sufficient for us to know that after the events we have already noted Messiah's mission was more boldly declared. He proclaimed himself to be the Son of God; the Messiah of which the scriptures had borne record;[[34]] he taught men that God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son to redeem it, that whosoever would believe in him might have everlasting life.[[35]] In addition to this great doctrine we have seen that he taught repentance; he likewise taught that men must be born (baptized) of the water and of the Spirit before they could enter into the kingdom of God;[[36]] he made and baptized more disciples than John;[[37]] he also taught the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, and announced himself as possessing the keys and powers thereof.[[38]]
12. The Divinity of Messiah's Mission.—Jesus sustained the divinity of his mission by pointing to the conformity of the facts connected with his career with the predictions of the scriptures;[[39]] by the testimony which John the Baptist bore;[[40]] by the works which he did—his wonderful miracles wherein the power of God was made manifest;[[41]] and lastly, and best of all, the testimony of the Father himself which was promised unto all those who would do his (the Father's) will.[[42]]
NOTES.
1. Order of the Temptations.—The order of the temptations is given differently by St. Matthew and St. Luke. St. Matthew placing second the scene on the pinnacle of the temple, and St. Luke the vision of the kingdoms of the world. Both orders cannot be right, and possibly St. Luke may have been influenced in his arrangement by the thought that a temptation to spiritual pride and the arbitrary exercise of miraculous power was a subtler and less transparent, and therefore more powerful one than the temptation to fall down and recognize the power of evil. * * * The consideration that St. Matthew, as one of the Apostles, is more likely to have heard the narrative immediately from the lips of Christ—gives greater weight to the order which he adopts.—Canon Farrar.
2. More than Three Temptations.—The positive temptations of Jesus were not confined to that particular point of time when they assailed him with concentrated force. [In the wilderness.] * * * But still more frequently in after life was he called to endure temptation of another kind—the temptation of suffering, and this culminated on two occasions, viz., in the conflict of Gethsemane, and in that moment of agony on the cross when he cried, "My God, my God! why hast thou forsaken me?"—Ullman.
3. Manner of Christ's Teaching.—Next to what our Savior taught, may be considered the manner of his teaching, which was extremely peculiar; yet, I think, precisely adapted to the peculiarity of his character and situation. His lessons did not consist of disquisitions; of anything like moral essays, or like sermons, or like set treatises upon several points which he mentioned. When he delivered a precept, it was seldom that he added any proof or argument, still more seldom that he accompanied it with, what all precepts require, limitations and distinctions. His instructions were conceived in short, emphatic, sententious rules, in occasional reflections or in sound maxims. I do not think this is a natural, or would it have been a proper method for a philosopher or a moralist or that it is a method which can be successfully imitated by us. But I contend that it was suitable to the character which Christ assumed, and to the situation in which, as a teacher, he was placed. He produced himself as a messenger from God. He put the truth of what he taught upon authority. [I say unto you, swear not at all; I say unto you, resist not evil; I say unto you, love your enemies.] In the choice, therefore, of his mode of teaching, the purpose by him to be consulted was impression; because conviction, which forms the principal end of our discourse, was to arise in the minds of his followers from a different source, from their respect to his person and authority. Now, for the purpose of impression singly and exclusively, I know nothing which would have so great force, as strong, ponderous maxims, frequently urged and frequently brought back to the thoughts of the hearers. I know nothing that could in this view be said better than, Do unto others as ye would that others should do unto you; The first and great commandment is, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God; and the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.—Christian Evidences—Paley.
4. The Law Added to the Gospel.—The Mosaic Law never was considered, by those who understood it, "an everlasting covenant." It was given for a special purpose, and when it had accomplished that purpose, it was laid aside. We read in Galatians iii:8, that "the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all the nations of the earth be blessed." From this it appears that the gospel was preached unto Abraham. In Hebrews (iv:2), Paul speaking of ancient Israel says: "For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them [ancient Israel]: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it." Not only then was the gospel preached unto Abraham, but also unto the children of Israel. Now let us go back to the third chapter of Galatians; for Paul having stated that the gospel was preached unto Abraham, asks this question (verse 19): "Wherefore then serveth the law?" (if the gospel was preached unto Abraham). "It was added because of transgression, till the seed" (Christ) "should come to whom the promise was made." Added? Added to what? Added to the gospel, which before that time had been preached unto Abraham, and also to ancient Israel. But the Israelites under Moses were unable to live the perfect law of the gospel. They were not strong enough to overcome evil with good, as the gospel requires, so a law of carnal commandments was "added" to the gospel—a law which breathed of the spirit of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth—a law which was suited to their capacity. Paul, speaking of this subject in the same chapter of Galatians (verses 23-25), says: "Before faith came we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law [the law of Moses] was our school-master to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith has come we are no longer under a school-master." From these passages of scripture we learn this: The gospel was preached unto Abraham, and also unto ancient Israel. The Israelites were unable to live the law of the gospel, hence a law of carnal commandments, known as the law of Moses was given as a school-master to bring them up to a higher law; Christ came and introduced that higher law—the gospel; explained its principles and pointed out the difference between it and the law of Moses. The gospel took the place of the law of Moses, which was laid aside, having fulfilled the object for which it was added to the gospel.—Lecture on Mission of Joseph Smith—Roberts.
5. Neglect of Chronological Order in New Testament Narratives.—The four gospels narrate the principal events connected with our Lord's abode on earth, from his birth to his ascension. There must, therefore, be a general resemblance between them, though that of John contains little in common with the others, being apparently supplementary to them. Yet there are considerable diversities both in the order in which facts are narrated, and in the facts themselves. Hence the difficulty of weaving the accounts of the four into a continuous and chronological history. It is our decided conviction that all the evangelists have not adhered to chronological arrangement. The question then arises, have all neglected the order of time? Newcome and many others espouse this view. "Chronological order," says the writer, "is not precisely observed by any of the evangelists; St. John and St. Mark observe it most; and St. Matthew neglects it most."—Davidson—Biblical Literature.
REVIEW.
1. What followed the baptism of Jesus?
2. What can you say of the order of the temptations? (Note 1).
3. What was the commencement of Christ's ministry?
4. What was the character of Christ's doctrine at this period?
5. State how the gospel supplanted the law of Moses.
6. Name the Apostles whom Jesus called.
7. What was the first mission of the Twelve?
8. What was the nature of the commission given to the Apostles?
9. State the calling and commission of the Seventies.
10. What can you say of the order of chronological events in the New Testament? (Note 5.)
11. To what several circumstances did Messiah point as giving evidence of the divinity of his mission?
12. Quote the passages of scripture cited in the text.
SECTION V.
1. The Common People Hear Jesus Gladly.—The mission of Jesus was full of comfort to the poor. As one of the signs that he was the promised Messiah, he said to a delegation of John's disciples—"The poor have the gospel preached to them."[[43]] He claimed to be anointed of the Lord to that work; and in doing it was fulfilling that which had been predicted by the prophets.[[44]] He often reproved the rich, not merely because they were rich, however, but because of their pride and hypocrisy which led them to oppress the poor. In like manner he reproved the chief elders and scribes and Pharisees who loved fine clothing, and loved to receive salutations in the market places; who coveted the chief seats in the synagogues and the uppermost rooms at the feasts; who devoured widows' houses, and for a pretense made long prayers.[[45]] This with a free reproof of their other vices and crimes brought upon him the enmity of the wealthy, and of the rulers of the people; but the common people heard him gladly.[[46]] (See note 1, end of section.)
2. Religious Jealousy—Political Fear.—Another thing which embittered the minds of the chief priests and elders against Jesus was religious jealousy. The numerous evidences of his divine authority, to be seen in his character and works, led many of the Jews to revere him as the Son of God. Especially was this the case after he raised Lazarus from the dead.[[47]] They said: "If we let this man alone all men will believe in him; and the Romans will come and take away both our place and nation." It was religious jealousy that dictated the first half of the sentence; and political fear the rest. The Jews had but a precarious hold upon their political rights; already it had been intimated that Jesus was king of the Jews;[[48]] and if the people should under a sudden impulse accept him as king, the result in their judgment, must be a loss of those political rights which the Romans permitted them to exercise. To allow Jesus, therefore, to continue preaching was dangerous to their supposed honors and privileges; and this consideration was sufficient to induce the leading men among all parties to plot against his life.
3. The Charges Against Jesus.—The principal charges which the Jews brought against Jesus were: (1) violation of the Sabbath; he had healed a man on the Sabbath day, and had commanded him to take up his bed and walk:[[49]] (2) blasphemy; he had said God was his Father, "making himself equal with God" (see note 2, end of section):[[50]] (3) It was said that he was king of the Jews; and, on one occasion, the people hearing of his coming to Jerusalem took palm branches and went out to meet him, shouting Hosannah: blessed is the king of Israel that cometh in the name of the Lord.[[51]] For this he was said to be an enemy to Caesar's government and a seditious person.
4. Treason of Judas.—For some time the efforts of the chief priests to arrest Jesus were baffled. They feared to proceed openly against him lest the people should stand in his favor and overthrow them. At last, however, Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve, met with some of the chief rulers and promised to betray him to them in the absence of the multitude. This offer they gladly accepted and agreed to pay him thirty pieces of silver for his treachery.
5. Institution of the Sacrament.—The time chosen by Judas for the betrayal of his Master was the night of the passover feast. Jesus with the twelve ate the feast in an upper room in Jerusalem. It was on this occasion that he instituted the Sacrament of the Lord's supper. He took bread and gave thanks, broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying: This is my body which is given for you; this do in remembrance of me. He also took wine, gave thanks, saying as he gave it to them: This cup is the New Testament in my blood, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.[[52]]
6. After the supper was over, having sung a hymn, Jesus with the twelve, excepting Judas Iscariot, went out to the garden of Gethsemane [Geth-sem-e-na] where Jesus prayed in great agony of spirit so that he sweat great drops of blood. He prayed that the bitter cup of suffering now about to be held to his lips might be removed from him. Thrice he so prayed, but closed each petition to his Father with—"not my will, but thine, will be done."
7. The Betrayal.—Meantime, Judas Iscariot having stolen out in the midst of the feast, went to the chief priests and directed a multitude with a company of Roman soldiers to the garden, and running to Jesus cried, "Hail, Master!" and kissed him. That was the sign agreed upon by the traitor and those who came to make the arrest, that they might know which one to take. And when they had secured him, they took him first to the house of Annas [An-nas], who, after questioning him, sent him bound to Caiaphas [Kai-ya-fas], the high priest, where he was arraigned before the Sanhedrim [San-he-drim].
8. The Trial.—The court before which Jesus was arraigned was not one before which his case was to be investigated, they had come together with the fixed determination to adjudge him guilty; hence they sought for witnesses who would testify something against him that would furnish a pretext for putting him to death. Many false witnesses testified against him; but their testimony was unsatisfactory and failed of its purpose. At last the high priest, evidently losing patience at the silence of the prisoner—for he made no defense against the charges of the false witnesses—adjured him by the living God to say if he were the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus acknowledged that he was, and told them that hereafter they should see him at the right hand of Power, coming in the clouds of heaven. At this the high priest rent his clothes, saying, "he hath spoken blasphemy," and claimed that they had no need of further witnesses, since they themselves had heard his "blasphemy" (see note 3, end of section). The council at once decided him worthy of death.
9. Christ Before Pilate and Herod.—The Romans had taken from the Sanhedrim of the Jews the power of executing those whom it adjudged guilty of death, unless the sentence was confirmed by the Roman governor; hence after sentence of death was passed upon Jesus by the Sanhedrim they took him to Pilate's judgment hall to have that sentence confirmed.
10. Learning incidentally that Jesus was a Galilean, and belonged to Herod's jurisdiction, Pilate sent him to Herod who, at the time, was in Jerusalem. Before Herod Jesus was silent; neither the contempt of the murderer of his forerunner, nor the mockery of the common soldiers could provoke him into breaking his dignified silence. So in ridicule of his claims to kingship—although, as Jesus himself said, his kingdom was not of this world[[53]]—Herod clothed him in gorgeous apparel and sent him back to Pilate.
11. Satisfied that there was nothing in Messiah's conduct worthy of death, Pilate sought to let him go; but the Jews insisted upon his execution. It was the custom among the Jews to have released to them a prisoner at the feast of the Passover, and on that ground Pilate sought to release Jesus; but the Jews would not listen to it, and preferred that the robber, Barabbas, a murderer, should be released. They told Pilate that whosoever made himself a king was an enemy to Caesar; and if he let Jesus go he was not Caesar's friend. By such arguments on the part of the chief priests, and the persistent cry of the people to crucify him, Pilate was over-awed, and at last confirmed the sentence of death. (See note 4, end of section.)
12. The Crucifixion.—From the hall of judgment Jesus was led into the common hall, where the soldiers stripped him of his own raiment, and put upon him a scarlet robe in mockery of his claims to kingship. They also platted a crown of thorns and placed it on his brow, and for a scepter gave him a reed in his right hand. They bowed the knee before him, and mockingly cried: "Hail, king of the Jews!" They spit upon him, beat him with their hands and with the reed they had given him for a scepter.
13. From the common hall he was led away under a guard of soldiers to a place called Golgotha [Gol-go-tha], which, as well as its Latin equivalent—Calvaria-Calvary[[54]]—means, the place of a skull. Here Jesus was stripped, and nailed to the cross, which was erected between two other crosses, on each of which was a thief. Above the his head in Latin, Greek and Hebrew was fixed the superscription written by Pilate—"This is the King of the Jews." As he hung there between the two thieves, the soldiers mocked him as did also the chief scribes and the Pharisees, saying: He saved others, let him save himself; if he is Christ, the chosen of God; let him come down from the cross and we will believe him; he trusted in God, let him deliver him now, if he will have him; for he said, I am the Son of God. In the midst of his great suffering, in which his mental agony was greater than his physical pain; the Son of God cried, "Father, forgive them, they know not what they do."
14. At the sixth hour—mid-day—there was a darkness that spread over the whole land, and continued until the ninth hour (see note 5, end of section). About the ninth hour Jesus said: "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit," then he bowed his head and expired. At the same moment the veil of the Temple was rent from top to bottom, an earthquake shook the solid earth and rent the rocks, all the elements of nature seemed agitated as if anxious to bear witness that a God had died!
15. The Convulsions of Nature on the Western Hemisphere.—On the western hemisphere during the crucifixion of our Lord, the elements of nature were more disturbed than on the eastern hemisphere. During the time that Jesus was upon the cross, great and terrible tempests accompanied with terrific lightning raged throughout the land. Earthquakes shattered cities into confused piles of ruins; level plains were broken up and left in confused mountainous heaps; solid rocks were rent in twain; many cities were swept out of existence by fierce whirl-winds; others were sunk into the depths of the sea, others covered with mountain chains thrown up by the convulsions of the trembling earth; and others still were burned with fire. For the space of about three hours this awful disturbance of the elements continued, during which the whole face of the land both in North and South America was greatly changed, and most of the inhabitants destroyed. After the storm and tempest and the quakings of the earth had ceased, there followed intense darkness which lasted for three days, the time that Jesus was lying in the tomb.[[55]]
16. The Burial.—Towards evening of the day of the crucifixion, Joseph of Arimathaea [Ar-ra-ma-thee-ya], a rich man and a disciple of Jesus, went to Pilate, and begged that the body of the Lord be given him that he might bury it. Pilate granted the request; and Joseph took the body, wrapt in clean linen and put it in his own new tomb. The Pharisees also went to Pilate and reminded him how Jesus had said when living that after three days in the tomb he would rise again, and asked that the sepulchre wherein he was buried should be placed under guard until the third day should pass, lest his disciples should come and steal his body by night, and then spread abroad the rumor that he had arisen from the dead. Pilate granted them permission to seal up the sepulchre and set a watch to guard it. (See note 6, end of section.)
NOTES.
1. The Common People Begin Reforms.—The case of the common people hearing Jesus gladly is not singular; it may be said to be true in nearly all great movements. It is a truth so generally accepted that a modern writer (Lew Wallace) has said: "To begin a reform, go not into the palaces of the great and rich; go rather to those whose cups of happiness are empty—to the poor and humble."
2. Jesus' Defense Against the Charge of Blasphemy.—The following scene occurred in Solomon's porch, at the temple, where Jesus was walking. A number of Jews gathered about him and said: How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ tell us so plainly.
JESUS.—I told you and ye believed not; the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me * * * I and my Father are one. [Then the Jews took up stones to stone him.]
JESUS.—Many good works have I showed you from my Father; for which of those works do you stone me?
JEWS.—For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
JESUS.—Is it not written in your law; I said ye are Gods? If he called them Gods unto whom the word of God come, and the scripture cannot be broken, say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent unto the world, thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.
Then they sought again to take him, but he escaped out of their hands. (John x.)
3. The Law Against Blasphemy.—The law against blasphemy is to be found in Leviticus (xxiv:15, 16) and is as follows: "Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin; and he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him; as well the stranger as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death." The Jews claimed that Jesus was guilty of blasphemy, because he claimed to be the Son of God, thus making himself equal with God; when to their eyes he was merely a man. Therein consisted his alleged blasphemy. Christ's own defense against the charge (see note above) is the best answer to the sophistry of the Jews by which they tried to make it appear that he had broken this law.—Roberts.
4. Character of Pilate.—If we now wish to form a judgment of Pilate's character, we easily see that he was one of that large class of men who aspire to public offices, not from a pure and lofty desire of benefitting the public and advancing the good of the world, but from selfish and personal considerations, from a love of distinction, from a love of power, from a love of self indulgence; being destitute of any fixed principles, and having no aim but office and influence, they act right only by chance and when convenient, and are wholly incapable of pursuing a consistent course, or of acting with firmness or self-denial in cases in which the preservation of integrity require the exercise of these qualities. Pilate was obviously a man of weak, and therefore, with his temptations, of corrupt character.—J. R. Beard, D. D., Member of the Historical Theological Society, Leipzig.
5. The Three Hours' Darkness.—In the gospel of Matthew and Luke, we read that while Jesus hung upon the cross, "from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land to the ninth hour." Most of the ancient commentators believed that this darkness extended to the whole world. But their arguments are now seldom regarded as satisfactory, and their proofs even less so. Of the latter the strongest is the mention of an eclipse of the sun, which is referred to this time by Phlegon Trallianus, and, after him by Thallus. But even an eclipse of the sun could not be visible to the whole world; and neither of these writers names the places of the eclipse. Some think it was Rome; but it is impossible that an eclipse could have happened from the sixth to the ninth hour both at Rome and Jerusalem. * * * That the darkness could not have proceeded from an eclipse of the sun is further placed beyond all doubt by the fact that, it being then the time of the Passover, the moon was at the full. This darkness may, therefore, be ascribed to an extraordinary and preternatural obscuration of the solar light, which might precede and accompany the earthquake which took place on the same occasion. For it has been noticed that often before an earthquake such a mist arises from sulphurous vapors as to occasion a darkness almost nocturnal.—Biblical Literature—Kitto.
6. Fate of the Chief Actors in Christ's Crucifixion.—Before the dread sacrifice was consummated, Judas died in the horrors of a loathsome suicide. Caiaphas (the high priest and president of the Sanhedrim) was deposed the year following. Herod died in infamy and exile. Stripped of his procuratorship very shortly afterwards, on the very charges he had tried by a wicked concession to avoid. Pilate, wearied out with misfortunes, died in suicide and banishment, leaving behind him an execrated name. The house of Annas was destroyed a generation later by an infuriated mob, and his son was dragged through the streets and scourged and beaten to his place of murder. Some of those who shared in and witnessed the scenes of that day—and thousands of their children—also shared in and witnessed the long horrors of that siege of Jerusalem, which stands unparalleled in history for its unutterable fearfulness.—Canon Farrar.
REVIEW.
1. What class of people heard Jesus gladly?
2. What classes of people did Jesus reprove? Why?
3. What was it that embittered the minds of the chief priests and rulers against Jesus?
4. Enumerate the charges against Jesus.
5. In what manner did Jesus defend himself against the charge of blasphemy? (Note 2.)
6. Who betrayed Jesus?
7. What time was chosen by Judas to betray Jesus?
8. Give an account of the institution of the sacrament.
9. Tell the story of the betrayal.
10. State the circumstances of the trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrim.
11. Why did the Jews take Jesus before Pilate?
12. Why did Pilate send him to Herod?
13. What was Messiah's treatment at the hands of Herod?
14. What the deportment of Jesus?
15. How did Pilate look upon Jesus?
16. In what manner did the Roman governor try to save Jesus?
17. What was the character of Pilate? (Note 4).
18. Tell the story of the crucifixion.
19. What occurred on the Western hemisphere at the crucifixion, and during the time Jesus was in the tomb?
20. Tell about the burial of Jesus.
21. What was the fate of those who judged and condemned Jesus? (Note 6).
SECTION VI.
1. The Resurrection.—Notwithstanding the sealed sepulchre, the armed watch, on the third day after his burial, the Son of God arose from the dead, as he himself predicted he would.[[56]] A number of women coming to the sepulchre early in the morning, for the purpose of finishing the work of embalming his body, found the grave untenanted and the angel present who announced the resurrection of the Lord; and commanded them to go and inform his disciples that he was risen from the dead and would go before them into Galilee, where he would appear unto them.
2. According to Matthew's account of the resurrection an angel from heaven came to the sepulchre wherein Jesus was laid, and rolled back the stone from its mouth; at his presence the soldiers who had been stationed as a guard to prevent the disciples from coming and stealing the body, became as dead men. Recovering from their stupor, some of the watch made their way to the chief priests and related what had happened. The chief priests and elders immediately assembled in council, and bribed the soldiers to say that they had fallen asleep, and during that time the followers of Christ had come and stolen his body. They agreed also that if the rumor of their falling asleep while on watch—a capital offense for a Roman soldier—should come to the ears of the governor, they would persuade him and secure them from punishment. It was in this way that the disappearance of the body of Jesus was commonly explained by the Jews who crucified him.[[57]]
3. The Appearances of Jesus After His Resurrection.—There are some slight discrepancies in the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in respect to the order of the appearances of Messiah after his resurrection, as indeed there is in respect to the order of the events connected with his trial, condemnation and death; but the following because of the fragmentary character of the four gospels may be regarded as being as nearly correct as may be ascertained. (See notes 1, 2, and 3, end of section.)
4. First, he appeared to Mary Magdalene, in the garden where the tomb in which he was laid was located;[[58]] second, to the women returning from the sepulchre on their way to deliver the angel's message to the disciples;[[59]] third, to two disciples going to Emmaus;[[60]] fourth, to Peter;[[61]] fifth, to ten apostles in an upper room;[[62]] sixth, to the eleven apostles, also in the upper room;[[63]] seventh, to seven apostles at the sea of Tiberias;[[64]] eighth, to eleven apostles in a mountain in Galilee;[[65]] ninth, to above five hundred brethren at once;[[66]] tenth, to James;[[67]] and finally to Paul while on his way to Damascus[[68]]
5. In all, Jesus was with his disciples on the eastern hemisphere for forty days after his resurrection,[[69]] during which time he taught them all things pertaining to the kingdom of heaven, and authorized them to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever he had commanded them; and promised that he would be with them even unto the end of the world.[[70]]
6. Moreover, he told them that these signs should follow them that believed: In his name they should cast out devils; they should speak with new tongues, take up serpents, and even if they drank any deadly thing he promised that it should not harm them; they should lay hands on the sick, and they should recover.[[71]]
7. The Ascension.—Having thus taught the gospel to the people of the eastern hemisphere, organized his church and commissioned his apostles to teach the gospel to all nations, he prepared to depart from them. It was most probably at Bethany [Beth-a-ny] that this solemn parting occurred. His forerunner, John the Baptist, had promised that he who should come after him, Jesus Christ, would baptize them with the Holy Ghost, and just previous to leaving the apostles he told them that the promise was about to be fulfilled. He therefore commanded them to tarry in Jerusalem until they were endowed with that power from on high. Then he lifted up his hands and blessed them, after which he was parted from them, and a cloud received him out of their sight.[[72]]
8. As they were still looking steadfastly toward heaven, two men—angels—in white apparel stood by them, and declared that this same Jesus whom they had seen go into heaven, should come in like manner, that is, in the clouds of heaven and in great glory.[[73]]
9. The Appearing of Messiah to the Nephites.—Jesus, before his crucifixion, told his disciples at Jerusalem that he was the good shepherd that would lay down his life for the sheep. He told them plainly, also, that he had other sheep which were not of that fold. "Them also I must bring," said he, "and they must hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd."[[74]]
10. This saying, like many others which he delivered to them, the apostles did not understand, because of their unbelief. And because of their unbelief and their stiffneckedness Jesus was commanded by his Father to say no more to them about it.[[75]] But it was the Nephites on the continent of America whom Jesus had in mind when he uttered the saying recorded in John's gospel,[[76]] "Other sheep I have, which are not of this fold," etc.
11. What length of time intervened between Messiah's departure from his disciples at Jerusalem and his appearance among the Nephites is not known. It was not, however, until after he had ascended into heaven.[[77]] His appearing to them was in this manner:
12. The few people upon the western hemisphere—and they were the more righteous part both of the Nephites and the Lamanites—who survived that terrible period of destruction which lasted during the time that Jesus hung upon the cross,[[78]] and the three succeeding days of darkness, were gathered together about the temple in the land Bountiful.[[79]] And as they were pointing out to each other the changes that had occurred because of the earthquakes and other convulsions of the elements, while the Messiah suffered upon the cross, they heard a voice speaking unto them as if from heaven. They at first did not understand the voice they heard; but the third time it spoke they understood it, and it made their hearts burn within them and their whole frame to quake, and these are the words which the voice spake: "Behold my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, in whom I have glorified my name; hear ye him." And looking up into heaven from whence the voice came, they saw a man descending clothed in a white robe. The multitude were breathlessly silent, for they supposed an angel had appeared unto them; but as soon as Jesus was in their midst he stretched out his arm and said: "Behold I am Jesus Christ, whom the prophets testified should come into the world. * * * I am the light and life of the world; and I have drunk out of that bitter cup which the Father hath given me, and have glorified the Father in taking upon me the sins of the world."
13. At this announcement the people fell prostrate and worshiped him. But he commanded them to arise and come unto him that they might thrust their hands into his side, and feel the prints of the nails in his hands and in his feet, that they might know that he was the God of Israel, and the God of the whole earth who had been slain for the sins of the world.[[80]] (See notes 5, 6, and 7, end of section). This the people did, and then again they worshiped him, and shouted aloud: "Hosanna! blessed be the name of the Most High God!"
14. The Church Established in America.—After these things, Jesus proceeded to teach them his gospel and establish his church among them. It will be sufficient to say here that the Messiah taught the people on the western continent the same great moral truths that he taught the Jews; that he established the same ordinances for the salvation of the people; that he chose Twelve Apostles to whom he committed power to preach his gospel, and administer in its ordinances; that a church was organized which was called the Church of Christ; that Jesus bore record of the great truth of the resurrection of the dead; that the Saints enjoyed the same spiritual graces and powers that the church in Palestine did, only more abundantly because of their greater faith; that two years after the appearance of Messiah all the people on the continent accepted the gospel and were baptized; that they had all things common and were a blessed and prosperous people among whom were no strifes or jealousies or contentions, and every man did deal justly one with another.
15. They increased rapidly in numbers and went forth and built up the waste places, and rebuilded many of the cities which had been ruined by the earthquakes and by fires. They walked no more after the ordinances of the law of Moses, but they practiced the principles of the doctrines of the gospel of Christ, and thus the first century of the Christian era passed away.
16. All the members of the first quorum of the twelve whom Jesus called on the western hemisphere died within the first century of the Christian era, except the three to whom he had granted the privilege, as he did unto John the beloved disciple,[[81]] of remaining on the earth until he should come in his glory. The places of those who died were filled by ordaining others, and thus the quorum of apostles was perpetuated.[[82]]
NOTES.
1. The Gospels but Fragmentary Histories.—Although skeptics have dwelt with disproportioned persistency upon a multitude of discrepancies in the four-fold narrative of Christ's trial, condemnation, death, and resurrection, yet these are not of a nature to cause the slightest anxiety to a Christian scholar; nor need they awaken the most momentary distrust in anyone who—even if he have no deeper feelings in the matter—approaches the gospels with no preconceived theory, whether of infallibility or of dishonesty, to support and merely accept them for that which, at the lowest, they claim to be—histories, honest and faithful, up to the full knowledge of the writers, but each, if taken alone, confessedly fragmentary and obviously incomplete. After repeated study, I declare, quite fearlessly, that though the slight variations are numerous—though the lesser particulars cannot in every instance be rigidly and minutely accurate—though no one of the narratives taken singly would give us an adequate impression—yet, so far from there being, in this part of the gospel story, any irreconcilable contradiction, it is perfectly possible to discover how one evangelist supplements the details furnished by another, and perfectly possible to understand the true sequence of the incidents by combining into one whole the separate indications which they furnish.—Canon Farrar.
2. The Bible Corrupted by the Gentiles.—And it came to pass that I, Nephi, beheld that they [the Gentiles] did prosper in the land [America] and I beheld a book [the Bible], and it was carried forth among them. And the angel said unto me, Knowest thou the meaning of the book? And I said unto him, I know not. * * * And he said unto me, The book which thou beholdest, is a record of the Jews, which contains the covenants of the Lord which he hath made unto the house of Israel. * * * Thou hast beheld that the book proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew; and when it proceeded forth from the mouth of the Jew, it contained the plainness of the gospel of the Lord, of whom the twelve apostles bear record; and they bear record according to the truth which is in the Lamb of God; wherefore these things go forth from the Jews in purity, unto the Gentiles, according to the truth which is in God; and after they go forth by the hand of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, from the Jews unto the Gentiles, thou seest the foundation of a great and abominable church, which is most abominable above all other churches; for behold, they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb, many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away; and all this have they done, that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord; that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men. * * * Because of these things which are taken away out of the gospel of the Lamb, an exceeding great many do stumble, yea, insomuch that Satan hath great power over them.—Vision of Nephi—I Nephi xiii.
3. Missing Parts of the Scripture.—No better evidence can be given that the Jewish scriptures are fragmentary and corrupted than the fact that reference is made in them to books and scriptures which are not now extant—that have been destroyed. The following are a such references taken from the New Testament:
Scriptures of Abraham's Time.—"And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham" (Gal. iii:8). The Christian world says, "Moses was God's first pen," but it appears from the above quotation that some one wrote scriptures even before Abraham's days, and he read them, learned the gospel from them and also learned that God would justify the heathen through faith.
Prophecy of Enoch.—Speaking of characters who were like "raging waves of the sea foaming out their own shame," Jude says: "And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam prophesied of these, saying, Behold the Lord cometh with ten thousand of his saints, to execute judgment upon all," etc. (Jude 14, 15). From this it appears that Enoch had a revelation concerning the glorious coming of the Son of God to judgment. May not the prophecy of Enoch have been among the scripture with which Abraham was acquainted?
Another Epistle of Jude.—"When I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should contend earnestly for the faith which was once delivered unto the Saints." (Jude 3). We have but one epistle of Jude. Would not the epistle on the "common salvation" be as important as the one and the only one we have from Jude's pen?
Another Epistle to the Ephesians.—In Ephesians iii and 3rd, Paul alludes to another epistle which he had written to that people, but of which the world has no knowledge except this reference which is made by its author. This epistle contained a revelation from God.
An Epistle to the Laodiceans.—"When this epistle [Colossians] is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans, and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea." (Col. iv: 16.) The epistle to the Laodiceans is among the scripture that is lost.
Another Epistle to the Corinthians.—In the first letter to the Corinthians is this statement: "I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators" (I Cor. v:9). From this it would appear that our so-called first epistle to the Corinthians, is really not the first, since Paul in it speaks of a former letter he had written, and which was doubtless as good scripture as the two which have been preserved.
The books mentioned in the Old Testament, but which are missing, are more numerous than those in the New Testament. In the following passages some few of the many lost books are referred to: I Chronicles xxix:29; II Chronicles ix:29; II Chronicles xii:15; I Samuel x:25; I Kings iv:32, 33.—Roberts.
4. Traditions of Aborigines Respecting Messiah.—It is beyond all question that the descendants of the Nephites and Lamanites—the American Indians—have kept in their traditions a recollection—though perhaps a distorted one—of the memorable visit of Messiah to their forefathers. "The chief divinity of the Nahua nations," says Bancroft in his "Native Races," "was Quetzalcoatl, the gentle God, ruler of the air, controller of the sun and rain, and source of all prosperity. * * * From toward the rising sun Quetzalcoatl, had come; and he was white, with large eyes and long, black hair and copious beard. He finally set out for some other country[[83]] and as he departed from them his last words were that "one day bearded white men, brethren of his, perhaps he himself, would come by way of the sea in which the sun rises, and would enter in and rule the land;" and from that day, with a fidelity befitting Hebrews waiting for the coming of Messiah, the Mexican people watched for the fulfillment of this prophecy, which promised them a gentle rule, free from bloody sacrifices and oppression."—Roberts.
5. The Incarnation Believed by the Mexicans.—How truly surprisingg is it to find that the Mexicans who seemed to have been unacquainted with the doctrine of the migration of the soul, should have believed in the incarnation of the only Son of the supreme God!—Humboldt.
6. Crucifixion and Atonement Believed in by Mexicans.—Quetzalcoatl is there (in a certain plate where that God is represented) painted in the attitude of a person crucified, with the impression of nails in his hands and feet, but not actually upon the cross. * * * The seventy-third plate of the Borgian Ms. is the most remarkable of all, for there Quetzalcoatl is not only represented as crucified upon a cross of Greek form, but his burial and descent into hell are also depicted in a very curious manner. * * * The Mexicans believe that Quetzalcoatl took human nature upon him, partaking of all the infirmities of man, and was not exempt from sorrow, pain or death, which he suffered voluntarily to atone for the sins of man.—"Antiquities of Mexico"—Kingsborough.
7. Christ and Quetzalcoatl.—The story of the life of the Mexican divinity, Quetzalcoatl, closely resembles that of the Savior; so closely indeed that we can come to no other conclusion than that Quetzalcoatl and Christ are the same being. But the history of the former has been handed down to us through an impure Lamanitish source, which has sadly disfigured and perverted the original incidents and teachings of the Savior's life and ministry.—"Mediation and Atonement"—President John Taylor.
REVIEW.
1. What occurred on the third day of Christ's burial?
2. State the several prophecies made by Jesus which were fulfilled in his resurrection? (note).
3. Relate the account of the resurrection as given by Matthew.
4. In respect to what are there slight discrepancies in the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?
5. What can you say of the fragmentary character of the New Testament "Gospels?" (Notes 1 and 2).
6. State the most probable order in which Jesus made his several appearances after the resurrection.
7. How long was Jesus with his disciples on the eastern hemisphere after his resurrection?
8. What notable commission did Jesus give to the apostles before leaving them?
9. What signs did Messiah say should follow believers?
10. Describe the last parting of Jesus from his disciples.
11. What prophecy did Jesus make to his disciples at Jerusalem that they did not understand?
12. Give an account of Messiah's visit to the Nephites.
13. What did Jesus do among the Nephites?
14. What was the effect that followed the preaching of the gospel and the organization of the church?
15. What course was pursued as to the quorum of the apostles?
16. Relate the several traditions of the Mexicans respecting the visit of Messiah to this land.
SECTION VII.
1. Vacancy in the Quorum of the Twelve Filled.—The first official business which occupied the attention of the authorities of the church after the ascension of the Lord—according to our Christian annals—was filling up the quorum of the twelve. Judas by his treason had forfeited his apostleship and was dead, and hence it became necessary to ordain another to fill his place. Peter when presenting this matter before the church, appeared to lay some stress upon the necessity of choosing some one of the brethren who had been with them from the beginning—"from the baptism of John unto that same day that he (Christ) was taken up," that he might be a witness with the rest of the apostles of the things which Jesus did and also a witness of his resurrection.
2. "And they appointed [nominated] two. Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed. * * * Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, show whether of these two thou hast chosen. * * * And they gave forth their lots [or, gave their votes];[[84]] and the lot fell upon Matthias." From that time he was numbered with the apostles. (See note 1, end of section).
3. The filling of this vacancy in the quorum of the twelve—the only instance of the kind mentioned in the New Testament—may be taken as a proof that it was clearly the understanding of the apostles that the quorum of the twelve was to be perpetuated. It was so understood in the church on the western hemisphere, for the fourth Nephi informs us that as the apostles whom Jesus had chosen passed away, others were ordained in their stead;[[85]] and thus the quorum was kept full, but for how long cannot be ascertained.
4. The Holy Ghost Given.—The first time the gospel was preached publicly after the ascension of Messiah was on the day of Pentecost, most probably seven days after the ascension.[[86]] The church had assembled and suddenly the promised baptism of the Holy Ghost—promised both by John the Baptist and Messiah[[87]]—took place, for the Spirit came like the rushing of a mighty wind and filled the house where the saints were assembled; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost. It rested upon them visibly like cloven tongues of fire; and they began speaking in other tongues, that is, in languages before unknown to them, as the spirit gave them utterance.
5. The occurrence was soon noised about the city and the multitude came together, to witness this strange event. In that great concourse of people thus hastily assembled were devout men out of every nation under heaven (see note 2, end of section), and they were confounded with astonishment since every man heard the gospel in his own language.[[88]] "Are not all these which speak Galileans," said they, "and how hear we every man in his own tongue, wherein we were born?" All were amazed, and some inquired one of another, "What meaneth this?" Others mockingly said, "These men are full of new wine."
6. To this latter remark the apostle Peter replied that the brethren were not drunken as had been supposed, and reminded the accusers that it was but the third hour of the day. Men were not likely to be drunk so early. The apostle further informed them that his power which they witnessed was the same as that of which Joel[[89]] spoke when he said that in the last days the Spirit of God should be poured out upon all flesh, and make the sons and daughters of men to prophesy, young men to see visions and old men to dream dreams, etc. (See notes 3 and 4, end of section).
7. Having corrected the slander uttered by those inclined to mock at the power of God, Peter continued his discourse, and proved from the scriptures and from the marvelous works of the Lord Jesus while among them, that he was both Lord and Christ. Then a great multitude was converted, and cried as with one voice, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" To which Peter answered, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."[[90]] He informed them that this promise of the Holy Ghost—and, of course, of salvation—was both to them and to their children, in fact to all whom God should call.[[91]] There were added to the church that day, three thousand souls.
8. The Rise of Opposition.—Being now endowed with power from on high, the apostles continued to preach in and about Jerusalem with great success, the Lord working with them and confirming their ministry by signs and wonders following the believers.
9. The chief priests and rulers among the Jews became alarmed at the boldness of the disciples of Jesus and the rapidity with which faith in the gospel spread among the people. They were in imminent danger of being adjudged by the people, guilty of executing an innocent man; nay, more, of putting to death Messiah!
10. They therefore had some of the apostles brought before them and sought to intimidate them with threats not to preach any more in the name of Jesus. To these threats the apostles made answer: "Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye."[[92]] Leaving the presence of the council the apostles preached even more boldly in the name of Jesus. A second time they were brought before the chief rulers, to answer for a disregard of the orders of the council which charged them with threats not to teach in the name of Jesus; "and behold," said they, "ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and mean to bring this man's blood upon us."
11. The answer of Peter, who spoke also for the rest of the apostles, was even bolder than before. "We ought to obey God rather than men," said he. "The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Savior, for to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. And we are witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him."[[93]]
12. The boldness of his answer gave deep offense and led the chief rulers to take counsel how they might slay them. But Gamaliel [Ga-ma-li-el], a learned doctor of the law, advised them against such proceedings. His advice was to let the men alone, for if the work they had in hand was of men it would come to naught. If it was of God, nothing which they could do would overthrow it; and they might be found fighting against God.[[94]]
13. The counsel of Gamaliel prevailed in part at least. The apostles were not killed at that time; but they were once more forbidden to speak in the name of Jesus, beaten and then set free. The apostles rejoiced at being found worthy to suffer shame for the name of Jesus, and not heeding the orders of the council continued preaching in the temple and in private houses.
14. Temporal Concerns.—So completely did the apostles and the other disciples give themselves to the work of the ministry, that complaint was made by the Grecians because the widows and poor were neglected. Whereupon the twelve called the church together and proposed that seven men of good report be chosen and set apart to see to these affairs, that they themselves might give their attention wholly to the ministry, as it was not profitable for them to neglect that in order to "wait on tables." The plan pleased the church and the seven men were appointed.[[95]]
15. All Things in Common.—The effect of the gospel upon the saints of Jerusalem was very marked. They were of one heart and of one mind; they had all things in common, and those who possessed houses or lands sold them and brought the price of the things and laid it at the apostles' feet. Distribution was made unto every man as he had need; and there was none among them that lacked for that which was necessary.[[96]]
16. Persecution.—A great persecution arose against the church at Jerusalem, within the first year after Messiah's ascension, so that most of the brethren, except the apostles, were scattered abroad throughout Judea and Samaria. Everywhere they went they preached the gospel, so that great good came out of what was intended to be an evil, as the gospel was more widely preached. Philip, one of the seven who had been appointed to look after the temporal affairs of the church, was among the number driven from Jerusalem by the persecution. He went to the city of Samaria, where the people listened to his teachings, accepted his testimony and were baptized both men and women. The apostles hearing of his success, sent to Samaria Peter and John; and when they came they laid their hands upon those who had been baptized and they received the Holy Ghost;[[97]] and thus the work was established there.
17. Paul.—It was during this persecution that Saul, of Tarsus, afterwards better known as Paul, the apostle of the Gentiles, manifested his bitterness toward the saints. He witnessed the stoning to death of Stephen, one of the seven men appointed to look after the temporal affairs of the church at Jerusalem. He held the clothes of those who killed him; and being exceedingly vexed at what he regarded as a superstition, he followed the saints into distant cities, breathing out threatenings and slaughter against them. He went to the high priest and obtained letters of authority from him to the rulers of the synagogue at Damascus, that if he found any of the saints there he might bring them bound to Jerusalem. On his way to Damascus, however, the Lord Jesus appeared to him, and Paul, blinded by the glory of the vision, and humbled because he found he had been fighting against God, was led by his companions into the city where a disciple of the name of Ananias was sent by the Lord to restore to Paul his sight and baptize him. He was afterwards made an apostle and became zealous for the truth.[[98]] (See note 4, end of section).
18. The Gospel Taken to the Gentiles.—The apostles, being Jews themselves, appear to have shared the common prejudices of their race against the Gentiles; and treated them as if they had no lot nor part in the gospel of Christ. It was not the design of the Lord, however, to thus restrict the application of the gospel. Jesus, himself, while he had said that he was sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel,[[99]] had also said: "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me."[[100]] Hence when Cornelius, of Caesarea, a devout man, one that feared God, though a Gentile, sought the Lord by prayer and good works, he found him; for an angel was sent to him who told him his prayers and alms were accepted of God, and that he had come to direct him to send men to Joppa for Simon Peter, who would be able to tell him what he ought to do. The devout Gentile immediately started the messengers to find the apostle.
19. Meantime Peter himself was prepared by a vision to go with the gospel unto one whom both he and all his race regarded as unclean. In vision he thought he beheld a great net let down from heaven, filled with all manner of four-footed beasts, fowls of the air and creeping things. And a voice said to him, "Rise, Peter, kill, and eat." "Not so, Lord," was his reply: "for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean." "What God hath cleansed," said the voice that spoke to him, "that call not thou common or unclean." This was done thrice, and as he was yet pondering what the vision could mean, the messengers of Cornelius were at the gates enquiring for him; and he was commanded by the Spirit to go with them, doubting nothing, for God had sent them.
20. Peter was obedient to the inspired commandment, and went to the house of Cornelius, where he found many of the devout Gentile's friends and kinsmen gathered together in anticipation of his coming. Cornelius having informed the apostle how he came to send for him, Peter exclaimed: "Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him." He then proceeded to preach the gospel to Cornelius and all present. As he did so the Holy Ghost fell upon them to the astonishment of all the Jews who had accompanied Peter; for they heard them speak in new tongues and magnify God. Cornelius and his friends were baptized and thus the door of the gospel was opened to the Gentiles.[[101]]
21. Rapid Growth of the Work.—The knowledge once established in the minds of the apostles that God granted to the Gentiles repentance unto life, seemed to unshackle those who were to preach the gospel, and gave a broader meaning in their minds to their commission to go unto "all the world, and preach the gospel unto every creature." Evidently before this they did not comprehend it in its fullest sense.
22. The apostles appear to have remained in Jerusalem a number of years—twelve years, tradition says—presiding over the church and directing the labors of those preaching the gospel. Churches, or, more correctly speaking, branches of the church were built up in Antioch [An-ti-ok], Damascus [Da-mas-kus] and other cities of Syria [Sir-ia]. The work also spread into Asia Minor, Greece and Rome; and everywhere great success attended the preaching of the elders, until the gospel was firmly established in various parts of the Gentile world. So extensive was the preaching of the ambassadors of Christ in those early days of the church, that we have Paul saying (about thirty years after the ascension of Messiah) that it had been preached to every creature under heaven.[[102]] (See note 5, end of section).
NOTES.
1. Was Matthias Called of God?—In consequence of Matthias having been chosen by "lot," it may be a question in the minds of some as to his being called of God. A careful consideration of all that was done in connection with that circumstance will dispel all doubt in relation to it. It must be observed that after Joseph Barsabas and Matthias were nominated for the place in the quorum of the Twelve, the Apostles prayed, saying: "Thou Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, show whether of these two thou hast chosen." Before his ascension Jesus had said to these men, "If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you. * * * Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you; * * * that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you." Therefore when these Apostles asked which of the two men nominated God had chosen, and they gave their votes and Matthias was the one selected, God in that way answered their prayer, and Matthias was thus called of God. Again, to be called by a divinely appointed authority is to be called of God. No one can deny that the Apostles were a divinely appointed authority, hence to be called by them was to be called of God.—Roberts.
2. Pentecost.—Pentecost is the name given in the New Testament to the Feast of Weeks, or of Ingathering, celebrated on the fiftieth day from the Passover. It was a festival of thanks for the harvest. It was also one of the three great yearly festivals, in which all the males were required to appear before the Lord at the place of his sanctuary. Josephus in three places in his writings, viz., in the fourteenth book of "Antiquities," ch. xiii,4; Ibid. xvii, ch. x,2; and in his second book of the "Wars of the Jews," ch. iii,2,—speaks of this festival as bringing together great numbers of the Jews from all parts of the world, and sustains the statement in Acts ii, that there were in Jerusalem at Pentecost "Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven," who came running together on hearing that the disciples of Jesus were speaking in unknown tongues. We cannot refrain from remarking that it was a most opportune time for such a demonstration, since these men would carry the rumor of these things and the substance of the remarkable sermon they heard to the distant lands from which they had come, and thus the news of the gospel would be spread abroad.—Roberts.
3. Joel's Prophecy.—It is very generally supposed among Christians, that this outpouring of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost was the fulfillment of Joel's prophecy, that is, its complete fulfillment. A careful examination of the prophecy, however, will clearly demonstrate that this is not the case. The prophecy will be found in Joel ii,28-32, and the particulars enumerated in it are as follows: The spirit of the Lord is to be poured out upon all flesh. At Pentecost it was poured out upon a few of the disciples of Jesus only; the sons and daughters of the people were to prophesy; we have no account of their doing so at Pentecost; old men were to dream dreams and young men see visions; there is no account of this taking place on the occasion in question; wonders were to be shown in the heavens and in the earth, blood and fire and pillars of smoke, the sun is to be turned into darkness, the moon into blood, before the great and terrible day of the Lord come, yet on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem deliverance was to be found. These things unquestionably point to the glorious coming of the Son of God to judgment (see Matt. xxiv); and certainly they were not fulfilled on the day of Pentecost by the outpouring of the Holy Ghost on a few of the disciples of Jesus. Still Peter said, referring to the Spirit poured out upon the disciples: "This is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel," and then quoted the passage. He doubtless meant: This Spirit which you now see poured out upon these few men, is that Spirit which Joel spoke of, and which will eventually be poured out upon all flesh, not only upon men and women, but upon the brute creation as well, so that the lion and lamb shall lie down together and a little child shall lead them, and they shall not hurt nor destroy in all God's holy mountain. I have deemed it necessary to make this note, first, because of the very general belief among Christians that the prophecy of Joel was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost; and second, because the prophecy is one that was quoted by the angel Moroni on the occasion of his first visit to Joseph Smith, concerning which he said, it was not yet fulfilled but soon would be (Pearl of Great Price, page 90), hence, since this heavenly messenger puts its fulfillment in the future, it could not have been fulfilled on the day of Pentecost two thousand years ago.—Roberts.
4. Description of Paul.—He is about five feet high; very dark hair, dark complexion; dark skin; large Roman nose; sharp face; small, black eyes, penetrating as eternity; round shoulders; a whining voice; except when elevated, and then it almost resembled the roaring of a lion. He was a good orator, active and diligent, always employing himself in doing good to his fellow-man.—Joseph Smith, at the organization of a school for instruction, Jan. 5th, 1841.
Paul was small in size, and his personal appearance did not correspond with the greatness of his soul. He was ugly, stout, short, and stooping, and his broad shoulders awkwardly sustained a little bald head. His sallow countenance was half hidden in a thick beard; his nose was aquiline, his eyes piercing, and his eye-brows heavy and joined across his forehead. Nor was there anything imposing in his speech, for his timid and embarrassed air gave but a poor idea of his eloquence. He shrewdly, however, admitted his exterior defects, and even drew advantage therefrom. The Jewish race possesses the peculiarity of at the same time presenting types of the greatest beauty, and the most thorough ugliness; but this Jewish ugliness is something quite apart by itself. Some of the strange visages which at first excite a smile, assume, when lighted up by emotion, a sort of deep brilliancy and grandeur.—Renan—"Life of the Apostles," p. 165.
5. Travels of the Apostles Uncertain.—The ambassadors of Christ on leaving Jerusalem traveled over a great part of the world, and in a short time collected numerous religious societies in various countries. Of the churches they founded, not a small number is mentioned in the sacred books, especially in the Acts of the Apostles. Besides these, there can be no doubt they collected many others, both by their own efforts and by the efforts of their followers. But how far they traveled, what nations they visited, or when and where they died, is exceedingly dubious and uncertain.—Mosheim.
6. Divine Aid in Propagation of the Gospel.—The causes must have been divine which could enable men destitute of all human aid, poor and friendless, neither eloquent nor learned, fishermen and publicans, and they too Jews, that is, persons odious to all other nations, in so short a time to persuade a great part of mankind to abandon the religion of their fathers, and to embrace a new religion which is opposed to the natural dispositions of men. In the words they uttered there must have been an amazing and a divine power controlling the minds of men. To which may be added miracles, prophecies, the detection of men's secret designs, magnanimity in the midst of perils, contempt for all the objects of ordinary ambition, a patient and cheerful endurance of sufferings worse than death, as well as of death itself, and finally, lives of the purest and most unblemished character. That the ambassadors of Jesus Christ were in fact thus furnished for their work, is a truth perfectly clear and obvious. And if we suppose them not to have been so furnished, no probable reason can be assigned for so rapid a propagation of Christianity by this small and feeble band.—Mosheim.
7. The Rapid Spread of the Gospel.—Thus, then, under a celestial influence and co-operation, the doctrine of the Savior, like the rays of the sun, quickly irradiated the whole world. Presently, in accordance with divine prophecy, the sound of his inspired evangelists and apostles had gone throughout all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world. Throughout every city and village, like a replenished barn floor, churches were rapidly abounding and filled with members from every people. Those who, in consequence of the delusions that had descended to them from their ancestors, had been fettered by the ancient disease of idolatrous superstition, were now liberated by the power of Christ, through the teachings and miracles of his messengers.—Eusebius, writing of the period between 37-41 A. D.
REVIEW.
1. What was the first official business of the authorities of the church after the resurrection?
2. State the manner of filling the vacancy in the quorum of the twelve.
3. What of Mosheim's translation of the phrase: "They gave forth their lots?" (Note).
4. Was Matthias called of God? (Note 1).
5. What evidence can you refer to in proof that the quorum of Twelve Apostles was to be perpetuated?
6. When was the gospel first publicly preached after the resurrection?
7. How long between the ascension and Pentecost? (Note 2).
8. Describe the events in the church on the day of Pentecost.
9. What circumstance is an evidence that the statement of scripture is true that there were devout men from many nations in Jerusalem at that time? (Note 2).
10. Was the outpouring of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost a complete fulfillment of Joel's prophecy quoted by Peter? (Note 3).
11. How does the order of principles taught by Peter on the day of Pentecost compare with the order of principles taught by John the Baptist and Messiah? (Note).
12. Describe the rise of opposition to the church.
13. What answer did Peter make to the mandates of the rulers not to teach in the name of Jesus?
14. What was the counsel of Gamaliel to the Jews?
15. To what extent did his counsel prevail?
16. What arrangements were made in the church in respect to looking after the poor?
17. What priesthood did the seven most likely hold? (Note).
18. Give an account of the introduction of the gospel among the Samaritans.
19. What was Paul's course at the first towards the church?
20. Relate the circumstances of his conversion.
21. Give a description of Paul. (Note 4).
22. What were the views entertained by the Jews toward the Gentiles?
23. Relate how the gospel was introduced to the Gentiles.
24. State the exception to the order of the gospel in the case of Cornelius.
25. What was the object of the exception?
26. What effect on the church did carrying the gospel to the Gentiles have?
27. How long is it supposed that the Twelve remained at Jerusalem?
28. What can you say of the spread of the work during the first century? (Notes 5, 6, 7).
SECTION VIII.
1. Review.—We have now related the chief events connected with the introduction of the gospel and the establishment of the Church by the personal labors of Messiah and those immediately connected with him. We may now review the doctrines that he taught, which, taken in the aggregate, constitute the gospel; and examine the character of the organization he founded—the Church.
2. The Mission of Messiah.—Jesus Christ came into the earth to accomplish three great purposes; first, to redeem mankind from the consequences of Adam's transgression; second, to save them from the consequences of their own sins. The first is a general salvation, which, without any conditions whatever, will be applied to all mankind, irrespective of their obedience or disobedience to God, their righteousness or wickedness, their belief or unbelief. The redemption will be as universal as the fall. The second may be regarded as a particular salvation, dependent upon faith in, and obedience to the gospel of Christ by the individual.
3. The Fall.—When Adam and Eve were placed in the garden of Eden, there were certain laws given them by their Creator, the penalty of violating which was death and banishment from the presence of God. They transgressed the laws and became subject to the penalty. Nor was that all; but by their transgression, having become mortal, they bequeathed that mortality to their offspring; and thus death passed upon all mankind, and that too, through no act or fault of theirs. Their agency was not exercised in the matter, and therefore justice would require that they should receive a full and complete redemption from the evil which overtakes them through the actions of others over which they had no control.
4. General Salvation.—Such a redemption was wrought out through the atonement of Jesus Christ, and that its benefits are to be universal, so far as redeeming mankind for the consequences of Adam's transgression is concerned, is evident from the fact,
First, That the resurrection from the dead is universal, as the scriptures witness:
And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.[[103]]
For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself. * * * Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in which all that are in their graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.[[104]]
Or, as the last two clauses were given to the Prophet Joseph Smith by inspiration:
They who have done good in the resurrection of the just, and they who have done evil in the resurrection of the unjust.[[105]]
After giving a full account of the resurrection of the righteous and their reign upon the earth for a thousand years, the writer of the Apocalypse [A-poc-a-lypse] says:
And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God. * * * 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 his works.[[106]]
Second, The scriptures plainly declare that the redemption of men from the consequences of Adam's transgression shall be universal:
Therefore as by the offense of one [Adam] judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men to the justification of life.[[107]]
Since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the first fruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.[[108]]
Behold, he created Adam, and by Adam came the fall of man. And because of the fall of man, came Jesus Christ even the Father and the Son; and because of Jesus Christ came the redemption of man. And because of the redemption of man, which came by Jesus Christ, they are brought back into the presence of the Lord; yea, this is wherein all men are redeemed, because the death of Christ bringeth to pass the resurrection, which bringeth to pass a redemption from an endless sleep, from which sleep all men shall be awakened by the power of God when the trump shall sound; and they shall come forth, both small and great, and all shall stand before his bar, being redeemed and loosed from this eternal band of death, which death is a temporal death.[[109]]
5. Through the atonement made by Messiah, therefore, a full and complete redemption from the consequences of Adam's transgression is brought about; that is, a victory over the grave is secured, and that, too, through the merits of Jesus Christ. And while the law transgressed by Adam has been vindicated, the posterity of Adam who became subject to death through his disobedience, are redeemed from the grave without anything being required of them. For as their agency was not concerned in bringing about the mischief, nothing is required of them in order to obtain redemption from it. So far salvation is free and universal. (See notes 1, 2 and 3, end of section.)
6. The Atonement a Fact Proven by Evidence.—It is often asked: "How is it that through the sacrifice of one who is innocent salvation may be purchased for those under the dominion of death?" We observe, in passing, that what should most concern man is, not so much how it is that such is the case; but is it a fact? Is it true that God has established such a scheme of redemption? is what should concern him. To that question the blood sprinkled upon a thousand Jewish altars, and the smoke that darkened the heavens for ages from burnt offerings, answer yes. For those sacrifices, and that sprinkled blood were but typical of the great sacrifice to be made by the Messiah.
Even the mythology of heathen nations retains the idea of an atonement that either has been, or is to be made for mankind. Fantastic, distorted, confused, buried under the rubbish of savage superstition it may be, but it nevertheless exists. So easily traced, so distinct is this feature of heathen mythology, that some writers[[110]] have endeavored to prove that the gospel plan of redemption was derived from heathen mythology. Whereas the fact is that the gospel was understood and extensively preached in the earliest ages; men retained in their tradition a knowledge of those principles, or parts of them, and however much they may have been distorted, traces of them may still be found in nearly all the mythologies of the world.
The prophets of the Jewish scriptures answer the question in the affirmative. The writers of the New Testament make Christ's atonement the principal theme of their discourses and epistles. The Book of Mormon, speaking as the voice of entire nations of people whose prophets and righteous men sought and found God, testify to the same great fact. The revelations of God as given through the Prophet Joseph Smith are replete with passages confirming this doctrine. The evidence is more than sufficient, to establish the fact of the atonement beyond the possibility of a doubt; and if there are some things in it not within the scope of our comprehension, still there is sufficient foundation for the glorious hope of eternal life through its power.
7. Claims of Mercy and Justice Balance.—In the atonement there is a nice balancing of the relative claims of justice and mercy. The law given to man having been transgressed, justice demanded the payment of the penalty, which was death. And as Adam had no power to liberate himself from the captivity thereof, his sleep in the grave must have been eternal; so also with all his posterity to whom his mortality was bequeathed as an evil legacy, had not Mercy put in her claims and prevented Justice from being cruel. The Son of God having it given to him to have life in himself,[[111]] and being capable of making an infinite atonement, he stood forth as the great friend of man and offered himself as a sacrifice to satisfy the claims of Justice. That offering was accepted by the great Law Giver, and upon the demands of Justice being satisfied—the law having no further claim upon him—the captive is set free from the dominion of death. Mercy is not permitted to rob Justice, but she claims her own. Justice is not permitted to be cruel, but he retains his dignity—his demands are satisfied. As the late President Taylor very beautifully says:
Is justice dishonored? No; it is satisfied; the debt is paid. Is righteousness departed from? No; there is a righteous act. All requirements are met. Is judgment violated? No; its demands are fulfilled. Is mercy triumphant? No; she simply claims her own. Justice, judgment, mercy and truth all harmonize as the attributes of Deity. "Justice and truth have met together, righteousness and peace have kissed each other." Justice and judgment triumph as well as mercy and peace; all the attributes of Deity harmonize in this great momentous, just, equitable, merciful and meritorious act.[[112]]
8. The Sacrifice of Messiah Voluntary.—Unbelievers delight to represent God, the great Law Giver, as unspeakably cruel in demanding such an atonement as Christ made for the salvation of the children of men. But let it be borne in mind that he who made the atonement did so voluntarily. Testifying to his disciples respecting the matter, he says:
Therefore doth my father love me, be cause I lay down my life that I may take it up again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.[[113]]
When his enemies gathered about him—a former friend betraying him with a kiss,—and Peter prepared to defend him with the sword, he chided him for his rashness, commanding him to put up his sword, and added:
Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?[[114]]
Thus down to the very last moment, it appears that Jesus could have been delivered from the sacrifice had he so willed it. But the principle which was the guiding star of his life—"Father, not my will, but thy will be done"—influenced him in this instance, and he drank of the cup given him of his Father, and wrung out the dregs in agony; but he did it voluntarily, and that, too, out of his great love for mankind.
9. The Love of God Made Manifest in the Atonement.—By this atonement of Messiah's there is especially one fact thrown out in bold relief, that is, the great love of God and Christ for mankind. When one thinks of the unspeakable agony, of the anguish of heart, of the pains that racked the body and distressed the mind of the Savior at the time of his betrayal, and during his trial and crucifixion, he may see how great the love of the Father for mankind must be, when he would consent for his only begotten Son to pass through this great humiliation and affliction, in order to redeem mankind from the bonds of death. On such contemplation increased emphasis will be given to the passage—
In this was manifested the love of God towards us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world that we might live through him.[[115]]
And also to this:
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved.[[116]]
Equally great appears the love of the Son of God, who of his own free will volunteered to take upon himself the task of man's redemption.
10. Individual Salvation.—As before stated, Messiah came not only to redeem man from the consequences of the fall, but to save him also from the consequences of his own personal sins. The redemption from the fall is universal and unconditional, because the penalties following it were entailed upon the race through no action of theirs, but through the transgressions of Adam. The redemption from the consequences of man's personal sins, however, is bottomed upon conditions, because his agency is more completely a factor in the violations of the law. He sins knowingly, willfully, and sometimes wantonly. He transgresses the laws of God and of nature in spite of the protests of his conscience, the convictions of his reason, and the promptings of his judgment. He becomes desperately wicked and so depraved that in some cases he actually seeks evil and loves it. He hugs it to his bosom and cries: Evil, be thou my good; sin, be thou my refuge!
11. In cases of such violation of the laws of God, justice demands that the outraged laws should be vindicated by the punishment of the transgressor. But here again the principle of mercy is active. By the sacrifice which he made, Messiah purchased mankind as an inheritance for himself, and they came of right under his dominion; for he not only ransomed them from an endless sleep in the grave, but "he hath borne our griefs and carried our sorrows. * * * * He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities, the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and by his stripes we are healed. The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all."[[117]] (See note 4, end of section.) It was these considerations, doubtless, which led the Apostle to say to the saints—"Ye are not your own; for ye are bought with a price."[[118]]
Still more plain in relation to the effect that Messiah's atonement has upon the personal sins of men, is the word of the Lord through the Prophet Joseph Smith to Martin Harris, warning him to repent lest his sufferings be sore—how sore, how exquisite, how hard to bear, he knew not:
For behold, I God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent, but if they would not repent, they must suffer even as I, which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit; and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink—nevertheless, glory be to the Father, I partook and finished my preparations unto the children of men.[[119]]
12. Conditions of Salvation.—Messiah having thus ransomed mankind by his own suffering and death, he becomes the law-giver to our race and of right prescribes the conditions upon which the full benefits of his great atonement shall be applied to individuals. Those conditions he has prescribed, and they constitute the gospel. It was these conditions which he authorized his Apostles to proclaim to the world, saying:
All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.[[120]]
13. Following the apostles in their fulfillment of this commission, we have them persuading people to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ as the Savior of the world, as the only one to whom they may look for salvation[[121]]—the resurrection and the life. Men in whose minds this faith was created they commanded to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and promised them on the condition of their obedience the gift of the Holy Ghost.[[122]] By repentance they meant a deep and heart-felt sorrow for sin, accompanied by a reformation of life;[[123]] by baptism they meant immersion in water in the likeness of Christ's burial and resurrection;[[124]] and the Holy Ghost was imparted by the laying on of hands and prayer.[[125]]
14. These things connected with a Godly walk and conversation after obeying them[[126]]—constitute the laws of adoption into the Church of Christ. These are the conditions on which man receives the full benefit of the atonement of Jesus Christ—a forgiveness of sins and power through the Holy Ghost to overcome all evil propensities within himself, until he becomes pure in heart and every way made ready and worthy of the kingdom of heaven. This is the gospel of Jesus Christ, as taught by Jesus and his apostles. (See note 6, end of section.)
15. The Church.—In order to propagate the gospel, and teach, encourage, instruct, preserve and finally perfect those who accepted it, Messiah organized his church. He bestowed upon its members certain great and precious spiritual gifts and graces, such as the power to speak in new tongues and interpret them; to receive revelation, to prophesy, to see visions, receive the visitation of angels, to possess the gift of wisdom, knowledge, faith, discernment of spirits, and healing the sick.[[127]]
16. The description of the Church organization in the New Testament is extremely imperfect, owing, no doubt, to the fragmentary character of the Christian annals. While the distinctions between the respective offices in the Priesthood, and the definition of the duties of each officer are even less satisfactory; still there is enough written to enable us to get an outline of the organization.
17. Messiah, during his personal ministry, organized a quorum of twelve apostles, to whom he gave very great powers and authority, even to be witnesses of him among the people, to build up his church by the proclamation of the gospel, to heal the sick, open the eyes of the blind, raise the dead and cast out devils.[[128]] He likewise organized quorums of seventies, unto whom he gave similar powers to those bestowed upon the apostles.[[129]]
18. After his resurrection Messiah was with his apostles and disciples forty days, during which time he was teaching them all things concerning the kingdom of God.[[130]] Hence we have these men after his ascension organizing branches of the church wherever they found people who received their testimony. In some instances they ordained elders to preside over these branches;[[131]] and in other instances bishops were appointed.[[132]]
19. Paul, in giving a description of the organization of the church says:
And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healing, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles? have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?[[133]]
The implied answer is that all are not apostles, nor prophets, nor teachers, etc., in the church of Christ, but that the whole body, is fitly joined together and compacted by that which every part and every joint supplieth.[[134]]
20. Preceding the first quotation we made from Paul,[[135]] he compares the church of Christ to the body of a man, which, though it be composed of many members, yet it is but one body, and all the members thereof are needful to it. "The eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee; nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of thee. Nay, much more, those members of the body which seem to be more feeble are necessary." This is equivalent to saying that the apostle cannot say to the elder, I have no need of thee; nor the deacon to the bishop, I have no need of thee; nor the seventy to the priest, I have no need of thee. The argument is that all the offices, even those which seem the least necessary, are all needful to the existence of the church of Christ, and everyone is forbidden to hold as unnecessary his brother officer.
21. Moreover, the apostle insists that there should be the same bond of sympathy between the members of the church of Christ that there is in the members of the human body; that there should be no schism in it, and that the members should have a care one for another; that when one member suffers all the members suffer with it; or if one member be honored all rejoice with it.
22. In another description of the church the same writer after saying again that God had given to men "some apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers"—he also enumerates the objects for which this peculiar organization was given: 1. For the perfecting of the Saints. 2. The work of the ministry. 3. Edifying the body of Christ. 4. To prevent the saints being carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness whereby they lie in wait to deceive.
23. He very plainly intimates, too, that this organization was designed 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 stature of the fullness of Christ."[[136]] Furthermore, we suggest that it must be obvious, since the church organization was given to perfect the saints, to the work of the ministry, to edify the body of Christ, to prevent the saints being carried about by every wind of doctrine or being deceived by cunning men—that so long as there are saints who need perfecting, so long as there is a necessity for work in the ministry, so long as the church of Christ needs edifying, or the saints need to be guarded from heresy, or the deceitfulness of false teachers—just so long will this organization of the church with apostles and prophets, seventies, and elders, bishops and teachers and deacons be needed; and since the kinds of work enumerated in the foregoing will always be necessary, we reach the conclusion that the Church organization as established by the apostles was designed to be perpetual. (See note 5, end of section).
24. Officers of the Church to be Divinely Appointed.—Moreover it is apparent that these officers of the church were called of God. Concerning the apostles Jesus said: "Ye have not chosen me but I have chosen you, and ordained you that ye may bring forth fruit."[[137]] When seven men were chosen to look after the poor and minister to them they set them before the apostles, who, when they had prayed, laid their hands upon them and ordained them to their calling.[[138]]
25. So in the case of Paul. It was not enough that he saw and spoke with Messiah, for afterwards when the Lord would have him engage in the work of preaching the gospel and administering in the ordinances thereof, the Holy Ghost said unto certain prophets at Antioch,
Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.[[139]]
26. Furthermore, as Paul went about confirming the souls of saints, he ordained elders in every church.[[140]] He did not suffer men to take the authority on themselves to minister in the things of God; but warned the saints against such characters. "Take heed unto yourselves," said he to the elders of Ephesus, "and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the flock of God * * * For I know this, that after my departing, shall grievous wolves enter in, not sparing the flock. And of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them."[[141]]
27. The general law of the church is expressed in the following:
Every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins. * * * And no man taketh this honor unto himself, but he that is called of God as was Aaron.[[142]]
The manner in which Aaron was called to the priest's office is recorded in the writings of Moses as follows: The word of the Lord came to that prophet saying:
Take thou unto thee Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him from among the children of Israel that he may minister unto me in the priest's office, even Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, Eleazer and Ithamar, Aaron's sons.[[143]]
28. It may be objected that this was the law relating to the calling of high priests alone, but if high priests were to be called in this manner, is it not reasonable to conclude that all who administer in things "pertaining to God" must be called in the same manner—that is, of God? So far as the scriptures are concerned, and on subjects of this character their authority is conclusive, wherever we have an account of men administering in the things pertaining to God, and their administrations are accepted of him, they have either been called directly by revelation from him, or through inspiration in those who already had authority from God to act in his name; and to be called by a legitimate, divinely established authority is to be called of God. (See note 6, end of section).
29. The Church on the Western Hemisphere.—The Book of Mormon is no more explicit in its description of the church organization than the New Testament. This is owing to the fact that the Book of Mormon is but an abridgement of the Nephite annals, and we are informed by Mormon, who made the abridgement, that not an hundredth part of the things which Jesus taught to the Nephites could be recorded in his abridged record—hence the meagre description of the church organization.[[144]] From Mormon's abridged account of Messiah's visit and labors among the Nephites, however, it appears that Jesus chose from among the faithful men who believed on him, twelve apostles,[[145]] unto whom he gave power to preach repentance, baptize for remission of sins,[[146]] lay on hands for the Holy Ghost,[[147]] and organize the Church.[[148]] But the details of this work are not given. It is evident, however, that the twelve disciples ordained subordinate officers, since Moroni informs us of the manner in which they ordained priests and teachers; [[149]] and he also refers to the office of elders.[[150]]
30. Thus in the Book of Mormon, as in the New Testament, may be seen only the faint outlines of the organization, the church of Christ. A full description of it, together with the callings and authority of the respective officers and persons of which it is composed, will be reserved for Part IV of this work.
31. The acceptance of the gospel by the Nephites was followed by the same results as when accepted by the Jews and Gentiles of the eastern hemisphere. The sick were healed, the dead were raised, the lame walked, the deaf heard, and the blind received their sight. Peace, love, sobriety, justice and an absence of greed and pride characterized the conduct of the saints of the western hemisphere; and here, too, they had "all things common among them, therefore they were not rich and poor, bond and free, but they were all made free, and partakers of the heavenly gifts."[[151]]
NOTES.
1. The Redemption Unconditional.—We believe that through the sufferings, death and atonement of Jesus Christ, all mankind without one exception, are to be completely and fully redeemed, both body and spirit, from the endless banishment and curse to which they were consigned by Adam's transgression; and that this universal salvation and redemption of the whole human family from the endless penalty of the original sin, is effected without any conditions whatsoever on their part; that is, that they are not required to believe or repent, or be baptized, or do anything else, in order to be redeemed from that penalty; for whether they believe or disbelieve, whether they repent or remain impenitent, whether they are baptized or unbaptized, whether they keep the commandments or break them, whether they are righteous or unrighteous, it will make no difference in relation to their redemption, both soul and body, from the penalty of Adam's transgression. The most righteous man that ever lived on the earth, and the most wicked wretch of the whole human family, were both placed under the same curse without any transgression or agency of their own, and they both alike will be redeemed from that curse, without any agency or conditions on their part.—"Remarkable Visions"—Orson Pratt.
2. The Atonement Universal in its Application.—Transgression of the law brought death upon all the posterity of Adam, the restoration through the atonement restored all the human family to life. "For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." So that whatever was lost by Adam was restored by Jesus Christ. The penalty of the transgression of the law was the death of the body. The atonement made by Jesus Christ resulted in the resurrection of the human body. Its scope embraced all peoples, nations and tongues.
For all my Lord was crucified,
For all, for all my Savior died.—"Mediation and Atonement"—John Taylor.
3. The Atonement a Mystery.—As stated elsewhere, in some mysterious, incomprehensible way, Jesus assumed the responsibility which naturally would have devolved upon Adam; but which could only be accomplished through the mediation of himself, and by taking upon himself their sorrows, assuming their responsibilities and bearing their transgressions or sins. In a manner incomprehensible and inexplicable, he bore the weight of the sins of the whole world; not only of Adam, but of his posterity; and in doing that, opened the kingdom of heaven, not only to all believers and all who obeyed the law of God, but to more than one-half of the human family who died before they came to years of maturity, as well as to the heathen, who having died without law, will through his mediation be resurrected without law, and be judged without law, and thus participate according to their capacity, works and worth, in the blessings of his atonement.—"Mediation and Atonement"—John Taylor.
4. The Means of Escape from Penalties of Personal Sins.—After this full, complete and universal redemption, restoration, and salvation of the whole of Adam's race through the atonement of Jesus Christ, * * * all and every one of them will enjoy eternal life and happiness, never more to be banished from the presence of God if they themselves have committed no sin. * * * We believe that all mankind, in consequence of the fall, after they grow up from their infant state and come to the years of understanding, know good and evil and are capable of obeying or disobeying law, and that a law is given against doing evil and that the penalty affixed is a second banishment from the presence of God, both body and spirit, after they have been redeemed from the first banishment and restored into his presence. * * * We believe that all who have done evil, having a knowledge of the law, or afterwards in this life coming to the knowledge thereof, are under its penalty, which is not inflicted in this world but in the world to come. * * * "But," inquires the sinner, "is there no way of escape? Is my case hopeless?" * * * The answer is, if thou canst hide thyself from the all-searching eye of an omnipresent God, that he shall not find thee, or if thou canst prevail with him to deny justice its claim, or if thou canst clothe thyself with power, and contend with the Almighty and prevent him from executing the sentence of the law, then thou canst escape. * * * But be assured, O sinner, that thou canst not devise any way of thine own to escape, nor do anything which will atone for thy sins. Therefore thy case is hopeless, unless God hath devised some way for thy deliverance; but do not let despair seize upon thee; * * * for he who gave the law has devised a way for thy deliverance. That same Jesus, who hath atoned for the original sin (Adam's transgression), and will redeem all mankind from the penalty thereof, hath also atoned for thy sins, and offereth salvation and deliverance to thee, on certain conditions to be complied with on thy part. * * * The first condition to be complied with on the part of sinners is to believe in God, and in the sufferings and death of his son Jesus Christ * * * and in the Holy Ghost. * * * That the second condition is to repent. * * * That the third condition is to be baptized for the remission of sins. * * * And that the fourth condition is to receive the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost. * * * They are then required to be humble, to be meek and lowly in heart, to watch and pray and deal justly. * * * And, in short, to continue faithful to the end in all the duties enjoined upon them by the word and Spirit of Christ.—"Remarkable Visions"—Orson Pratt.
5. Four Opinions on Church Government.—How far even wise men and Christian scholars have gone astray in relation to church government may be judged from the following opinions on the subject:
Those who imagine that Christ himself or the apostles by his direction or authority appointed a certain fixed form of church government are not agreed what that form was. The principal opinions that have been adopted upon this head may be reduced to the four following:
First, is that of the Roman Catholics maintain that Christ's intention and appointment was that his followers should be collected into one sacred empire, subject to the government of St. Peter and his successors, and divided like the kingdoms of this world into several provinces; that in consequence thereof Peter fixed the seat of ecclesiastical dominion at Rome, but afterwards to alleviate the burden of his office divided the church into three greater provinces according to the division of the world at that time, and appointed a person to preside in each who was dignified with the title of Patriarch; that the European Patriarch resided at Rome, the Asiatic at Antioch, and the African at Alexandria; that the bishops of each province among whom there were various ranks, were to reverence the authority of their respective patriarchs, and that both bishops and patriarchs were to be passively subject to the supreme dominion of the Roman Pontiff. This romantic account scarcely deserves a serious refutation.
The second opinion concerning the government of the church makes no mention of a supreme head or of patriarchs constituted by a divine authority; but it supposes that the apostles divided the Roman empire into as many ecclesiastical provinces as there were secular or civil ones; that the metropolitan bishops, that is, the prelate who resides in the capital city of each province, presides over the clergy of that province, and that the other bishops were subject to his authority. This opinion has been adopted by some of the most learned of the Romish church; and has also been favored by some of the most eminent British divines. Some Protestant writers of note have endeavored to prove that it is not supported by sufficient evidence.
The third opinion is that of those who acknowledge that when the Christians began to multiply exceedingly, metropolitans, patriarchs and archbishops were indeed created but only by human appointment and authority; though they confess at the same time that it is consonant to the orders and intentions of Christ and his apostles that there should be in every Christian church one person invested with the highest authority and clothed with certain rights and privileges above the other doctors of that assembly. This opinion has been embraced by many English divines of the first rank in the learned world; and also by many in other countries and communions.
The fourth, and last opinion is that of the Presbyterians who affirm that Christ's intention was that the Christian doctors and ministers should all enjoy the same rank and authority without any sort of pre-eminence or subordination or distinction of rights and privileges.—Mosheim, vol. 1, pages 67, 68. Note—Murdock.
"The truth of the matter is," remarks Dr. Maclaine, "that Christ by leaving this matter undetermined, has of consequence, left Christian societies a discretionary power of modeling the government of the church in such a manner as the circumstantial reasons of times, places, etc., may require; and therefore the wisest government of the church is the best and the most divine; and every Christian society has a right to make laws for itself; provided that these laws are consistent with charity and peace and with the fundamental doctrines and principles of Christianity." Of this it is only necessary to say that Christ did not leave this matter undetermined but established his church government as explained in the text of this work. The wisest form of church government is that which God gave; it is at the same time the best and not only the most divine but the only one that can lay any claim to being so; and for the church or any branch thereof to establish any other government for itself is an unjustifiable departure from the order of God.—Roberts.
6. Authority from God Needful.—We are informed in the scriptures, that the Lord wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul, whom he had called to be his servant. The sick were healed, and evil spirits were cast out of those who were possessed. "Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits, the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, We adjure you, by Jesus whom Paul preacheth. And there were seven sons, of one Sceva, a Jew, and chief of the priests, which did so. And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know, but who are ye? And the man in whom the evil spirit was, leaped on them, and overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of the house, naked and wounded."—(Acts xix: 13-16). These men presumptuously took it upon themselves to act as those who had authority, and the result was that not even the devils would respect their administrations, much less the Lord. There is a principle of great moment associated with this incident. The question is, if these men, when acting without authority from God could not drive out an evil spirit, would their administration be of force, or have any virtue in it, had they administered in some other ordinance of the gospel, say baptism for the remission of sins, or the laying on of hands for the reception of the Holy Ghost? Manifestly it would not. Hence we come to the conclusion, so well expressed in one of our articles of faith: "A man must be called of God by prophecy and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority to preach the gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof."—"The Gospel"—Roberts.
1. What two great purposes were contemplated in Messiah's mission?
2. Relate the fall of man and its consequences.
3. What is general salvation?
4. How do you prove that there will be a general salvation?
5. Why is redemption from Adam's transgression unconditional? (Notes 1 to 4).
6. How are the claims of justice and mercy balanced in the atonement?
7. Was Messiah's atonement voluntary?
8. What can you say of the love of God as it appears in the atonement?
9. What is meant by individual salvation?
10. In what does it differ from general salvation?
11. By what consideration does mercy mitigate the claims of justice in the plan of redemption?
12. What are the conditions of salvation? (Note 6).
13. For what several purposes did Messiah institute his church?
14. Why is it that the description of the Church of Christ is so imperfect in the New Testament?
15. Enumerate the powers granted to the Twelve.
16. What other officers did Jesus call to the ministry upon whom he bestowed similar powers?
17. What other officers were appointed in the church?
18. Give Paul's description of the church.
19. State the particular objects to be accomplished by the church organization.
20. What reasons can you give for believing that the church as organized by Messiah is to be perpetuated?
21. What are the four leading opinions in respect to church government? (Note 5).
22. What is the truth in respect of church government? (Note 5).
23. Is the Book of Mormon description of church organization more complete than that of the New Testament? Why?
24. Give an account of the organization of the church on the western hemisphere.
25. What followed the preaching of the gospel and the organization of the church on the western hemisphere?
Footnotes
[1]. It is also called Ephrath [Ef-rath] and Ephratah [Ef-ra-tah.] It was the scene of Rachel's death and burial, the native place of Samuel's father, the residence of Boaz and Ruth, and the birthplace of David; it was also the last rallying point of the remnant of Judah after the invasion of Nebuchadnezzar.
[2]. Micah v: 2.
[3]. Luke 1:28-38.
[4]. Canon Farrar translates this splendid passage: "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men of good will," maintaining that such is the reading of the best Mss. Dear to us as the reading in King James' translation of the Bible is, if looked upon as announcing the effect of Christianity in this world—"On earth peace among men of good will," comes more nearly to the truth than "on earth peace, good will toward men."
[5]. Matt. ii: 2.
[6]. III Nephi i: 21.
[7]. III Nephi i: 13.
[8]. III Nephi i: 15-19.
[9]. Matt. ii: 18.
[10]. Matt. ii: 23.
[11]. I have condensed much of the matter in the first part of this section from the learned works of D'Aubigne, Dr. Mosheim, Gibbon and Josephus, sometimes using even their phraseology without further acknowledgement than this note.—The Author.
[12]. Epistle to Romans i: 18-32.
[13]. See note 7, end of section.
[14]. Dr. Lardner.
[15]. See "The First Gospel of the Infancy," Apocryphal New Testament (Colley & Rich, publishers, Boston, 1891.)
[16]. Luke i.
[17]. Matt. iii.
[18]. Luke iii.
[19]. Matt. iii.
[20]. Luke iii.
[21]. John i:19-23.
[22]. The location of Bethabara is uncertain.
[23]. Matt. iii.
[24]. Matt. iii.
[25]. John i:33.
[26]. Matt. iv.
[27]. That is, vain fellow.
[28]. Doc. and Cov. lxxxiv:17-27.
[29]. Biblical Literature.—Kitto.
[30]. Matt. x.
[31]. Matt. x.
[32]. Compare Luke x with Matt. x.
[33]. Luke x.
[34]. John v.
[35]. John iii.
[36]. John iii.
[37]. John iv.
[38]. John v:24-30.
[39]. John v:39-47, vii:14-18.
[40]. John v:32-35.
[41]. John v:36; x:25.
[42]. John v:37, 39.
[43]. Mark xi:5.
[44]. Matt. iv:16-24.
[45]. Matt. iv:16-24.
[46]. Mark xii.
[47]. John xi.
[48]. Matt. ii.
[49]. John v:1-18.
[50]. John v:17, 18.
[51]. John xii.
[52]. Luke xxii. Matt. xxvi.
[53]. John xviii:36.
[54]. Luke alone calls it Calvary; Matthew, Mark and John call it Golgotha. They each have reference to the same place, which was known by the two different names.
[55]. III Nephi viii.
[56]. Those predictions are found in the following passages: John ii:18-22; x:17, 18; xiii:31-33. Matt. xii:38=42; xvi:21-23; xvii:1-9; Mark ix:30-32; x:32-34.
[57]. Matt. xxviii.
[58]. John xx:14-17.
[59]. Matt. xxviii:9.
[60]. Luke xxiv:13-31.
[61]. Luke xxiv:34 and I Cor. xv:5.
[62]. John xx:19.
[63]. John xx:26; Mark xvi:14.
[64]. John xxi:1-24.
[65]. Matt. xxviii:16.
[66]. I Cor. xv:6.
[67]. I Cor. xv:7.
[68]. I Cor. xv:8.
[69]. Acts i.
[70]. Matt. xviii.
[71]. Mark xvi:16.
[72]. Luke xxiv:49, 53; Acts i.
[73]. Acts i; Matt. xvi.
[74]. John x:16.
[75]. III Nephi xv:18.
[76]. III Nephi xv:21.
[77]. III Nephi xi:12.
[78]. Section V, paragraph 14.
[79]. The land Bountiful was in the northern part of South America.
[80]. III Nephi xi:14.
[81]. See John xxi:21-25; III Nephi xxviii.
[82]. Let those who would be more minutely informed upon the ministry of Messiah on the western hemisphere, study carefully the book of III Nephi, where the history of that important event is recorded, and which book has been called—a "Fifth Gospel."
[83]. It must be remembered, that Jesus told the Nephites that he was going to visit the lost tribes whom the Father had led away. They, too, were to have the gospel preached to them (III Nephi xv and xvi.)
[84]. In his "Comment de Rebus Christ," p. 78-80, the learned Dr. Mosheim has a note on this passage in which his aim is to prove that the correct translation from the Greek of the phrase usually rendered "they gave forth their lots," should be "they gave their votes." While it is but proper to say that the Doctor's translation is very generally rejected by the learned, still there will be no question with those who understand the order of the priesthood and the manner of filling vacancies in its quorums, that Dr. Mosheim is correct in his interpretation as to the meaning of the passage.
[85]. IV Nephi i:14.
[86]. Pentecost came fifty days after the Passover, on which day the Lord Jesus was crucified. Allowing that he lay three days in the tomb and was with his disciples forty days after his resurrection (Acts i:3), forty-three days of the fifty between Passover and Pentecost are accounted for, leaving but seven days between ascension and the day of Pentecost, when the promise of the baptism of the spirit was fulfilled.—"The Gospel," note p. 177.
[87]. Luke iii:16. Matt. iii:2. Acts i:4, 5.
[88]. The languages spoken are enumerated by the writer of The Acts ii:9-11.
[89]. Joel ii:28.
[90]. I think it proper here to call the attention of the student to the fact that the principles of the gospel in this discourse of Peter's are stated in the same order that they were unfolded in the ministry of John the Baptist and Messiah. First, John came bearing witness of one who should come after him—Christ, the Lord. Hence, he taught faith in God (John i:15, 16, also verses 19-36). After that, the burden of his message was, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand;" then followed his baptism in water with a promise that they should receive the Holy Ghost. So Peter first taught the people faith in the Lord, proving from the scripture that Jesus was both Lord and Christ; and when they believed that, then he taught them repentance and baptism for the remission of sins, and promised them the Holy Ghost.
[91]. Acts ii:38, 39.
[92]. Acts iv:9.
[93]. Acts v:26-32.
[94]. Acts v:34-42.
[95]. It is generally supposed by Biblical scholars, Mosheim, Neander, Kitto, Murdock and many others, that these men were deacons only. There is nothing, however, in the Acts of the Apostles or other parts of the New Testament which would lead one to believe that such was the case. We have evidence on the other hand that one of them at least held a higher priesthood than the office of deacon. In modern revelation we have it stated that neither teachers nor deacons have authority to baptize, administer the sacrament or lay on hands for the Holy Ghost (Doc. and Cov., sec. xx:58); yet we have Philip, one of the seven, going down into Samaria, teaching the gospel "and baptizing the people" (Acts viii), hence we may know that he held a higher priesthood than that of deacon. Yet when it became necessary to confer the Holy Ghost upon these same converts by the laying on of hands, Philip, it would seem, had not the authority to do it; but the Apostles hearing that Samaria had received the word, sent Peter and John down and they conferred upon the Samaritans the Holy Ghost. And though Philip was present he appears to have taken no part in it. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that since Philip had authority to baptize, he therefore must have held an office higher than that of deacon, or even of teacher; but since he evidently had not authority to lay on hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, his office was something less than that of an Elder. Hence it is most likely that he was a priest—priests have the right to baptize but not to lay on hands for the reception of the Holy Ghost (Doc. and Cov. sec. xx)—as perhaps also were his six associates, appointed to preside over the temporal affairs of the Church, especially to see after the poor.
[96]. Acts iv:32-37.
[97]. Acts viii. The student will observe that the same order of presenting and accepting the gospel is observed in the account given of its introduction into Samaria as was observed in the teaching of John the Baptist and Jesus, and also of Peter, on the day of Pentecost.
[98]. Acts ix.
[99]. Matt. xv:24.
[100]. John xii:32.
[101]. This case of Cornelius marks an exception—the only one recorded in the New Testament—to that order in the gospel to which attention has been drawn several times in this section; that is, these Gentiles received the Holy Ghost before baptism in water. The object of the deviation from the rule is obvious. It was that the Jews might have a witness from God that the gospel was for the Gentiles as well as for the house of Israel. But according to the Scriptures, and I may say according to the nature and relationship of these several principles and ordinances of the gospel to each other, the reception of the Holy Ghost comes after repentance and baptism, the one leading up logically to the other, which follows in beautiful and harmonious sequence.
[102]. Col. i:23.
[103]. Dan. xii:2.
[104]. John v:26, 28, 29.
[105]. Doc. and Cov. lxxvi:17.
[106]. Rev. xx:12, 13.
[107]. Rom. v:18. See whole chapter.
[108]. Cor. xv:21-26.
[109]. Mormon ix:12, 13. Other evidences from the Nephite scriptures will be found in Alma xi:40-44. III Nephi xxvii:13-15. II Nephi ii. Mosiah xv:18-27. Alma xxxiv:7-17. Alma xiii:1-26.
[110]. See "The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors," by Kersey Graves.
[111]. John v:26.
[112]. Mediation and Atonement, xxiv.
[113]. John x:17, 18.
[114]. Matt. xxvi:53, 54.
[115]. I John iv:9.
[116]. John iii:16, 17.
[117]. Isaiah liii:5, 6.
[118]. I Cor. vi:19, 20.
[119]. Doc. and Cov., sec. xix:16-18. See also Mosiah iii:20, 21. "The Gospel," Roberts, page 29.
[120]. Matt. xxviii:18-20.
[121]. Acts iv:12.
[122]. Acts ii:22-47. Acts viii:5-25.
[123]. II Cor. vii:8-10.
[124]. Rom. vi:3-5.
[125]. Acts viii:14-18.
[126]. The injunction placed upon those who accept the faith of the gospel is that they add to their faith virtue; and to virtue, knowledge; and to knowledge, temperance; and to temperance, patience; and to patience, godliness; and to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, charity. For if these things be in you, and abound they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. (II Peter i:5-8.)—"The Gospel," page 37.
[127]. Mark xvi. I Cor. xii.
[128]. Matt. x. Acts i:4-8.
[129]. Compare Luke x with Matt. x.
[130]. Acts i:3.
[131]. Acts xiv:23. Acts xx:17, 28.
[132]. Phil. i:1. Titus i:5-7.
[133]. I Cor. xii:28-30.
[134]. Eph. iv:10.
[135]. I Cor. xii.
[136]. Eph. iv.
[137]. John xv:16.
[138]. Acts v:1-6.
[139]. Acts xiii:1-3.
[140]. Acts xiv:2, 3.
[141]. Acts xx:28, 29.
[142]. Heb. v:1, 5.
[143]. Ex. xxviii:1.
[144]. III Nephi xxvi:6, 7.
[145]. III Nephi xii.
[146]. III Nephi xi.
[147]. III Nephi xxvii:37; also Moroni ii.
[148]. III Nephi xxvii and IV Nephi i:1.
[149]. Moroni iii.
[150]. Moroni vi.
[151]. IV Nephi i:1-7.
PART II.
THE APOSTASY.
SECTION I.
In Part I, our narrative was confined mainly to those propitious circumstances which made for the successful introduction of the gospel and the founding of the church of Christ. In Part II, we are to deal with those adverse events which led finally to the subversion of the Christian religion. We commence with the
1. Persecution of the Christians by the Jews.—The Messiah forewarned his disciples that they would be persecuted by the world, pointed out the reasons for it, and comforted them by reminding them that the world had hated him before it hated them; that the servant was not greater than his lord; and for that matter all the prophets which were before them had been persecuted by the generations in which they lived, and that, for the reason that they were not of the world, therefore the world hated and destroyed them.[[1]]
2. Two special reasons may be assigned for the persecution of the saints by the Jews. 1. They looked upon Christianity as a rival religion to Judaism, a thing of itself sufficient to engender bitterness, jealousy, persecution. 2. If Christianity should live and obtain a respectable standing, the Jews of that generation must ever be looked upon as not only putting an innocent man to death, but as rejecting and slaying the Son of God. To crush this rival religion and escape the odium which the successful establishment of it would inevitably fix upon them, were the incentives which prompted that first general persecution which arose against the church in Jerusalem, and that commenced in the very first year after Messiah's ascension.
3. The extent of the persecution or the time of its continuance may not be determined; but that it was murderous may be learned from the fact that Stephen was slain,[[2]] as was also James, the son of Zebedee,[[3]] and James, the Just, brother of the Lord.[[4]] The Apostle Peter was imprisoned and would doubtless have shared the fate of the other martyrs, but that he was delivered by an angel.[[5]]
4. Nor was this persecution confined alone to Jerusalem; on the contrary the hate-blinded high priests and elders of the Jews in Palestine conferred with the Jews throughout the Roman provinces, and everywhere incited them to hatred of the Christians, exhorting them to have no connection with, and to do all in their power to destroy the "superstition," as the Christian religion was then called. Nor were they content with what they themselves could do, but they exhausted their ingenuity in efforts to incite the Romans against them. To accomplish this they charged that the Christians had treasonable designs against the Roman government, as "appeared by their acknowledging as their king one Jesus, a malefactor whom Pilate had most justly put to death."[[6]]
5. The Jews themselves, however, were in no great favor with the Romans since their impatience of Roman restraint led them to be constantly on the eve of rebellion and sedition, and frequently to break out into deeds of violence against the Roman authority. This lack of favor rendered the power of the Jews unequal to their malice against the church of Christ.
6. The imperious nation, too, whose forefathers had rejected the prophets and at the last had crucified the Son of God with every circumstance of cruelty, crying out in the streets of their holy city, "crucify him, and let his blood be upon us and on our children,"[[7]] were about to meet the calamities which their wickedness called down upon them. The Roman emperor Vespasian [Ves-pa-zhe-an], tired of their repeated seditions, at last sent an army under Titus to subjugate them. The Jews made a stubborn resistance and a terrible war followed. Jerusalem, crowded with people who had come into the city from the surrounding country to attend the Passover, was besieged for six months, during which time more than a million of her wretched inhabitants perished of famine. The city was finally taken, the walls thereof thrown down and the temple so completely destroyed that not one stone was left upon another. Thousands of Jews were cut to pieces and nearly a hundred thousand of those taken captive were sent into slavery.[[8]] All the calamities predicted by the Messiah[[9]] befell the city and people. Jerusalem from that time until now has been trodden down of the Gentiles; and will be until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.
7. According to Eusebius, the Christians escaped these calamities which befell the Jews; for the whole body of the church at Jerusalem, having been commanded by divine revelation, given to men of approved piety, removed from Jerusalem before the war and dwelt at Pella, beyond Jordan, where they were secure from the calamities of those times.[[10]]
8. Persecution by the Romans.—It is more difficult to understand why the Romans should persecute the Christians than it is to see why the Jews did it. The Romans were polytheists, and affected the fullest religious liberty. The author of the "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" claims that this period of Roman history was the golden age of religious liberty. And such was the multitude of deities collected in Rome from various nations, and such the variety of worship to be seen in the great capital of the empire, that Gibbon has said:
Rome gradually became the common temple of her subjects; and the freedom of the city was bestowed on all the gods of mankind.[[11]]
Furthermore, the same high authority says:
The various modes of worship which prevailed in the Roman world, were all considered by the people as being equally true; by the philosophers as all equally false; and by the magistrates as equally useful. And thus toleration produced not only mutual indulgences, but even religious concord.
9. The student who would learn why the mild and beautiful Christian religion was alone selected to bear the wrath and feel the vengeful power of Rome, must look deeper than the reasons usually assigned for the strange circumstance. It is superficial to say that the persecution was caused by the charges of immorality. The Roman authorities had the best of evidence that the charges were false. (See note 1, end of section). Equally absurd is it to assign as a cause the supposed atheism of the Christians, for that was the condition of nearly all Rome; while the charge that they were traitors to the emperor, and expected to see the empire supplanted by the kingdom of Christ—which some assign as the chief cause of Roman persecution—was treated with contempt by the emperors. (See note 2, end of section).
10. The true cause of the persecution was this: Satan knew there was no power of salvation in the idolatrous worship of the heathen, and hence let them live on in peace, but when Jesus of Nazareth and his followers came, in the authority of God, preaching the gospel, he recognized in that the principles and power against which he had rebelled in heaven, and stirred up the hearts of men to rebellion against the truth to overthrow it. This was the real cause of persecution, though it lurked under a variety of pretexts, the most of which are named in the above supposed causes.
11. The First Roman Persecution.—The first emperor to enact laws for the extermination of Christians was Nero. (See note 3, end of section). His decrees against them originated rather in an effort to shield himself from popular fury than any desire that he had to protect the religion of the State against the advancement of Christianity. Nero, wishing to witness a great conflagration, had set fire to the city of Rome. The flames utterly consumed three of the fourteen wards into which the city was divided, and spread ruin in seven others. It was in vain that the emperor tried to soothe the indignant and miserable citizens whose all had been consumed by the flames, and neither the magnificence of the prince, nor his attempted expiation of the gods could remove from him the infamy of having ordered the conflagration.
12. Therefore, [writes Tacitus, one of the most trustworthy of all historians], to stop the clamor Nero falsely accused and subjugated to the most exquisite punishments a people hated for their crimes, called Christians. The founder of the sect, Christ, was executed in the reign of Tiberius, by the Procurator Pontius Pilate. The pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, burst forth again; not only through Judea, the birth-place of the evil, but at Rome also, where everything atrocious and base centers and is in repute. Those first seized, confessed; then a vast multitude, detected by their means, were convicted, not so much of the crime of burning the city as of hatred of mankind. And insult was added to their torments; for being clad in skins of wild beasts they were torn to pieces by dogs; or affixed to crosses to be burned, were used as lights to dispel the darkness of night, when the day was gone. Nero devoted his garden to the show, and held circensian [sir-sen-shan] games, mixing with the rabble, or mounting a chariot, clad like a coachman. Hence, though the guilty and those meriting the severest punishment, suffered, yet compassion was excited, because they were destroyed, not for the public good, but to satisfy the cruelty of an individual.[[12]]
13. Time of the Persecution.—The time of this persecution is fixed by the date of the great conflagration, which Tacitus set down as commencing on the 18th of July, A. D. 65. It lasted six days; and soon after that the persecution broke out.
14. Continuance and Extent of the Persecution.—How long this persecution lasted, and whether it was confined to the city of Rome or extended throughout the empire is difficult to determine. From some remarks made by Tertullian [Ter-tul-li-an], writing in the next century, it would seem that the decrees of Nero against the Christians of Rome were general laws, such as those afterwards passed by Domitian. But the inferences of his language are generally discredited or accounted the result of Tertullian's fervid rhetoric; and Gibbon's conclusion that the persecution was confined within the walls of Rome generally accepted.[[13]] It was in this persecution, according to the tradition of the early Christian fathers, that Peter and Paul suffered martyrdom.
15. The Second Persecution.—The second persecution against the Christian church broke out in the year A. D. 93 or 94, under the reign of Domitian. It was during this persecution that the Apostle John was banished to Patmos. Eusebius states that at the same time, for professing Christ, Flavi Domitilla, the niece of Flavius Clemens, one of the consuls of Rome at the time, "was transported with many others, by way of punishment, to the island of Pontia." The pretext for this persecution is ascribed to the fears of Domitian that he would lose his empire. A rumor reached him that a person would arise from the relatives of Messiah who would attempt a revolution; whereupon the jealous nature of the emperor prompted him to begin this persecution. In it both Jews and Christians suffered, the emperor ordering that the descendants of David, especially, should be put to death. An investigation of the prospects of a revolution arising from such a quarter caused Domitian to dismiss the matter with contempt and order the persecution to cease.[[14]] (See note 2, end of section).
NOTES.
1. Pliny's Testimony to the Morality of the Christians.—The character which this writer gives of the Christians of that age (his celebrated letter was written to Trajan early in the second century), and which was drawn from a pretty accurate inquiry, because he considered their moral principles as the point in which the magistrate was interested, is as follows: He tells the emperor that some of those who had relinquished the society, or who, to save themselves pretended that they had relinquished it, affirmed "that they were wont to meet together on a stated day, before it was light, and sang among themselves alternately a hymn to Christ as a God; and to bind themselves by an oath, not to the commission of any wickedness, but that they would not be guilty of theft, or robbery, or adultery; that they would never falsify their word, or deny a pledge committed to them when called upon to return it." This proves that a morality more pure and strict than was ordinary, prevailed at that time in Christian societies.—Paley's "Evidences."
2. Interview of Domitian and the Relatives of the Lord.—There were yet living of the family of our Lord the grandchildren of Judas, called the brother of our Lord according to the flesh. These were reported as being of the family of David, and were brought to Domitian by the evocaties. For this emperor was as much alarmed at the appearance of Christ as Herod. He put the question whether they were of David's race and they confessed that they were. He then asked them what property they had, or how much money they owned. And both of them answered, that they had between them only nine thousand denarii, and this they had not in silver, but in the value of a piece of land, containing only thirty-nine acres; from which they raised their taxes and supported themselves by their own labor. Then they also began to show their hands, exhibiting the hardness of their bodies, and the callosity formed by incessant labor on their hands, as evidence of their own labor. When asked also, respecting Christ and his kingdom, what was its nature, and when and where it was to appear, they replied that it was not a temporal nor an earthly kingdom, but celestial and angelic; that it would appear at the end of the world, when coming in glory he would judge the quick and the dead, and give to every one according to his works. Upon which Domitian despising them, made no reply; but treating them with contempt, as simpletons, commanded them to be dismissed, and by a decree ordered the persecution to cease.—Hegesippus, quoted by Eusebius.
3. Character of Nero.—Nero was the incarnation of depravity—the very name by which men are accustomed to express the fury of unrestrained malignity. Bad as he was, he was not worse than Rome. She had but her due. Nay, when he died the rabble and the slaves crowned his statue with garlands and scattered flowers over his grave. And why not? Nero never injured the rabble, never oppressed the slave. He murdered his mother, his brother, his wife, and was the tyrant of the wealthy, the terror of the successful. He rendered poverty sweet, for poverty alone was secure; he rendered slavery tolerable, for slaves alone or slavish men were promoted to power. The reign of Nero was the golden reign of the populace, and the holiday of the bondman.—Bancroft.
REVIEW.
1. Of what did Messiah warn his followers?
2. What reason may be assigned for the hatred of the world towards the people of God?
3. What special reason can you assign for the persecution of the Christians by the Jews?
4. What can you say of the bitterness and extent of the first great persecution?
5. What circumstance rendered the Jewish power to injure the Christians unequal to the malice?
6. Describe the great conflict between the Jews and the Romans.
7. By what means did the Christians living at Jerusalem escape the calamities of those times?
8. What makes it difficult to understand why the Romans persecuted the Christians?
9. What can you say of the charges of immorality as justifying Roman persecution? (Note 1).
10. What of the charge of treason? (Note 2).
11. What was the true cause of the persecution?
12. Who was the first emperor to enact laws against the Christians?
13. What was the character of Nero? (Note 3).
14. What was the incentive which prompted Nero to persecute the Christians?
15. What was the duration and extent of the first Roman persecution?
16. Under whose reign did the second Roman persecution begin?
17. On what was the persecution based?
SECTION II.
1. Condition of the Church in the Second Century.—During the second century the church had many seasons of immunity from persecution. The Roman emperors for the most part were of a mild and equitable character, and at the beginning of the century there were no laws against the Christians, as those enacted both by Nero and Domitian had been repealed. The first by the senate, the second by his successor, Nerva.[[15]] Still it must not be supposed that the saints were free from persecution. Their troubles arose, however, rather from the tumults of the rabble at the instigation of the pagan priests than from any desire of the emperors to oppress them.
2. As the Christians had no temples, no altars, no clouds of incense, no smoking victims—in short, as they had none of the pomp and circumstance in their simple religion which attended pagan worship, they were open to the charge of atheism by the great body of the people of the Roman empire; and, in their judgment, deserved the severest tortures and death.
If the empire had been afflicted by any recent calamity, [remarks Gibbon], by a plague, a famine, or an unsuccessful war; if the Tiber had, or if the Nile had not, risen above its banks; if the earth had shaken, or if the temperate order of the seasons had been interrupted, the superstitious pagans were convinced that the crimes and impurities of the Christians, who were spared by the excessive lenity of the government, had at length, provoked the divine justice.[[16]]
And however virtuous the emperors were, however mild or equitable in character the governors of the provinces, it is certain they did not hesitate to appease the rage of the people by sacrificing a few obnoxious victims.
3. The Persecution Under Marcus Aurelius.—The strangest fact of all connected with the persecutions of this century is that the saints suffered most under the most virtuous of the emperors—Marcus Aurelius [Mar-cus Au-re-li-us], who allowed the judges to put many of the saints accused of crime to torture. Among those of note who fell in this persecution were Polycarp, the bishop of Smyrna (see note 1, end of section.) and Justin Martyr, the philosopher. The persecution was most severe in Gaul (France), the churches of Lyons and Vienne being well nigh utterly destroyed. The unparalleled cruelties practiced upon the saints in those cities are related at length by Eusebius[[17]] in letters written by those who survived the persecution. (See note 2, end of section.)
4. Edicts of Severus.—Early in the third century a law was enacted by the Emperor, Severus [Se-ver-us,] making it criminal for any reason to abandon the religion of his fathers for that of the Christians or the Jews. The object of the law was to stay the propagation of Christianity which was spreading abroad on every hand; and while it was not intended to increase the hardships of those already Christians, it nevertheless encouraged the governors and judges of some of the provinces—especially those of Egypt and other parts of Africa and Asia—to sorely afflict the saints. Many of the poor were put to death—thousands of them if we may credit Eusebius—and many of the rich intimidated into paying large sums of money to the judges to secure them from torture and death. Still this persecution was not long continued, nor was it general throughout the empire, and after it subsided there was a long period of peace—pity it is that we have to say that it was more hurtful to the church than the periods of the cruelest persecution.
5. Persecution Under Decius Trajan.—In the middle of this century under Decius Trajan [De-ci-us Tra-jan] the severest and most disastrous persecution of all befell the Christians. The emperor must have been impelled both by his fear of the Christians and his attachment to the ancient religion of the Romans to publish his terrible edicts by which he hoped to destroy the Christian church. The governors of the provinces were ordered, on pain of forfeiting their own lives, either to exterminate all Christians utterly, or bring them back by pains and tortures to the religion of their fathers. Even Gibbon, whose constant effort is to belittle the sufferings of the early Christians, says of this persecution:
The bishops of the most considerable cities were removed by exile or death; the vigilance of the magistrates prevented the clergy of Rome during sixteen months from proceeding to a new election and it was the opinion of the Christians that the emperor would more patiently endure a competitor for the purple than a bishop in the capital.[[18]]
6. For more than two years the persecution raged with unmitigated fury; and great multitudes of Christians, in all the Roman provinces, were butchered in the most inhuman manner.
This persecution, [writes Dr. Mosheim], was more cruel and terrific than any which preceded it; and immense numbers, dismayed, not so much by the fear of death as by the dread of the long continued tortures by which the magistrates endeavored to overcome the constancy of the Christians, professed to renounce Christ, and procured for themselves safety, either by sacrificing—i. e., offering incense before the idols—or by certificates purchased with money.[[19]] (See note 3, end of section.)
7. The immediate successors of Decius continued this persecution, which with a pestilential disease which prevailed in many of the Roman provinces, greatly increased the hardships of the saints; but the latter part of the century passed away in peace.
8. The Diocletian Persecution.—In the commencement of the fourth century a peculiar state of affairs existed in the Roman empire. In 284 A. D., Diocletian [Di-o-kle-shan], a native of Dalmatia [Dal-ma-shi-a], whose parents were slaves, was proclaimed emperor. The year following, feeling that the extent of the empire was too vast to be managed by a single mind, he chose a colleague, one Maximian [Max-im-i-an], an unlettered soldier, with whom he shared the authority of emperor and the title of "Augustus." Soon afterwards they each chose a colleague with whom they shared their authority. These were Constantinus [Con-stan-ti-nus] Chlorus [Klo-rus] and Galerius [Ga-le-ri-us]. On their ascension to this honor they each took the title of "Caesar," and so matters stood at the opening of the fourth century.
9. The church had peace at the opening of this century, and at first there were no indications that it would be broken. But early within that period Diocletian was persuaded to undertake the suppression of the Christian religion. This he attempted by demanding that the Christians give up their sacred books; if they refused they were put to death. The constancy of all the Christians, no, not even that of all their bishops and clergy, was equal to this trial, and many voluntarily surrendered the sacred writings in their possession, to save themselves from punishment and death.
10. The royal palace at Nicomedia being twice set on fire, soon after the first edict of Diocletian was published, the crime was charged to the Christians, and led to the issuance of a second edict which caused many Christians to suffer the penalties inflicted on incendiaries—torture and death. Following this came rebellion against Roman authority in Nicomedia and Syria. This too was charged to the intrigue of Christians (see notes 4 and 5, end of section), and was made a pretext for throwing all bishops and ministers into prison. A third edict authorized the employment of torture to compel them to offer sacrifices to the gods of the heathen. It was hoped by Diocletian that if these leaders of the church could be forced into acts of apostasy the people would follow. A great multitude, therefore, of excellent men in all parts of Christendom—excepting Gaul—were put to death, and others condemned to labor in the mines.
11. But Diocletian was disappointed in the effects of these assaults on the leaders of the church. The members thereof remained obdurate in their adherence to the Christian faith; whereupon he issued a fourth edict, directing the magistrates to compel all Christians to offer sacrifice to the gods and to use tortures for that purpose. As the governors yielded strict obedience to these orders, the Christian church was reduced to the last extremity.[[20]]
12. With the exception of Gaul, [says Schlegel], streams of Christian blood flowed in the provinces of the Roman empire. Everywhere the Christian temples lay in ruins, and assemblies for worship were all suspended. The major part had forsaken the provinces and taken refuge among the barbarians. Such as were unable or unwilling to do this, kept themselves concealed, and were afraid for their lives if they appeared in public. The ministers of Christ were either slain, or mutilated and sent to the mines, or banished from the country. The avaricious magistrates had seized upon nearly all their church property and their private possessions. Many, through dread of undergoing torture, had made away with their own lives and many apostatized from the faith; and what remained of the Christian community consisted of weak, poor, and timorous persons.[[21]]
Truly it would appear from this that the beast unto whom was given power "to make war with the saints and overcome them"[[22]] had at last triumphed.
13. End of Pagan Persecution.—This, however, was to be the last great persecution of the Christians by the heathens. In 305 Diocletian, to the surprise of his own and all succeeding ages, resigned the empire and compelled his associate, Maximian, to do the same. This left the empire in the hands of the two Caesars, who became the emperors. Like their predecessors they chose colleagues; but Constantius Chlorus, dying at York, in Britain, his son, Constantine [Kon-stan-tin], afterwards called the Great, was proclaimed emperor by the army. The associate of his father, Galerius, and the two Caesars refused to ratify the election, and civil war ensued which lasted for eighteen years. Finally, however, Constantine prevailed over all his rivals and became sole emperor, A. D., 323. Being, like his father, favorably disposed towards Christianity, his accession to the throne brought universal peace to the church.
14. The Luminous Cross Seen by Constantine.—It was during the above-mentioned civil war, while marching against the forces of Maxentius [Max-en-ti-us], one of the rebellious Caesars, that Constantine and his army are said to have seen near midday, in the heavens, a luminous cross bearing this inscription in Greek: "By This Conquer." The same night Christ appeared to him in a dream accompanied with the same sign and instructed him to make a standard bearing the cross as a protection against his enemies. The circumstance is related at great length in the life of Constantine by Eusebius, on whose sole authority the story rests. It is regarded as suspicious that he makes no reference to the matter in Ecclesiastical History, written only twelve years after the event. (See note 7, end of section.) The story is altogether rejected by some writers as the cunning invention of interested priests seeking to make the cross an object of veneration; and even Christian writers of high standing—among them Mosheim—consider the story to be doubtful.
15. Constantine and his Friendliness to Christianity.—With the accession of Constantine to the imperial throne, as before remarked, the peace of the church was assured. His father had favored the Christians, and in the cruel persecution under Diocletian, he kept the provinces of Gaul free from the effusion of Christian blood; and his son seems to have fallen heir to his father's friendliness for the Christian faith.
16. It is difficult to determine the motives of Constantine for favoring the Christian cause and resolving upon the destruction of the pagan religion. Whether it was the appearance of the miraculous cross in the heavens, as some aver, the influence of Helena, his mother,[[23]] as Theodoret claims, or through the arguments of an Egyptian priest who promised him absolution for the crime of murder if he would accept Christianity.[[24]] But let the motive be what it may, benevolence, policy, conviction or remorse, coupled with a hope of forgiveness, Constantine from the time of his accession to the throne became the avowed protector of the Christian church; and at length by his powerful influence made Christianity the reigning religion of the Roman empire.[[25]] The exiles were recalled; those condemned to labor in the mines were released; those who had been robbed of their property were reinstated in their possessions, and the demolished Christian temples were ordered to be rebuilt and enlarged. The church militant after the emperor's edicts of toleration became the church tranquil, so far as external opposition was concerned. Her ministers were welcomed to the court of the emperor, admitted to the imperial table, and even accompanied the monarch in his expeditions. Wealth, honor and imperial patronage were bestowed almost without measure on the Christian church. From the position of a despised, persecuted religion, Christianity was suddenly exalted to the very throne of the Roman world. Yet these things which are usually accounted among the good fortunes of the church, were, as we shall yet see, disastrous to the purity of the Christian religion.
17. Progress of the Church Under the Patronage of Constantine.—The court of Constantine was converted, of course; but it is to be feared that it was the hope of wealth and honor, the example of the emperor, his exhortations, his irresistible smile, rather than the truths of Christianity which wrought a change in the hearts of the obsequious crowd that filled the palace. A number of cities manifested a forward zeal in a voluntary destruction of their temples and idols, but it is more than likely that the municipal distinctions and popular donations which were held out as a reward for such conduct, rather than belief in the Christian faith are what inspired the iconoclasts. Twelve thousand men and a proportionate number of women and children were baptized in a single year in Rome; but how far did the twenty pieces of gold and a white garment promised to each convert by the emperor influence the conversion of this great number? Nor was the influence of Constantine in respect to the Christian religion confined within the provinces of the empire. It extended to the barbarous peoples outside; who, while they had held in disdain a despised and proscribed sect, soon learned to esteem a religion which had been so lately embraced by the greatest monarch, and the most civilized nation of the globe.[[26]]
18. The Character of Constantine.—It is as difficult to come to a right conclusion as to the real character of Constantine as it is to decide the motives which led him to accept the Christian religion; for in the former as in the latter case the authorities are conflicting. The Christians who were favored by his actions extol him for his virtues; while the pagans who were despoiled by him, execrate him for his crimes. It is certain, however, that he put to death his own son Crispus, and his wife Fausta, on a suspicion that was at least precarious. He cut off his brother-in-law Licinius, and his offending son, contrary to his plighted word; and, according to Schlegel and Gibbon, he was much addicted to pride and voluptuousness:
He pursued the great objects of his ambition through the dark and bloody paths of war and policy, and after the victory, abandoned himself without moderation to the abuse of his good fortune. As he advanced in years he seems to have declined in the practice of virtue, blighting in his old age, when a convert to the Christian faith, and famed as the protector of the Christian church, the fair promises he gave in his youth, and while a pagan, of being a truly virtuous prince. It is not likely that the patronage of such an emperor would contribute to the real progress of religion or assist in the establishment of the church of Christ.
NOTES.
1. The Martyrdom of Polycarp.—Presently the instruments prepared for the funeral pile were applied to him. As they were on the point of securing him with spikes, he said: "Let me be thus, for he that gives me strength to bear the fire, will also give me power, without being secured by you with these spikes, to remain unmoved on the pile." They therefore did not nail him, but merely bound him to the stake. But he, closing his hands behind him, and bound to the stake as a noble victim selected from the great flock an acceptable sacrifice to Almighty God, said: "Father of thy well-beloved and blessed Son, Jesus Christ, through whom we have received the knowledge of thee, the God of angels and power and all creation, and of all the family of the righteous, that live before thee, I bless thee that thou hast thought me worthy of the present day and hour to have a share in the number of the martyrs and in the cup of Christ, unto the resurrection of eternal life, both of the soul and body, in the incorruptible felicity of the Holy Spirit. Among whom may I be received in thy sight this day as a rich and acceptable sacrifice, as thou the faithful and true God hast prepared, hast revealed and fulfilled. Wherefore on this account, and for all things I praise thee, I bless thee; I glorify thee through the eternal High Priest, Jesus Christ, thy well beloved Son. Through whom be glory to thee with Him in the Holy Ghost, both now and forever. Amen." After he had repeated Amen, and had finished his prayer, the executioners kindled the fire.—Eusebius.
2. A Second Century Persecution.—Would the reader know what a persecution in those days was, I would refer him to a circular letter written by the church at Smyrna soon after the death of Polycarp, who it will be remembered had lived with St. John; and which letter is entitled a relation of that Bishop's martyrdom. "The sufferings," say they, "of all the other martyrs were blessed and generous which they underwent according to the will of God. For so it becomes us, who are more religious than others, to ascribe the power and ordering of all things unto him. And indeed who can choose but admire the greatness of their minds, and that admirable patience and love of their Master, which then appeared in them? Who when they were so flayed with whipping, that the frame and structure of their bodies were laid open to their very inward veins and arteries, nevertheless endured it. In like manner, those who were condemned to the beasts and kept a long time in prison, underwent many cruel torments, being forced to lie upon sharp spikes laid under their bodies, and tormented with divers other sorts of punishments; that so, if it were possible, the tyrants by the length of their sufferings might have brought them to deny Christ."—Paley.
3. The Persecution Under Decius Trajan.—This persecution was more terrible than any preceding one, because it extended over the whole empire, and because its object was to worry the Christians into apostasy by extreme and persevering torture.—The certificated or libellatici, are supposed to be such as purchased certificates from the corrupt magistrates, in which it was declared that they were pagans and had complied with the demands of the law, when neither of these was fact. To purchase such a certificate was not only to be partaker in the fraudulent transaction, but it was to prevaricate before the public in regard to Christianity, and was inconsistent with that open confession of Christ before men, which He Himself requires.—Murdock. (Note in Mosheim, vol. I., cent. iii., p. 1, ch. ii.)
4. The Insurrection of Syria and Nicomedia.—Some degree of probability could be attached to the charge against the Christians of causing the insurrection from the fact that their inconsiderate zeal sometimes led them to deeds which had an aspect of rebellion. At the commencement of this persecution, for example, a very respectable Christian tore down the imperial edict against the Christians which was set up in a public place.—Schlegel.
5. Unwise Zeal of the Christians.—Several examples have been preserved of a zeal impatient of those restraints which the emperors had provided for the security of the church. The Christians sometimes supplied by their voluntary declaration the want of an accuser, rudely disturbed the public service of paganism, and rushing in crowds round the tribunal of the magistrates, called upon them to pronounce and to inflict the sentence of the law. The behavior of the Christians was too remarkable to escape the notice of the ancient philosophers; but they seemed to have considered it with much less admiration than astonishment. Incapable of conceiving the motives which sometimes transported the fortitude of believers beyond the bounds of prudence or reason, they treated such an eagerness to die as the strange result of obstinate despair, of stupid insensibility or of suspicious frenzy.—Gibbon.
6. Spirit of the Christian Martyrs.—The spirit of the Christian martyrs, at least of the first three centuries, may be learned from the epistle of Ignatius of Antioch, who, early in the second century was taken from Syria to Rome, where he suffered martyrdom by being thrown to the wild beasts. On his journey to Rome, under sentence of death, he wrote an epistle to the Roman saints from which the following passage is taken: "I write to the churches and I declare to all, that willingly I die for God, if it be that you hinder me not. I beg of you, do not become to me an unseasonable love. Let me be of the beasts, by whose means I am enabled to obtain God. I am God's wheat, and by the teeth of the beasts am I ground, that I may be found God's pure bread. Rather entreat kindly the beasts that they may be a grave for me and may leave nothing of my body; that not even when I am fallen asleep, I may be a burden upon any man. Then I shall be in truth a disciple of Jesus Christ, when the world seeth not even my body. Supplicate our Lord for me, that by these instruments I may be found a sacrifice to God. I am not commanding you like Peter and Paul; they were apostles, I am a condemned convict; they were free, I am hitherto a slave. But if I suffer I am a free man of Jesus Christ, and I shall rise from the dead, in him a free man. And now since I am in bonds, I learn to desire nothing. From Syria to Rome I am cast among beasts by sea and by land, by night and by day; since I am bound between ten leopards, who get worse when I do good to them. But by their ill-treatment I am furthered in my apprenticeship; still by that I am not justified. May I have to rejoice of the beasts prepared for me! and I pray that they may be found ready for me, and I will kindly entreat them quickly to devour me, and not as they have done to some, being afraid of them, to keep from touching me. And should they not be willing, I will force them."—Ignatius' Epistle to the Romans.
7. Constantine's Luminous Cross.—Now if this narrative [by Eusebius] is all true, and if two connected miracles were actually wrought as here stated, how happens it that no writer of that age, except Eusebius, says one word about the luminous cross in the heavens? How came it that Eusebius himself said nothing about it in his Ecclesiastical History, which was written twelve years after the event, and about the same length of time before his life of Constantine? Why does he rely solely on the testimony of the emperor and not even intimate that he even heard of it from others; whereas, if true, many thousands must have been eye-witnesses of the fact. What mean his suggestions, that some may question the truth of the story; and his caution not to state anything as a matter of public notoriety, but to confine himself simply to the emperor's private representation to himself. * * * But how came the whole story of the luminous cross to be unknown to the Christian world, for more than twenty-five years, and then to transpire only through a private conversation between Eusebius and Constantine?—Murdock.
REVIEW.
1. From what source did the persecution of the church come during the 2nd century?
2. What charge did pagan priests bring against the Christians?
3. What in the estimation of the ignorant pagans gave the color of truth to their charge?
4. To what circumstance were the calamities which befell the empire usually attributed?
5. What strange fact meets us in connection with the persecution of the 2nd century?
6. What two noted martyrs were put to death in the reign of Marcus Aurelius?
7. Describe the martyrdom of Polycarp.
8. What was the nature of some of the tortures inflicted on the Christians? (Note 2).
9. What was the nature and purpose of the edicts of Severus?
10. What was the effect of this persecution and the period of peace which followed it?
11. What can you say of the persecution under Trajan?
12. What does Gibbon say of it?
13. How long did it continue?
14. What means of avoiding the severe tortures were offered the Christians?
15. What was the effect of this persecution?
16. What other circumstance added to the afflictions of the Christians?
17. What changes in respect to the Roman government took place early in the 4th century?
18. What method did Diocletian adopt for the suppression of the Christian religion?
19. What special crimes were charged to the Christians in the reign of Diocletian?
20. What can you say of the zeal of the Christians? (Note 4 and 5).
21. What effect did these persecutions have on the church?
22. What event put a stop to the pagan persecutions?
23. Relate the circumstances which led to Constantine becoming emperor of Rome.
24. What effect did his accession to the throne have upon the Christian church?
25. By what circumstance is Constantine said to have been converted to the Christian religion?
26. What evidences exist against the probability of this story?
27. What good service did the father of Constantine do the Christians in the Diocletian persecution?
28. What are the several motives assigned for Constantine's friendliness to the Christian church?
29. What can you say of the emperor's treatment of the Christians?
30. What considerations very likely influenced converts when Constantine extended his patronage to the church?
31. What was the character of Constantine?
SECTION III.
1. The Accusations of the Pagans.—The simplicity of the Christian religion was made a reproach to the church of Christ by the pagan priests. The saints were accused of atheism, an accusation which found support in the fact that the primitive church had no temples, no incense, no sacrifice, no incantations, pomp or ceremony in its worship. "The Christians have no temples, therefore they have no gods," was an argument sufficiently convincing to the heathen. It was but natural, perhaps, that the Christians should seek to cast off this reproach; but the desire to do so led to the introduction of many ceremonies quite at variance with the religion of Jesus Christ, and eventually subverted it altogether.
2. Outward Ordinances of the Christian Religion.—The outward ordinances of the gospel consisted of baptism, the laying on of hands for the imparting of the Holy Ghost, and the Lord's Supper. The laying on of hands was also employed in ordaining men to the Priesthood and in administering to the sick. In the latter case it was accompanied by anointing with oil.
3. While it does not appear that there was any specific law commanding or regulating fasts, the ancient saints occasionally joined abstinence from their food with their prayers, and especially when engaged in great undertakings. But the frequency of his fasts and the time of their continuance were left to each man's judgment.
4. They met on the first day of the week—Sunday—for worship (see note 1, end of section) the meetings, during the first century, being held in most instances in private houses. The ceremonies were of the simplest character. They consisted of reading the scriptures, the exhortation of the president of the assembly—"neither eloquent nor long, but full of warmth and love;" the testimony of such as felt moved upon by the Holy Ghost to bear testimony, exhort or prophesy; the singing of hymns; the administration of the Sacrament and prayers.[[27]] (See note 2, end of section.)
5. Baptism.—Baptism was administered by immersing the candidate in water. The only pre-requisites were faith in Jesus Christ and repentance. As soon as the candidate professed these he was admitted into the church by baptism.[[28]] In a short time, however, the simplicity of this ordinance was corrupted and burdened with useless ceremonies. In the second century the newly baptized converts, since by baptism they had been born again, were taught to exhibit in their conduct the innocence of little infants. Milk and honey, the common food of infants, were administered to them, after their baptism, to remind them of their infancy in the church. Moreover, since by baptism they were released from being servants of the devil, and became God's free men, certain forms borrowed from the Roman ceremony of manumission of slaves were employed in baptism. As by baptism also they were supposed to be made God's soldiers, like newly enlisted soldiers in the Roman army, they were sworn to obey their commander, etc.
6. Further Additions of Ceremonies to Baptism.—A century later (the third) further ceremonies were added. It was supposed that some evil spirit was resident in all vicious persons and impelled them to sin. Therefore, before entering the sacred font for baptism, an exorcist by a solemn, menacing formula declared them free from the bondage of Satan, and hailed them servants of Christ.[[29]] After baptism the new converts returned home, "decorated with a crown and a white robe, the first being indicative of their victory over the world and their lusts, the latter of their acquired innocence."[[30]]
7. We have already noted the fact that baptism was administered in the days of the apostles as soon as profession of faith and repentance were declared, but in the second and third century baptism was only administered twice a year, and then only to such candidates as had gone through a long preparation and trial.[[31]] The times chosen for the administration of the ordinance were on the vigils of Easter and Whitsuntide;[[32]] and in the fourth century it had become the custom to accompany the ceremony with lighted wax candles, to put salt—an emblem of purity and wisdom—in the mouth of the baptized, and everywhere a double anointing was administered to the candidates, the one before, the other after, baptism.[[33]]
8. The Form of Baptism Changed.—It must have been early in the third century that the form of baptism began to be changed. Up to this time it had been performed only by immersion of the whole body. But in the first half of the third century, Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, during a controversy respecting the re-baptism of those who in times of persecution had denied the faith, decided that those whose weak state of health did not permit them to be immersed, were sufficiently baptized by being sprinkled.[[34]] The first case of this kind of baptism is related by Eusebius. The person to whom it was so administered was Novatus [No-va-tus], a desperate heretic, who created a schism in the church and became the founder of a sect. He was among the number of so-called Christians who put off baptism as long as he dared; in order to enjoy a life of sin and then through baptism, just before death, obtain forgiveness for them—a custom very prevalent in those times. Novatus being attacked with an obstinate disease, and supposed to be at the point of death, was baptized by having water sprinkled upon him as he lay in bed; "if indeed," says Eusebius, "it be proper to say one like him did receive baptism."[[35]]
9. This innovation continued to spread until now the general rule among so-called Christian sects is to baptize by sprinkling or pouring. For this change there is no warrant of revelation. It destroys the symbol there is in baptism as taught by Messiah and his apostles—that of a burial and resurrection—of a death and a birth—a death unto sin, a birth unto sin, a birth unto righteousness. (See notes 3 and 4, end of section.) It is one of those innovations which changed an ordinance of the everlasting covenant.
10. Baptism Misapplied.—About the time that the form of administering baptism was changed it began to be misapplied, that is, it was administered to infants. Just when this custom came into vogue may not be determined, but clearly it has no warrant for its existence either in the doctrines or practice of the apostles or any New Testament writer. (See note 5, end of section.) No truth is more plainly taught by the apostles than that baptism is for the remission of sins, and must be preceded by faith and repentance; and as infants are incapable of sin, or of exercising faith, or of repenting, evidently they are not fit subjects for baptism.
11. Still it became the custom in the latter part of the second century or early in the third to baptize infants. In the year 253 A. D., a council of sixty bishops, in Africa—at which Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, presided, took under consideration the question whether infants should be baptized within two or three days after birth, or whether it should be deferred until the eighth day, as was the custom of the Jews in respect to circumcision. The council decided that they should be baptized at once, that is within a day or two after birth.[[36]] It will be observed that the question was not as to whether infants should be baptized or not, but when they should be baptized, within a day or two after birth or not until they were eight days old. The matter was treated in the council as if infant baptism was a custom of long standing. This proves, not that infant baptism is a correct doctrine, or that it was derived from the teachings and examples of the apostles—as some aver[[37]]—but that in a century or so after the introduction of the gospel, men began to pervert it by changing and misapplying its ordinances. The false doctrine of infant baptism is now practiced by nearly all so-called Christian churches, Catholic and Protestant.
12. The Sacrament.—Much as the simple rite of baptism was burdened with useless ceremonies, changed in its form and misapplied, it was not more distorted than was the sacrament of the Lord's supper. The nature of the sacrament—usually called the eucharist—and the purposes for which it was instituted are so plain that he who runs may read.
13. From Paul's description of the ordinance, it is clear that the broken bread was an emblem of Messiah's broken body; the wine an emblem of his blood, shed for sinful man; and his disciples were to eat the one and drink the other in remembrance of him until he should return; and by this ceremony show forth the Lord's death.[[38]]
14. It was designed as a memorial of Messiah's great atonement for mankind, a token and witness unto the Father that the Son was always remembered. It was to be a sign that those partaking of it were willing to take upon them the name of Christ, to always remember him, and keep his commandments. In consideration of these things being observed, the saints were always to have the Spirit of the Lord to be with them.[[39]] In this spirit and without great ceremony (see note 7, end of section) the sacrament was administered for some time.
15. Administration of the Sacrament Corrupted.—In the third century there were longer prayers and more ceremony connected with the administration of the sacrament than in the century preceding. Disputations arose as to the proper time to administer it. Some considered the morning, others the afternoon, and some the evening the most suitable time. All were not agreed either as to how often the ordinance should be celebrated. Gold and silver vessels were used, and neither those doing penance, nor those unbaptized, though believers, were permitted to be present at the celebration of the ordinance; "which practice, it is well known, was derived from the pagan mysteries."[[40]] Very much of mystery began to be associated with it even at an early date. The bread and the wine through the prayer of consecration were considered to undergo a mystic change by which they were converted into and became the very body and the very blood of Jesus Christ; so that they were no longer regarded as emblems of Messiah's body and blood, but the body and blood itself.[[41]] This is the doctrine of transubstantiation.
16. The dogma established, it was but a short step to the "elevation of the host;" that is, the elevation of the bread and wine before they were distributed, so that they might be viewed with reverence by the people. Thus came the adoration of the symbols.
17. Institution of the Mass.—Hence came also the mass, or the idea of a sacrifice being connected with the celebration of the eucharist. It was held that as Jesus was truly present in the bread and wine he could be offered up, and was truly offered up as an oblation to his Eternal Father. The death of the victim was not supposed to occur in reality but mystically, in such a way, however, as to constitute a true sacrifice, commemorative of that of the cross, and not different from it in essence. The same victim was present, and offered up by Christ through his minister, the priest. The sacrifice at the cross was offered with real suffering; true shedding of blood, and real death of the victim; in the mass it was taught there was a mystical shedding of blood and a mystical death of the same victim.
18. Into such absurdities was the simple sacrament of the Lord's supper distorted! When attended with all the pomp and ceremony of splendid altars, lighted tapers, processions, elevations and chantings: offered up by priests and bishops clad in splendid vestments and in the midst of clouds of incense, accompanied by mystic movements and genuflections of bishops and priests, the church could congratulate itself on having removed the reproach at the first fastened upon the Christians for not having altars and sacrifice. The mass took away the reproach; and the new converts to Christianity were accustomed to see the same rites and ceremonies employed in this mystical sacrifice of the Son of God as they had seen employed in offering up of sacrifice to their pagan deities. (See notes 8 and 9, end of section.)
19. Suppression of Half the Sacrament.—In time the idea became prevalent that as the body and blood of Messiah were equally and entirely present under each "species"—that is, equally and entirely present in the bread and in the wine—it was equally and entirely given to the faithful whichever they received. This idea, of course, rendered it unnecessary to partake of both bread and wine—hence the practice of communion in one kind. That is, the sacrament was administered by giving bread alone to the communicant. To remark that this was changing the ordinance of the sacrament as instituted by Messiah—suppressing half of it in fact—can scarcely be necessary since it is so well known that Jesus administered both bread and wine when instituting the sacred ordinance.[[42]]
NOTES.
1. Reasons Why the Ancient Saints Worshiped on Sunday.—But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, when he changed the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead; for the day before that of Saturn he was crucified, and on the day after it, which is Sunday, he appeared to his apostles and disciples and taught them these things which we have given to you also for your consideration.—Justin Martyr.
2. Description of Christian Public Worship in the Second Century.—On the day which is called Sunday there is an assembly in the same of all who live in cities or in country districts; and the records of the apostles, or the writings of the prophets, are read as long as we have time. Then the reader concludes, and the president verbally instructs and exhorts us to the imitation of these excellent things. Then we all rise together and offer up our prayers. And, as I said before, when we have concluded our prayer, bread is brought, and wine and water, and the president in like manner offers up prayers and thanksgivings with all his strength, and the people give their assent by saying Amen; and there is a distribution and a partaking by every one of the eucharistic elements [the sacrament,] and to those who are not present they are sent by the hands of the deacons. And such as are in prosperous circumstances, and wish to do so, give what they will, each according to his choice; and what is collected is placed in the hands of the president, who assists the orphans and widows, and such as through sickness or any other cause are in want; and to those who are in bonds, and to strangers from afar, and, in a word, to all who are in need, he is a protector.—Justin Martyr.
3. Baptism a Symbol of Burial and Resurrection.—In writing to the saints of Rome, Paul says: "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection." (Rom. vi:3-5.) In writing to the saints of Colosse, the same apostle reminds them that they had been "Buried with him [Christ] in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God who hath raised him from the dead." (Col. ii: 12.)
In these passages the terms "buried" and "planted" are in plain allusion to the manner in which the saints had received the ordinance of baptism, which could not have been by sprinkling or pouring, as there is no burial or planting in the likeness of Christ's death, or being raised in likeness of his resurrection in that; but in immersion there is.—"The Gospel—Roberts," page 173.
4. The Manner of Baptism Instituted Among the Nephites.—"Verily I say unto you, that whoso repenteth of his sins through your words, and desireth to be baptized in my name, on this wise shall ye baptize them: Behold, ye shall go down and stand in the water, and in my name shall ye baptize them. And now behold, these are the words which ye shall say, calling them by name, saying, Having authority given me of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen. And then shall ye immerse them in the water and come forth again out of the water. And after this manner shall ye baptize in my name."—Jesus to the Nephites.
5. Infant Baptism not Ordained of Christ or the Apostles.—As faith and baptism are constantly so closely connected together in the New Testament, an opinion was likely to arise that where there could be no faith there could be no baptism. It is certain that Christ did not ordain infant baptism. * * We cannot prove that the apostles ordained infant baptism; from those places where the baptism of a whole family is mentioned (Acts xvi:33; I Cor. i: 16), we can draw no such conclusions, because the inquiry is still to be made whether there were any children in those families of such an age that they were not capable of any intelligent reception of Christianity; for this is the only point on which the case turns.—Neander "Church History," vol. I., page 360.
6. Infant Baptism Forbidden Among the Nephites.—The word of the Lord came to me by the power of the Holy Ghost, saying: * * * Behold, I came into the world not to call the righteous, but sinners unto repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore little children are whole for they are incapable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them; and the law of circumcision is done away in me. * * * Wherefore, my beloved son, I know that it is solemn mockery before God that ye should baptize little children. * * * Awful is the wickedness to suppose that God saveth one child because of baptism, and the other must perish because he hath no baptism. Wo be unto him that shall pervert the ways of the Lord after this manner, for they shall perish, except they repent.—Mormon to Moroni (Book of Moroni, chapter viii.)
7. Manner of Administering the Sacrament—Second Century.—When the Christians celebrated the Lord's supper which they were accustomed to do chiefly on Sundays, they consecrated a part of the bread and wine of the oblations, by certain prayers pronounced by the president, the bishop of the congregation. The wine was mixed with water, and the bread was divided into small pieces. Portions of the consecrated bread and wine were commonly sent to the absent and the sick, in testimony of fraternal affection towards them. There is much evidence that this most holy rite was regarded as very necessary to the attainment of salvation.—Mosheim.
8. Pagan Rites Introduced into the Christian Worship—Fourth Century.—The Christian bishops introduced, with but slight alterations, into the Christian worship, those rites and institutions by which formerly the Greeks and Romans, and other nations had manifested their piety and reverence towards their imaginary deities; supposing that the people would more readily embrace Christianity, if they saw that the rites handed down to them from their fathers still existed unchanged among the Christians, and perceived that Christ and the martyrs were worshiped in the same manner as formerly their gods were. There was, of course, little difference in these times, between the public worship of the Christians and that of the Greeks and Romans. In both alike there were splendid robes, mitres, tiaras, wax tapers, crosiers, processions, illustrations, images, golden and silver vases, and numberless other things.—Mosheim.
9. Superstitious Observances Connected with the Eucharist—Eighth Century.—As evidence of the superstition which was associated with the eucharist, note the following: "If any one through negligence, shall destroy the eucharist, i. e. the sacrifice, let him do penance one year. * * * If he lets it fall on the ground, carelessly, he must sing fifty Psalms. Whoever neglects to take care of the sacrifice, so that worms get into it, or it lose its color or taste, must do penance thirty or twenty days; and the sacrifice must be burned in the fire. Whoever turns up the cup at the close of the solemnity of the mass must do penance forty days. If a drop from the cup should fall on the altar, the minister must suck up the drop and do penance three days; and the linen cloth which the drop touched, must be washed three times, over the cup, and the water in which it was washed be cast into the fire."—Decisions of Pope Gregory III. (Harduin's Concilia.)
REVIEW.
1. What reproach did the simplicity of the Christian religion lead to?
2. What effect did the endeavor to get rid of that reproach have on the Christian religion?
3. Enumerate the outward ordinances of the gospel.
4. What can you say of Christian fasts?
5. On what day did the Christians meet for worship?
6. What reasons do the early church fathers give for holding public worship on that day? (Note 1).
7. Describe the meetings of the early Christians. (Note 2.)
8. How was baptism administered in the early church?
9. What does baptism represent? (Note 3).
10. Tell how the simplicity of this ordinance was changed.
11. What additions were made to the ceremony of baptism in the third century?
12. When was the form of baptism changed?
13. Relate the first known case of baptism by sprinkling.
14. In what way was the ordinance of baptism misapplied?
15. Was infant baptism ordained of the apostles? (Note 5).
16. About when was infant baptism introduced into the church?
17. Does the antiquity of infant baptism prove it to be a correct doctrine?
18. What does it prove?
19. What was said to the Nephites about infant baptism? (Note 6).
20. For what was the sacrament of the Lord's supper instituted?
21. Give Paul's description of the introduction of the sacrament. (Note).
22. About what time was the manner of administering the sacrament changed?
23. What was the nature of those changes?
24. What custom crept into the practice of the Christian church that was forbidden by Jesus among the Nephites? (Note).
25. What can you say of the antiquity of the doctrine of transubstantiation?
26. What is the mass?
27. What reproach did the institution of the mass remove from the Christians?
28. At what cost was the reproach removed?
29. Who introduced pagan rites into Christian worship?
30. Why was it done? (Note 8.)
31. What reason is given for suppressing half the sacrament?
SECTION IV.
1. Early Church Organization Not Perpetuated.—We have already stated in Part I of this work that the church organization established by Messiah—consisting of apostles, prophets, seventies, bishops, etc.—was designed to be perpetual. It is a singular fact, however, that aside from filling up the vacancy in the quorum of the twelve—occasioned by the fall of Judas Iscariot—there is no account in any of the writings of the apostles or fathers of the first centuries—on the eastern hemisphere[[43]]—of any attempt to perpetuate the quorum of the twelve by filling up the vacancies occasioned by the death of the original apostles. The same may also be said of the quorum of the seventies.
2. The reason for this will doubtless be found in the fact that in the very days of the apostles the great apostasy which was to end eventually in the subversion of the Christian religion, had begun. (See note 2, end of section.) And since "the mystery of iniquity" had already begun its work in the days of the apostles, and men were rapidly proving themselves unworthy of the church of Christ, the Lord did not permit his servants to perpetuate these quorums of the higher Priesthood.
3. Establishment of the Church by the Apostles.—Whenever in their travels the apostles converted any considerable number of persons, in a city or district, they organized them into a church, or, speaking more precisely, into a branch of the great universal church of Christ, and appointed either a bishop or an elder to preside over them. As long as the apostles lived they were regarded as the presiding authority of the universal church, and were looked to for counsel and instruction in all difficult matters that arose concerning doctrine or discipline. Their decisions were accepted as final, and well might it be so, since these men were guided in their counsels by revelation[[44]] as well as by the wisdom which their large experience in company with Jesus Christ had given them.
4. But when the apostles died, and no one succeeded to their authority, the branches of the church were left separate and independent organizations, united, it is true, in faith and charity, but the visible, general presidency recognized in the apostles and cheerfully submitted to by all sections of the church, ceased when the apostles passed away, and each branch was left an independent organization of itself.[[45]] There is no evidence that there was such a thing as subordination among the churches when so left, or rank among the bishops. Each church was a sort of independent commonwealth, of which the bishop was president and a vassal to no other bishop.[[46]]
5. Manner of Electing Bishops.—The manner in which bishops were first elected was for the apostles to nominate them, and then for the whole church over which they were to preside to sustain them by their vote. After the apostles had passed away then "other men of repute" made the nominations and the people sustained them as at first.[[47]] The duties and powers of the bishops in the first and in the greater part of the second century were limited to conducting the public worship, administering the ordinances of the gospel, settling difficulties which arose between brethren, attending in person the sick and the poor. They also were made the custodians and managers of the public fund. In all these duties they were assisted by the elders [presbyters] and the deacons of the church. Yet neither the bishops nor the elders, nor both of them together, seem to have had power to ordain or determine anything without the approbation and consent of the members of the church. The principle of common consent was closely adhered to in the primitive church. (See note 3, end of section.)
6. Equality Among Bishops Changed.—This equality of rank among the bishops, together with the simple form of church government, described above, was soon changed. The bishops who lived in cities either by their own labors or those of the elders associated with them, raised up new churches in the adjacent villages and hamlets. The bishops of these rural districts being nominated and ordained by the bishops presiding in the city, very naturally, perhaps, felt themselves under the protection and dependent upon the city bishops. This idea continued to grow until these "bishops of the suburbs and the fields," were looked upon as a distinct order of officers, possessing a dignity and authority above the elders, and yet subordinate to the bishops of the cities, who soon came to be designated as archbishops.
7. The Origin of Metropolitans.—Gradually and almost imperceptibly the church in its government began to follow the civil divisions of the Roman empire. The bishops of the metropolis of a civil province, in time, came to be regarded as having a general supervision of all the churches in that province, over the archbishops and indirectly over the suburban bishops or suffragans, as they began to be called, and finally, bishops merely. The bishops of these provinces were soon designated as metropolitans.
8. The Rise and Influence of Councils.—Concurrent with these changes arose the custom, first derived from the Greeks, of holding provincial councils. The bishops living in a single province met in council to confer upon matters of common interest to the churches of the province. These provincial councils met at stated times of the year, usually in the spring and autumn. At the first the attending bishops looked upon themselves as merely the representatives of their respective churches, without jurisdiction further than to discuss and come to agreement on matters of common concern. But gradually they usurped the power to order by decree where at first they were accustomed to advise or entreat—so easy is it to change the language of exhortation to that of command! Nor was it long ere the decrees of these provincial councils were forced upon the respective churches as laws to be implicitly obeyed. There was some resistance to this at first from the lower orders of the clergy; but that resistance was quickly overcome by the activity and ambition of the bishops, who were only too glad to escape from the restraints which the doctrine of "common consent"—a doctrine which made it necessary for the bishops to submit any matter of importance to their respective churches for the approbation of the people—imposed upon them. (See note 4, end of section.)
9. Conduct of Lower Clergy.—As many changes occurred among the lower orders of the clergy as among the bishops. The elders and deacons became too proud to attend to the humble duties of their offices and hence a number of other officers were added to the church, while the elders and deacons spent much of their time in indolence and pleasure.
10. Corruption of Church Officials.—To the evils of contention for power and place, which had its origin in arrogance and ambition—unbecoming those who profess to be followers and servants of Jesus Christ—must be added the vices of dissipation and voluptuousness. Many bishops, in the third century, affected the state of princes, especially those who had charge of the more populous and wealthy congregations; for they sat on thrones, surrounded by their ministers and other signs of their power, and dazzled the eyes and the minds of the populace with their splendid attire.[[48]]
11. Church Government Modeled on the Plan of the Civil Government.—It was reserved for the fourth century to see the church government more completely modeled on the plan of the civil government of the Roman empire, to witness more pride and arrogance in its rulers, and an increase of vices both in clergy and people. Early in this century, it will be remembered, Constantine, the emperor of Rome, avowed his conversion to Christianity, and as might have been expected that fact produced great changes in the fortunes of the church. It not only put an end to its persecutions but loaded its bishops with new honors and enlarged powers.
12. In saying that the church government was modeled upon the plan of the civil government we would not be understood as saying that the first was a fac simile of the second; there were some differences between them, but the civil divisions of the empire suggested the ecclesiastical divisions.
13. Under Constantine the Roman empire was divided into four prefectures, containing thirteen dioceses, embracing one hundred and sixteen provinces. Officers called praetorian prefects presided over the four prefectures—exarchs over the dioceses and governors over the provinces. The Bishops of Rome, Constantinople, Antioch and Alexandria having gained a pre-eminence over all other metropolitans were made to correspond with the four prefectures by Constantine, and assumed, before the close of the century, the title of patriarchs. Next to the patriarchs stood the bishops, whose jurisdiction extended over several provinces, corresponding to the civil exarchs,[[49]] though the bishops of this dignity did not equal in number the civil exarchs. Next came the metropolitan bishops, whose jurisdiction was limited to a single province. They corresponded to the civil governors of the provinces, whose authority was limited in like manner. After the metropolitans came the arch-bishops,[[50]] and then the bishops. Some of the latter were exempt from the jurisdiction of both metropolitans and arch-bishops, and hence were called independent bishops.
14. Pre-Eminence of the Bishops of Rome.—The distinctions of rank among the bishops of the Christian church first arose largely through the opulence and civil importance of the respective cities and provinces over which they presided—the membership of the church and its wealth usually bearing a just proportion to the size and civil importance of the city in which it was located. It is not surprisingg, therefore, that the metropolitans and patriarchs also struggled for pre-eminence upon the same basis. That basis gave the bishop of Rome great advantage; for, as stated by Gibbon, "the Roman church was the greatest, the most numerous, and, in regard to the west, the most ancient of all the Christian establishments, many of which had received their religion from the pious labors of here missionaries." The fact, too, that for so many ages Rome had been the capital of the great empire led men naturally to give pre-eminence to the church established there.
15. Another thing which went far to establish the supremacy of the bishop of Rome was the tradition that Peter, the chief or "prince" of the apostles, had founded that church; that he became its first bishop; that the bishops succeeding him succeeded to his apostleship and to whatever of pre-eminence he held over his fellow apostles; and that pre-eminence, it is claimed, amounted to the right of presidency over the universal church.
16. Objections to the Claims of the Bishop of Rome.—That Peter, aided by Paul, did found the church at Rome there is little cause to doubt. It is also true that Peter was the chief or president of the apostles; that to him had been given the keys of the kingdom of heaven.[[51]] But that he became the bishop of Rome, or that the bishops of Rome succeeded to the apostleship and to that power which made him the president of the universal church of Christ, we cannot allow.
17. Our first reason for saying that Peter was not bishop of Rome is that the office of apostle and bishop are not identical. If Peter presided at all over the church at Rome he did so by virtue of his apostleship, not by becoming its bishop; but as his apostleship would give him the right to act in minor offices of the church—on the principle that the greater authority includes the lesser—he may have presided for a time over the church at Rome.
18. Our second reason is that according to the very best authority on the subject, one Linus and not Peter was the first bishop of Rome. Irenaeus writing in the second century, says:
The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul] then, upon founding and erecting the church [at Rome], committed the office of administering the church to Linus. Of this Linus, Paul speaks in the epistle to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus [An-a-cle-tus], and after him in the third place from the apostles, Clement received the bishopric.[[52]]
From this it plainly appears that Peter and Paul organized a church at Rome, and as in other cities they appointed a bishop to preside over it. Peter no more became the bishop of Rome than he did of the church at Jerusalem, or Paul of Antioch, Ephesus, or Corinth.
19. The bishop of Rome did not succeed to the apostleship of Peter, much less to the pre-eminence which he held among the apostles; and that for the very good reason that the office of bishop and that of apostle, as remarked above, are not identical. It would require an apostle to succeed an apostle, and as there is no account of an apostle being ordained to succeed to Peter's office, we conclude he had no successor. Here we might let the matter rest, but it will be proper to notice the arguments which are made by those who contend that the bishops of Rome are the true successors to the office and mission of the Apostle Peter.
20. Scripture Basis of the Claims of the Bishop of Rome to Pre-Eminence.—On one occasion Jesus said to his disciples, "Whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered, * * * Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." To this Jesus said: "Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona; for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."[[53]] He then gave to Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven—power to bind and loose on earth and in heaven. The argument is that since Peter, some time before this, had been given the name Cephas, which means a stone,[[54]] therefore when Jesus said, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church," it is claimed that he meant than on Peter he would build his church.[[55]]
21. That this is a clear misconception of the scripture is apparent. If Messiah had meant to found the church on Peter, how unfortunate that he did not say, Thou art Cephas, a stone, and upon thee will I build my church! etc. But he did not. He first assured Peter that the knowledge he had received that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God, was received by revelation from God—"And I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock [principle] will I build my church," etc.; i.e., upon the principle of God revealing to men that Jesus was the Christ[[56]]—on the principle of revelation.
22. Another passage quoted in support of the theory that the apostles had successors in the bishops of Rome is found in the following: Jesus after his resurrection said to his apostles:
All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore and teach all nations; * * * and lo I am with you always even unto the end of the world.[[57]]
This is the argument—
The apostles themselves were only to live the ordinary term of man's life: therefore the commission of preaching and ministering, together with the promise of divine assistance, regards the successors of the apostles, no less than the apostles themselves. This proves that there must have been an uninterrupted series of successors of the apostles, in every age since their time; that is to say, successors to their doctrine, to their jurisdiction, to their orders, and to their mission.[[58]]
Against this argument we put that of the late Apostle Orson Pratt:
We do not admit that the promise—"Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world," had any reference to any persons whatever only the eleven disciples mentioned. * * * * They were the only persons whom he [Jesus] addressed and to whom he made this great promise. "But," says Dr. Milner, "they were only to live the ordinary term of man's life," and consequently he draws the conclusion that the promise could not be fulfilled to them without successors. According to this curious inference of the learned bishop, the Lord must have forsaken the eleven disciples as soon as they died; for if he admit that Jesus continued with them after the period of the death of their mortal bodies, and that he will continue with them even unto the end of the world, then what need would there be for successors in order that the promise might be fulfilled? Prove that Jesus has not been with the eleven apostles from the time of their death until the present time, and that he will not be with them even unto the end of the world, and after you have proved this, you will prove that Jesus has falsified his word; for to be with the successors of the apostles is not to be with them. But whether the apostles have successors or not, Jesus will always be with them, and will bring them with him when he shall appear in his glory, and they shall sit upon thrones and judge the house of Israel during the great Millennium, while Jesus will not only be with them, but will reign with them even unto the end of the world.[[59]]
23. Those who believe that the church was founded on Peter; that he became the bishop of Rome; that those who succeeded to that bishopric became the heir to his apostleship and right of presidency over the universal church, are as weak in their arguments as they are wrong in their conceptions of the foundation of the church and the right of succession in the priesthood.
24. Primacy of the Bishops of Rome Allowed by the Fathers.—It cannot be denied that the early fathers of the Christian church conceded to the bishops of Rome a certain "primacy of order and association;" but they did not concede to them any such authority as the popes wielded from the fifth and sixth centuries onward. The assumption of autocratic powers was resisted in the third century by Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, who contended for the equality and independence of all bishops. (See note 5, end of section.)
25. Opposition of the Bishops of Constantinople.—After Cyprian the Roman pontiffs found their chief opponents in the bishops of Constantinople. That city was made the capital of the empire early in the fourth century; and became a "New Rome." The importance given to the city by this act, and the lavish embellishments and increase of population which followed it, conferred great dignity on the patriarch appointed to preside there; and the council of Constantinople held A. D. 381, conferred upon him the second place among the great bishops of the world—the bishop of Rome being first. The council of Chalcedon, held in the next century [A. D. 451], decreed that the bishop of "New Rome" ought to be equal in power and authority with the bishop of Rome, assigning as a reason that the cities where they resided were equal in rank and dignity.
26. It would appear that second place ill-suited the ambitious prelates of "New Rome," and in this century began that struggle for supremacy between the bishops of the ancient and the new capital of the empire which ended finally in the division of the church. The strife raged with varying fortunes; but in the main the Roman pontiffs were most successful. Still in the last half of the sixth century the bishop of Constantinople, John, called the Faster—on account of the austerity of his life—assumed the title of universal bishop and continued to hold it in spite of all the efforts and threats of the Roman prelates. Early in the seventh century the emperor, Phocas, being displeased with Cyriacus, the bishop of Constantinople, he divested him of the title of universal bishop and conferred it upon the Roman pontiff, Boniface III. "After Phocas' death the prelate of the east re-assumed the title. The two bishops each preserved it, and with equal ambition strove for the pre-eminence."[[60]] Instead of dwelling together as brethren and working for the spread of truth, they spent their time in vain disputes about the extent of their respective jurisdictions and wasted their revenues and strength in conquests and reprisals of each other's ecclesiastical provinces.
27. The Ascendency of the Roman Pontiffs.—Gradually, however, the Roman pontiffs surpassed their eastern competitors in the struggle for power. The first reason for this will be found in the superior activity and that restless energy of the western people. While the east was at a standstill in its missionary enterprises, at this period, the west was using its best endeavors to extend the faith among the barbarous peoples of Germany and Briton; and everywhere they went they taught submission to the decrees of the Roman pontiff. Not only did Rome send missionaries to the barbarians, but the barbarians came to Rome. They came with arms in their hands, and as conquerors, it is true, and in the closing years of the fifth century obtained an easy victory over the western division of imperial Rome. But if imperial Rome was vanquished, there rose above its ruins and above the kingdoms founded upon them by the all-conquering barbarians, papal Rome, in majesty no less splendid than imperial Rome in her palmiest days; and in the course of time, the victorious barbarians bowed in as humble submission to the wand of the popes as their ancestors had to the eagle-mounted standards of the emperors.
28. Another reason why the Roman pontiff outstripped his eastern rival in the struggle for supremacy will be found in the superstitious reverence in which the barbarous nations that fell under the influence of Roman missionaries were accustomed to hold their priests. In the days of paganism in Gaul (France) and Germany the priests reigned over both people and magistrates, controlling absolutely the jurisdiction of the latter. The proselytes to the Christian faith among them, readily transferred that devout obedience which they had given to pagan priests, to the Christian bishops. The latter were not slow in appropriating to themselves all the honors the rude barbarians had before paid to their pagan priests, while the extraordinary reverence—which amounted to worship, according to some authorities—they bestowed upon their chief priest, was readily transferred to the pope. (See note 6, end of section.)
29. The Great Division of the Church in the Ninth Century.—The jealousy of the bishops of Rome and Constantinople finally ended in a division of the church, which remains to this day. It occurred in this manner: About the middle of the ninth century the emperor of the east—Michael—removed Ignatius [Ig-na-shi-us], bishop of Constantinople—whom he accused of treason—and set up one Photius [Fo-shi-us] in his place. Ignatius appealed to the bishop of Rome, Nicolaus I. Nicolaus [Nik-o-lus] called a council, which decided that the election of Photius was irregular and unlawful, and pronounced that he, with all his adherents, was unworthy of Christian communion. Instead of being humbled by this decree, and much less frightened at it, Photius convened a council, and in turn excommunicated the bishop of Rome.
30. To follow the controversies in respect to religion which followed this action, and the contests which arose about the jurisdiction over certain ecclesiastical provinces, to note the criminations and recriminations, the excommunications and counter excommunications would be not only a dreary task but one which the limits of this work preclude. Let it be sufficient to say that the breach made in the church in the middle of the ninth century, and which had its origin in the mutual jealousies of the bishops of Rome and Constantinople, rather than in the wrong done to the deposed Ignatius, or doctrinal difference which afterwards arose—continued to widen and has proven to be a chasm which up to the present it has been impossible to bridge.
31. Means by Which Roman Pontiffs Gained Ascendency.—The popes of Rome, however, easily outstripped the prelates of Constantinople in wealth, in pride, in power, in the magnificence of their courts, in the veneration paid them by their subjects, in the extent of territory they brought under their jurisdiction, in the influence wielded in the affairs of the world. For by encouraging appeals to themselves; by assuming the care of all the churches, as if it were a part of their official duty; by appointing vicars in churches, over which they had no claims to jurisdiction; by assuming to be judges where they should have only been mediators; by requiring accounts to be sent to them of the affairs of foreign churches; by imposing the rites and usages of their own church upon all others, as being of apostolic origin; by insisting that their elevation was due to the pre-eminence of the Apostle Peter—whose successor they claimed to be; by maintaining that their fancied prerogatives belonged to them by divine right; by threatening with excommunication all who would not submit to their decrees;[[61]] by accepting the homage which the barbarians anciently bestowed upon their pagan priests;[[62]] by assuming the temporal power of princes, and obtaining large grants of lands from kings and emperors[[63]] (see note 7, end of section)—by these means was that splendid though corrupt power established, before which monarchs trembled, and which for ages ruled the destinies of Europe.
32. Rise of the Temporal Power of the Pope.—The Roman pontiffs, not satisfied with claiming to hold the keys of heaven, determined through the prestige which this claim gave them to rule the earth.
33. The popes were at first dependent for their election upon the suffrages of the clergy and people of Rome. The election after the days of Constantine had also to receive the approval of the emperor. But in course of time all this was changed. The popes succeeded at last in conferring the privilege of electing a successor to the chair of St. Peter upon the clergy alone; and finally lodged that power in the college of cardinals.[[64]] The next step was to render the election independent of the sanction of the emperors. This, too, was finally accomplished. But no sooner was the church thus made independent of kings and emperors than the former began to dominate the latter, whose power was weakness in comparison with that of the popes.
34. They assumed the right not only to excommunicate and anathematize kings, but to free their subjects from their allegiance, and thus encourage rebellions and regicides. They assumed the power to inflict temporal punishments for violations of God's laws; and then claimed the power to remit those punishments for a consideration paid into the sacred treasury.[[65]] Claiming to be the true successors of the humble fisherman of Galilee—St. Peter—and the vicars of the still more humble Nazarene, their crowns, and thrones and courts as far outshone in splendid worldly grandeur those of kings and emperors, as their pride and arrogance surpassed the pomp and vain glory of the princes of this world; until, at last, the pope exalted himself "above all that is called God, or that is worshiped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God."[[66]] (See notes 9 and 10, end of section.)
NOTES.
1. Apostasy in the Days of the Apostles.—The great apostasy of the Christian church commenced in the first century, while there were yet inspired apostles and prophets in their midst; hence Paul, just previous to his martyrdom, enumerates a great number who had "made shipwreck of their faith," and "turned aside unto vain jangling;" teaching "that the resurrection was already past;" giving "heed to fables and endless genealogies," "doubting about questions and strifes of words whereof came envyings, railings, evil surmisings, perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing the gain is godliness." This apostasy had become so general that Paul declares to Timothy, "that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me;" and again he says "at my first answer, no man stood with me, but all men forsook me;" he further says that "there are many unruly, and vain talkers, deceivers, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake." These apostates, no doubt, pretended to be very righteous; "for," says the apostle, "they profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable and disobedient and unto every good work reprobate."—Orson Pratt.
2. Early Decline of the Church.—About the year of our Lord sixty, he [James] wrote his Catholic epistle. * * * By the practical turn of his doctrine, by his discanting on the vices of the tongue, of partiality to the rich, and of contemptuous treatment of the poor in Christian assemblies, and by his direction against vain swearing, it is but too evident that the church had considerably declined from its original purity and simplicity; and that the craft of Satan, aided ever by human depravity, was wearing out apace the precious fruits of that effusion of the Spirit, which has been described [alluding to the effusion on the day of Pentecost.]—Milner, Vol. I, page 34.
3. Powers and Duties of Bishops—First and Second Century.—We may define in a few words the narrow limits of their [the bishops] original jurisdiction, which was chiefly of a spiritual, though in some instances of a temporal nature. It consisted in the administration of the sacraments and discipline of the church, the superintendency of religious ceremonies which imperceptibly increase in number and variety, the consecration of ecclesiastical ministers to whom the bishops assigned their respective functions, the management of the public fund, and the determination of all such differences as the faithful were unwilling to expose before the tribunal of an idolatrous judge. These powers, during a short period, were exercised according to the advice of the presbyteral college [the Elders of the church], and with the consent and approbation of the assembly of Christians. The primitive bishops were considered only as the first of their equals, and the honorable servants of a free people. Whenever the Episcopal chair became vacant by death, a new president was chosen among the presbyters [elders] by the suffrage of the whole congregation, every member of which supposed himself invested with a sacred and sacerdotal character.—Gibbon (Decline and Fall, ch. xv).
4. Usurpation of Provincial Councils.—As the legislative authority of the particular churches was insensibly superseded by the use of councils, the bishops obtained by their alliance a much larger share of executive and arbitrary power; and as soon as they were connected by a sense of their common interest, they were enabled to attack, with united vigor, the original rights of their clergy [the elders and deacons] and people. The prelates of the third century imperceptibly changed the language of exhortation into that of command, scattered the seeds of future usurpations, and supplied, by scripture allegories and declamatory rhetoric, their deficiency of force and reason. They exalted the unity and power of the church as it was represented in the episcopal office, of which every bishop enjoyed an equal and undivided portion.—Gibbon (Decline and Fall, ch. xv).
5. Cyprian's Opposition to the Bishop of Rome.—Rome experienced from the nations of Asia and Africa a more vigorous resistance to her spiritual than she had formerly done to her temporal dominion. The patriotic Cyprian, who ruled with the most absolute sway the church of Carthage and the provincial synods, opposed with resolution and success the ambition of the Roman pontiff, artfully connected his own cause with that of the eastern bishops, and, like Hannibal, sought out new allies in the heart of Asia. If this punic war was carried on without any effusion of blood, it was owing much less to the moderation than to the weakness of the contending prelates. Invectives and excommunication were then the only weapons; and these, during the progress of the whole controversy, they hurled against each other with equal fury and devotion.—Gibbon (Decline and Fall, Vol. I, ch. xv).
6. Reverence of the Barbarians for the Popes.—That these pagan nations had been accustomed to treat their idolatrous priests with extraordinary reverence is a fact well known. When they became Christians they supposed they must show the same reverence to the Christian priests. Of course they honored their bishops and clergy, as they had before honored their druids; and this reverence disposed them to bear patiently their vices. Every druid was accounted a very great character, and was feared by every one; but the chief druid was actually worshiped. When these people became Christians, they supposed that the bishop of Rome was such a chief druid; and that the must be honored accordingly. And this was one cause why the Roman pontiff obtained in process of time such an ascendency in the western countries. The patriarch of Constantinople rose indeed to a great elevation; but he never attained the high rank and authority of the Roman patriarch. The reason was that the people of the east had not the same ideas of the dignity of a chief priest as the people of the west had.—Schlegel.
7. Grant of the Roman Dukedom to the Popes.—Charles [Charlemagne], being made emperor and sovereign of Rome and its territory, reserved indeed to himself, the supreme power, and the prerogatives of sovereignty; but the beneficial dominion, as it is called, and subordinate authority over the city and its territory, he seems to have conferred on the Romish church. This plan was undoubtedly suggested to him by the Roman pontiff; who persuaded the emperor, perhaps by showing him some ancient though forged papers and documents, that Constantine the Great (to whose place and authority Charles now succeeded) when he removed the seat of empire to Constantinople, committed the old seat of empire, Rome and the adjacent territories or Roman dukedom, to the possession and government of the church, reserving, however, his imperial prerogatives over it; and that, from this arrangement and ordinance of Constantine, Charles could not depart, without incurring the wrath of God and St. Peter.—Mosheim.
8. Copy of an Indulgence.—May our Lord Jesus Christ have mercy on thee, N. N., and absolve thee by the merits of his passion! And I in virtue of the apostolic power that has been confided in me, absolve thee from all ecclesiastical censures, judgments, and penalties which thou mayst have incurred; moreover, from all excesses, sins and crimes that thou mayst have committed, however great and enormous they may be, and from whatsoever cause, were they even reserved for our most holy father the pope and for the apostolic see. I blot out all the stains of inability and all marks of infamy that thou mayst have drawn upon thyself on this occasion. I remit the penalties that thou shouldst have endured in purgatory. I restore thee anew to participation in the sacraments of the church. I incorporate thee afresh in the communion of saints, and re-establish thee in the purity and innocence which thou hadst at thy baptism. So that in the hour of death, the gate by which sinners enter the place of torments and punishments will be closed against thee, and, on the contrary, the gate leading to the paradise of joy shall be open. And if thou shouldst not die for long years, this grace shall remain unalterable until thy last hour shall arrive. In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Amen. (Friar John Tetzel, Commissary, has signed this with his own hand)—D'Aubugne's Hist. Ref., book III, ch. i.
9. The Absolute Power of the Popes (13th century).—All who had any share in the government of the church, were alike sovereign lords; at least in their feelings and dispositions they stiffly maintained with violence and threats, with both wiles and weapons, those fundamental principles of the popish canon law, that the Roman pontiff is the sovereign lord of the whole world, and that all other rulers in church and state have so much power and authority as he sees fit to allow them to have. Resting on this eternal principle as they conceive it to be, the pontiffs arrogate to themselves the absolute power, not only of conferring sacred offices or benefices as they are called, but also of giving away empires, and of divesting kings and princes of their crowns and authority. The more intelligent indeed, for the most part considered [general] councils as superior to the pontiffs; and such of the kings as were not blinded by superstition, restrained the pontiffs from intermeddling with worldly or civil affairs, bid them be contented with the regulation of things sacred, maintained their power to the utmost of their ability and even claimed for themselves supremacy over the church in their respective territories. But they had to do these things cautiously, if they would not learn by experience that the pontiffs had very long arms.—Mosheim.
10. Character of Language Employed by the Popes Against Kings (8th century).—[As a sample of the arrogant language employed by the popes toward kings and emperors, we present the following taken from an epistle of Pope Gregory III, addressed to the eastern emperor Leo III. Leo at the time was opposing with commendable zeal the use of images in divine worship]: "Because you are unlearned and ignorant, we are obliged to write to you rude discourses, but full of sense and the word of God. We conjure you to quit your pride, and hear us with humility. You say that we adore stones, walls and boards. It is not so, my lord; but those symbols make us recollect the persons whose names they bear, and exalt our grovelling minds. We do not look upon them as gods; but if it be the image of Jesus, we say, 'Lord help us.' If it be his mother, we say, 'pray to your Son to save us.' If it be a martyr, we say, 'St. Stephen, pray for us.' We might as having the power of St. Peter, pronounce punishments against you, but as you have pronounced the curse upon yourself, let it stick to you. You write to us to assemble a general council; of which there is no need. Do you cease to persecute images, and all will be quiet. We fear not your threats; for if we go a league from Rome toward Campania, we are secure."—Certainly this is the language of anti-Christ supporting idolatry by pretenses to infallibility, and despising both civil magistrates and ecclesiastical councils.—Milner (Church History, Vol. III, Page 159).
REVIEW.
1. Was the early church organization perpetuated?
2. What reasons can you assign for the failure to do so?
3. What can you say of the early apostasy in the church? (Notes 1, 2).
4. What course was pursued by the apostles in respect to organizing churches?
5. In what light were the apostles regarded by the saints?
6. In what condition were the churches left at the death of the apostles?
7. Was there such a thing as subordination among the churches, or rank among the bishops?
8. What was the manner of electing bishops?
9. What was the nature of the bishop's duties in the early churches? (Note 3).
10. Describe the growth of iniquity among the bishops.
11. Give an account of the origin of metropolitan bishops.
12. Describe the rise and influence of councils. (Note 4).
13. What was the conduct of the lower officials in the church?
14. What was the moral status of the church officials in the 2nd and 3rd centuries?
15. Tell what important change was made in the form of church government in the 4th century?
16. Describe the outlines of Roman government under Constantine.
17. Tell how the church government was made somewhat to correspond with it.
18. What circumstances led to the pre-eminence of the bishop of Rome?
19. What reasons can be urged against the idea that the bishop of Rome succeeded to the apostleship of Peter and the presidency of the universal church?
20. What is the scriptural basis of the claims of the bishops of Rome to pre-eminence?
21. Refute the idea that Jesus built his church upon Peter.
22. Refute the argument that the bishops of Rome must have succeeded to the apostleship of Peter, because Jesus promised to be with the apostles unto the end of the world.
23. To what extent did the early Christian fathers admit a primacy to the bishops of Rome?
24. State the controversy which arose between the bishop of Rome and the bishop of Constantinople.
25. Through what cause did the Roman pontiffs finally force an acknowledgment of their independency? (Note 6).
26. What led to the great division of the church in the 9th century?
27. By what means did the Roman pontiffs outstrip their eastern rivals? (Note 7).
28. What of the sale of indulgences? (Note).
29. What was the climax of papal power?
SECTION V.
1. Simplicity of Public Worship Changed.—The public worship of the primitive Christians, as we have seen,[[67]] was very simple, but its simplicity was soon corrupted. The bishops and other public teachers in the third century, framed their discourses and exhortations according to the rules of Grecian eloquence; "and were better adapted," says a learned writer,[[68]] "to call forth the admiration of the rude multitude who love display, than to amend the heart. And that no folly and no senseless custom might be omitted in their public assemblies, the people were allowed to applaud their orators, as had been practiced in the forums and theaters; nay, they were instructed to applaud the preachers."
2. This was a wide departure from that spirit of meekness and humility enjoined by Messiah upon his ministers. And when to these customs was added the splendid vestments of the clergy, the magnificence of the temples, with all the pageantry of altars, surrounded with burning tapers, clouds of incense, beautiful images, the chanting of choirs, processions and other mummeries without number—one sees but little left of that simple worship instituted by the Messiah and his apostles. (See note 1, end of section).
3. About the third century incense began to be used. The Christians of the first and second centuries abhorred the use of incense in public worship, as being a part of the worship of idols.[[69]] It first became a custom to use it at funerals, against offensive smells; then in public worship, to disguise the bad air of crowded assemblies; then at the consecration of bishops and magistrates, and by these steps at last degenerated into a superstitious rite.
4. In the fourth century matters became still worse. "The public supplications by which the pagans were accustomed to appease their gods, were borrowed from them, and were celebrated in many places with great pomp. To the temples, to water consecrated in due form, and the images of holy men, the same efficacy was ascribed to the pagan temples, statues and lustrations before the advent of Christ."[[70]]
5. The Worship of Martyrs.—In the third century also arose the worship of martyrs. It is true that worship or adoration was relative, and a distinction was made between the worship of martyrs and the worship paid to God; but by degrees the worship of the martyrs was made to conform with that which the pagans had in former times paid to their gods.[[71]] This was done out of indiscreet eagerness to allure the pagans to embrace Christianity.[[72]] (See note 2, end of section).
6. Decline of Spiritual Gifts.—While pagan ceremonies and rites were increasing in the church, the gifts and graces characteristic of apostolic times, seemed to have gradually departed from it. Protestant writers insist that the age of miracles closed with the fourth or fifth century, and that after that the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost must not be looked for. Catholic writers, on the other hand, insist that the power to perform miracles has always continued in the church; yet those spiritual manifestations which they describe after the fourth and fifth centuries savor of invention on the part of the priests and childish credulity on the part of the people; or else what is claimed to be miraculous falls far short of the power and dignity of those spiritual manifestations which the primitive church was wont to witness.
7. The virtues and prodigies ascribed to the bones and other relics of the martyrs and saints are puerile in comparison with the healings, by the anointing with oil and the laying on of hands, speaking in tongues, interpretations, prophecies, revelations, casting out devils in the name of Jesus Christ; to say nothing of the gifts of faith, wisdom, knowledge, discernment of spirits, etc.,—common in the church in the days of the days of the apostles.[[73]]
8. Nor is there anything in the scriptures or in reason that would lead one to believe that they were to be discontinued. Still this plea is made by modern Christians—explaining the absence of these spiritual powers among them—that the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were only intended to accompany the proclamation of the gospel during the first few centuries until the church was able to make its way without them, and then they were to be done away. It is sufficient to remark upon this that it is assumption pure and simple, and stands without warrant either of scripture or right reason; and proves that men had so far changed the religion of Jesus Christ that it became a form of godliness without the power thereof. (See notes 3 and 4, end of section).
9. Causes and Manner of Excommunications.—It appears to have been the custom of the apostles in the case of members of the church grievously transgressing the moral law of the gospel to require repentance and confession before the church; and in the event of a stubborn adherence to sin the offender was excommunicated, that is, he was excluded from the communion of the church and the fellowship of the saints. For the crimes of murder, idolatry and adultery, some of the churches excommunicated those guilty of them forever; in other churches they were received back, but only after long and painful probation.
10. The manner in which excommunication was performed in apostolic times is not clear, but there is every reason to believe the process was very simple. In the course of time, however, this simple order of excommunication was changed, by being burdened with many rites and ceremonies borrowed from pagan sources.[[74]] It was not enough that the fellowship of the saints be withdrawn from the offender and he left to the mercy of God, or the buffetings of Satan, according as he was worthy of the one or the other; but the church must load him down with anathemas too terrible to contemplate. The power of excommunication, too, eventually, passed from the body of the church into the hands of the bishops, and finally into those of the pope. At first excommunication meant the loss of the fellowship of the saints, and such other punishments as God himself might see fit to inflict; the church leaving the Lord to be the minister of his own vengeance. But gradually it came to mean in some instances banishment from home and country, the confiscation of property, the loss not only of religious fellowship with the saints, but the loss of civil rights; and the rights of Christian burial. In the case of a monarch excommunication absolved his subjects from their allegiance; and in the case of a subject, it robbed him of the protection of his sovereign. No anathema was so terrible but it was pronounced against the excommunicated, until the sweet mercies of God were overshadowed by the black pall of man's inhumanity.
11. Admixture of Pagan Philosophy with the Christian Religion.—The thing which contributed most to the subversion of the Christian religion was the employment of pagan philosophy to explain Christian doctrine. This brought about an admixture of these two discordant elements that while it failed to purge pagan philosophy of its errors, corrupted the doctrines of Christ and laid the foundations for those false notions in respect of God which obtain in the so-called Christian world unto this day.
12. Christian Doctrine Respecting God.—The scriptural doctrine in regard to God—and of course, that is the true Christian doctrine—is this: There is a being of infinite goodness and power, in form like man—for man was created in his image[[75]]—who, with his Son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost, constitute the great creative, and governing power or grand Presidency of the heavens and the earth. As persons, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are separate and distinct, yet one in attributes, one in purpose; the mind of one being the mind of the others.
13. That they are distinct and separate as persons was plainly manifested at the baptism of Jesus. On that occasion, as Jesus came up out of the water, John saw the Holy Ghost descend upon him, and at the same time the voice of the Father was heard speaking from heaven, saying: "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."[[76]] Here we have the persons of the Godhead present but distinct from each other. Stephen, the martyr, in the presence of the angry crowd which took his life, saw the heavens open and "Jesus standing on the right hand of God."[[77]] Here, too, the Father and Son are seen and, according to the testimony of the holy man, they are distinct personalities.
14. Yet Jesus said to the Jews: "I and my Father are one. * * * Believe that the Father is in me and I in him."[[78]] But this oneness cannot have reference to the persons of the Father and of the Son, which we have seen are distinct. Their oneness, therefore, must consist in a unity of attributes, purposes, glory, power. Jesus in his great prayer just previous to his betrayal, said, in praying for his disciples: "Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one. * * * That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us."[[79]] Clearly it is not the uniting of the persons of his disciples into one person or body that Jesus prayed for; but he would have them of one mind and one spirit, as he and the Father are one. So also he had no wish that the person of one of his disciples should be crowded into that of another, and so on until they all became one person or body—but "as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee." That is, while remaining distinct as persons, Messiah would have the mind or Spirit of God in his disciples as it was in him, and as his was in the Father, that God might be all in all—the Father to be honored as the head and worshiped in the name of the Son; and the Holy Ghost to be revered as the witness and messenger of both the Father and the Son[[80]]—the bond of union between God and men, as it is between the Father and the Son; in one word to be God in man.
15. Each of these persons in scripture is called God; and taken together they are God, or constitute the grand Presidency of heaven and earth, and as such are one, as well as in attributes. (See note 5, end of section).
16. The spirit of the Son had an existence with the Father before he was born in the flesh;[[81]] and indeed it was by him, and through him—under the direction of the Father—that the worlds were made;[[82]] "and without him was not anything made that was made."[[83]]
17. Such is the simple doctrine of the Godhead taught to the primitive Saints by the apostles. It was implicitly believed as God's revelation to them upon the subject, and they were content to allow the revelation to excite their reverence without arousing their curiosity to the point where men of finite minds attempt to grasp the infinite, or circumscribe God in their understandings. In a short time, however, a change came, and men sought to explain the revelation that God had given of himself by the vain babblings of pagan science; and that led not only to much contention within the church, but to the adoption in the Christian creed of erroneous ideas in respect of Deity.
18. Gnostic and "New Platonic" Philosophy.—In order to give a clear explanation of this matter, it will be necessary to invite the attention of the student to Gnosticism and the Eclectic or "New Platonic" philosophy which arose in the early Christian centuries. First, then, as to Gnosticism. The Gnostics taught there existed from eternity a Being that embodied within himself all the virtues; a Being who is the purest light and is diffused throughout boundless space, which they called Pleroma. This Being, after dwelling alone and in absolute repose for an infinite period, by an operation purely mental, or by acting upon himself, produced two spirits[[84]] of different sexes. By the marriage of these two spirits others of similar nature were produced, who, in their turn, produced others. Thus a celestial family was formed in the pleroma. These emanations from Deity, whether directly or from those spirits first begotten by Deity acting upon himself, were called Aeons, a term which was doubtless employed to signify their eternal duration, and perhaps the mode of their production.
19. Beyond this pleroma where God and his family dwelt, existed a rude and unformed mass of matter, heaving itself continually in wild commotion.[[85]] This mass of the Aeons, wandering beyond the pleroma, discovered and reduced to order and beauty and then peopled it with human beings and with animals of different species. This builder of the world the Gnostics called the Demiurge [Dem-i-urge].[[86]] Though possessed of many shining qualities, the Demiurge was by nature arrogant and domineering, hence he claims absolute authority over the new world to the exclusion altogether of the authority of the supreme God, and requires mankind to pay divine honors exclusively to him.
20. Man, according to the Gnostic philosophy, is composed of a terrestial, and therefore a vicious body; and of a celestial spirit, which in some sense is a particle of the Deity himself. The spirit is oppressed by the body, which is supposed to be the seat of all the lusts and other evils that flesh is heir to, and by the spirit of man is drawn away from the knowledge and worship of the true God, and led to pay reverence to the Demiurge and his associates. From this wretched bondage of evil God labors to rescue his offspring. But the Demiurge and his associates, eager to retain their power, resist the divine purpose and labor to efface all knowledge of the supreme Deity. The philosophy maintained, however, that God would ultimately prevail; and having restored to liberty most of the spirits now imprisoned in bodies, he will dissolve the fabric of the world. Then the primitive tranquility will return, and God will reign with the redeemed spirits in perfect happiness to all eternity.[[87]]
21. When the followers of this philosophy became converted to Christianity, they looked upon Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost as the latest Aeons or emanations from the Deity, sent forth to emancipate men from the tyranny of matter by revealing to them the true God; to fit them, though perfect knowledge to enter the sacred pleroma. In connection with this, however, some of these Christian Gnostics held that Jesus had no body at all, but was an unsubstantial phantom that constantly deceived the senses of those who thought they associated with him. Others of them said there doubtless was a man called Jesus born of human parents, upon whom one of the Aeons, called Christ, descended at his baptism, having quitted the pleroma for that purpose; but who, previous to the crucifixion of the man Jesus, withdrew from him and returned to the Deity. [See note 7, end of section.]
22. The Two Modes of Life to which Gnosticism led.—The Gnostic philosophy led to two widely different methods of life; one extremely ascetic and the other as extremely profligate. Gnostics believed matter to be utterly malignant, the source of all evil, therefore it was recommended by one party that the body should be weakened by fastings and the practice of other austerities, that the spirit might enjoy the greater liberty and be better able to contemplate heavenly things. The other party, on the contrary, maintained that men could safely indulge all their appetites and lustful desires, and that there was no moral difference in human actions. One leader of this persuasion—Carpocrates of Alexandria, who flourished in the second century—not only gave his disciples license to sin, but imposed on them the necessity of sinning, by teaching them the way to eternal salvation was open to those souls only which committed all kinds of enormity and wickedness. Such were the errors that grew out of Gnosticism, and which contributed to the corruption of the gospel soon after it was founded by the preaching of the apostles.
23. The New Platonic Philosophy.—The Eclectic or "New Platonic" philosophy which came into existence in the early Christian centuries, was compounded from all the systems which had preceded it, though following Plato more closely than any other teacher, for which reason its disciples assumed the name of New Platonics. The founders of this philosophy professed simply to follow truth, gathering up whatever was accordant with it, regardless of its source, or in what school it was taught—hence the name eclectic. Still the teachings of Plato formed the basis of their doctrines, and they embraced most of his dogmas concerning God, the human soul and the universe. We shall therefore learn the fundamental principles of the Eclectics by considering what the Athenian sage taught on these subjects.
24. Plato held that God and matter existed from all eternity—that they were co-eternal. Before the creation of the world matter had in itself a principle of motion, but without end or laws. This principle of motion Plato called the immortal soul of the universe. God wished to give form to this mass of eternal matter, regulate its motion, subject it to some end and to certain laws. Everything which exists in heaven or in earth, except Deity and unorganized matter, according to Plato's philosophy, had a beginning—there was a time when it did not exist; but there never was a time when the idea, that is, the form or plan of the thing, did not exist in the mind of Deity. This idea or intelligence existing with God from all eternity, is what Plato called the Logos—the word or intelligence of Deity. Many in the age of which we write saw in these doctrines a threefold expression of the divine nature—viz., the First Cause, the Reason or Logos, and the Spirit of the Universe; while others saw in these three principles three Gods, united with each other by a mysterious and ineffable generation; in which the Logos is regarded in the character of the Son of an Eternal Father, and the creator and governor of the work.[[88]]
25. Plato's Logos, John's Word Considered Identical.—In the introduction of St. John's gospel, commencing—"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"—in this Word, which the Apostle in another verse of his opening chapter declares was "made flesh and dwelt among men,"—plainly alluding to the pre-existence and birth of Messiah—the New Platonics saw the incarnation of the Logos of Plato, and according to the fashion of the times attempted to harmonize the revelations of God with the philosophy of men. (See note 8, end of section).
26. The Rank of the Logos in the Trinity.—It was trying to harmonize the revelations of God with these systems of philosophy which created the agitation in respect to the rank of the Logos, or Son of God, in the divine trinity; and the nature of the Trinity itself—that is, whether the three persons, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are distinct and separate though of the same substance, or merely the same substance under different aspects.
27. The Orthodox View.—The view held to be orthodox was that in God there are three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit; each really distinct yet so united as to constitute but one personal God—of the same substance, and equal as to their eternity, power, and glory and all other perfections.
28. Sabellian Theory.—On one side of this orthodox theory stood the doctrine of Sabellius [Sa-bel-i-us], who held that there was but one divine person in the Godhead, and that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were but different aspects of the same God, and that the Trinity was one of names, merely, not of distinct persons.[[89]] The Logos, in hi theory, is an attribute of Deity rather than a person; and its incarnation is reduced to an energy or inspiration of the Divine wisdom which filled the soul and directed all the actions of the man Jesus.
29. The Arian Theory.—On the other side of the orthodox line stood the theory of Arius [A-ri-us], who while he maintained a real distinction in the persons of the Divine Trinity, taught that the Son was created out of nothing by the will of the Father; and though the longest astronomical periods would not measure the time of his duration, yet there had been a time when he was not. Upon the Son thus created the Father bestowed great glory, yet he shone only by a reflected light, and governed the universe only in obedience to the will of the Father; in other words, the Son was subordinate to the Father, unequal as to eternity, power and glory.
30. The Nicene Council.—It was to still the rising commotion which arose in the church through the violent discussion of these several theories that the Emperor Constantine assembled the Council of Nice [Nes]. A. D. 325. In that council the theories of Arius were condemned and the orthodox creed stated thus:
We believe in one God, the Father, Almighty, the maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, only begotten, (that is) of the substance of the Father; God of God, Light of Light; Very God of Very God; begotten not made; of the same substance with the Father, by whom all things were made, that are in heaven and that are in earth: who for us men, and for our salvation, descended and was incarnate, and became man; suffered and rose again the third day, ascended into the heavens and will come to judge the living and the dead, and in the Holy Spirit. But those who say there was a time when he [the Son] was not, and that he was not before he was begotten, and that he was made out of nothing, or affirm that he is of any other substance or essence, of that the Son of God was created, and mutable, or changeable, the Catholic Church doth pronounce accursed.[[90]]
31. Athanasius [Ath-a-na-shi-us], who was the most active opponent of Arius, thus explains the Nicene doctrine, in what is commonly known as the creed of Athanasius.[[91]]
We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity and Unity, neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost is all one: the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate; and the Holy Ghost uncreate. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible. The Father eternal the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet these are not three eternals; but one eternal. As also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated; but one uncreated and one incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty; and yet they are not three Almighties, but one Almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, and yet they are not three Gods but one God.[[92]] (See note 7, end of section.)
32. Immateriality of God.—The evil which grew out of these contentions in respect to Deity is found in the conclusion arrived at that God is an incorporeal, that is to say, an immaterial being; without body, without parts, without passions. The following is the Roman Catholic belief in respect to God:
There is but one God, the creator of heaven and earth, the supreme, incorporeal, uncreated being, who exists of himself, and is infinite in all his attributes, etc.[[93]]
The Church of England teaches in her articles of faith:
There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts or passions; of infinite power, wisdom and goodness,[[94]] etc.
This plainly teaches the great error of the immateriality of God; and, indeed, that is the orthodox notion in respect to Deity, notwithstanding it finds so many express contradictions in the scriptures.
33. In the work of creation, God proposed to make man in his own image and likeness, and the proposition was executed.[[95]] Moreover, Jesus is said to be the brightness of God's glory, "and the express image of his person."[[96]] Again it is said, that Jesus "being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God."[[97]] All this teaches that God has a form similar to that of man's; that he has organs, dimensions, proportions; that he occupies space and has relation to other objects in space; that he moves from place to place; and that so far as his actual person is concerned he cannot be in two places at one and the same instant. The question here arises as to those passages of scripture which declare the omnipresence of God, a thing which is impossible—speaking of his person—if what is here contended for be true. But God may be and is omnipresent by his influence, by his power, if not in his person. While his person is confined to one place at a time, as other substances are, his influence extends throughout the universe, as does also his power, and through this means he is omnipotent and omnipresent.
34. To assert the immateriality of God is not only to deny his personality, but his very existence; for an immaterial substance cannot exist. It can have no relation to time or space, no form, no extension, no parts. An immaterial substance is simply no substance at all; it is a contradiction of terms to say a substance is immaterial—it is the description of an infinite vacuum; and the difference between the atheist and the orthodox Christian is one of terms, not of fact; the former says, "There is no God;" the latter in his creed says, "God is nothing."[[98]] (See note 10, end of section.)
35. Such were the absurdities into which the vain philosophies of the pagan led the Christian even in the early centuries of the Christian era; so that through these errors they even denied the Lord who bought them.[[99]]
NOTES.
1. Christian Worship in the Fifth Century.—Public worship everywhere assumed a form more calculated for show and for the gratification of the eye. Various ornaments were added to the sacerdotal garments in order to increase the veneration of the people for the clerical order. The new forms of hymns, prayers and public fasts, are not easily enumerated. * * * In some places it was appointed, that the praises of God should be sung perpetually, day and night, the singers succeeding each other without interruption; as if the Supreme Being took pleasure in clamor and noise, and in the flatteries of men. The magnificence of the temples had no bounds. Splendid images were placed in them; and among these * * * the image of the Virgin Mary, holding her infant in her arms, occupied the most conspicuous place. Altars and repositories for relics, made of solid silver if possible, were procured in various places; from which may easily be conjectured, what must have been the splendor and the expense of the other sacred utensils.—Mosheim.
2. Martyr Worship (3rd century).—When Gregory [surnamed Thaumaturgus on account of the numerous miracles he is said to have wrought—born in Pontus, in the second decade of the third century] perceived that the ignorant and simple multitude persisted in their idolatry, on account of the sensitive pleasures and delights it afforded, he allowed them in celebrating the memory of the holy martyrs, to indulge themselves, and give a loose to pleasure, (i.e., as the thing itself, and both what precedes and what follows, place beyond all controversy, he allowed them at the sepulchres of the martyrs on their fast days, to dance, to use sports, to indulge in conviviality, and do all things that the worshipers of idols were accustomed to do in their temples, on their festival days), hoping that in process of time, they would spontaneously come over to a more becoming and more correct manner of life.—Nyssen's Life of Gregory Thaumaturgus.
3. On the Continuance of Spiritual Gifts.—The affliction of devils, the confusion of tongues, deadly poisons and sickness [all of which were to be overcome by the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit] are all curses which have been introduced into the world by the wickedness of man. The blessings of the gospel are bestowed to counteract these curses. Therefore, as long as these curses exist, the promised signs [Mark xvi: 17, 18] are needed to counteract their evil consequences. If Jesus had not intended that the blessings should be as extensive and unlimited in point of time as the curses, he would have intimated something to that effect in his word. But when he makes a universal promise of certain powers, to enable every believer in the gospel throughout the world to overcome certain curses, entailed upon man, because of wickedness, it would be the rankest kind of infidelity not to believe the promised blessing necessary, as long as the curses abound among men.—Orson Pratt.
4. When and Why the Spiritual Gifts Ceased in the Church.—It does not appear that these extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit [speaking of I Cor. xii] were common in the church for more than two or three centuries. We seldom hear of them after that fatal period when the Emperor Constantine called himself a Christian; and from a vain imagination of promoting the Christian cause thereby heaped riches, and power, and honor upon Christians in general, but in particular upon the Christian clergy. From this time they [the spiritual gifts] almost totally ceased; very few instances of the kind were found. The cause of this was not (as has been supposed) because there was no more occasion for them, because all the world was become Christians. This is a miserable mistake; not a twentieth part of it was then nominally Christian. The real cause of it was the love of many, almost all Christians, so-called, was waxed cold. The Christians had no more of the Spirit of Christ than the other heathens. The Son of Man when he came to examine his church, could hardly find faith upon the earth. This was the real cause why the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were no longer to be found in the Christian Church—because the Christians were turned heathens again and only had a dead form left.—John Wesley (Wesley's Works, Vol. vii. Sermon 89, Pages 26, 27.)
5. Illustration of the Oneness of the Godhead.—The Godhead may be further illustrated by a council, composed of three men—all possessing equal wisdom, knowledge and truth, together with equal qualifications in every respect. Each person would be a separate, distinct person or substance from the other two, and yet the three would form but one council. Each alone possesses, by supposition, the same wisdom and truth that the three united or the one council possesses. The union of the three men in one council would not increase the knowledge of wisdom of either. Each man would be one part of the council when reference is made to his person; but the wisdom and truth of each man would be the whole wisdom and truth of the council, and not a part. If it were possible to divide truth, and other qualities of a similar nature into fractions, so that the Father should have the third part of truth, the third part of wisdom, the third part of knowledge, the third part of love, while the Son and the Holy Spirit possessed the other two-thirds of these qualities or affections, then neither of these persons could make "one God," "but only a part of a God." But because the divisibility of wisdom, truth or love is impossible, the whole of these qualities dwell in the Father—the whole dwells in the Son—the whole is possessed by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is one part of the Godhead in essence; but the whole of God in wisdom, truth, and other similar qualities. If a truth could become three truths, distinct from each other, by dwelling in three substances, then there would be three Gods instead of one. But as it is, the trinity is three in essence, but one in truth and other similar principles. The oneness of the Godhead, as described in the scriptures, never was intended to apply to the essence, but only to the perfections and other attributes.—Orson Pratt.
6. Messiah the Author of the Gospel and Creator of the World.—Christ is the author of this gospel, of this earth, of men and women, of all the posterity of Adam and Eve, and of every living creature that lives upon the face of the earth, that flies in the heavens, that swims in the waters, or dwells in the field. Christ is the author of salvation to all this creation, to all things pertaining to this terrestial globe we occupy.—Brigham Young (Discourse, August 8, 1852).
7. The Phantom Theory of the Gnostics.—While the blood of Christ yet smoked on Mount Calvary, the Docetus [the name given to the Gnostic Christians] invented the impious and extravagant hypothesis, that, instead of issuing from the womb of the virgin, he had descended on the banks of the Jordan in the form of perfect manhood; that he had imposed on the senses of his enemies, and of his disciples; and that the ministers of Pilate had wasted their impotent rage on an airy phantom, who seemed to expire on the cross, and, after three days, to rise from the dead.—Gibbon.
8. The Fashion of Uniting Discordant Elements in Philosophy and Religion.—When we come to consider the state of philosophy at that time [the early Christian centuries], and the fashion which prevailed of catching at anything new, and of uniting discordant elements into fanciful systems, we shall not be surprised to find the doctrines of the gospel disguised and altered, and that, according to the language of that age, many new heresies were formed.—Burton's Brampton Lectures.
9. The Mysteries of Religion Deepened Through Attempted Explanation.—That devout and reverential simplicity of the first ages of the church, which taught men to believe when God speaks, and obey when God commands, appeared to most of the doctors of this age [the fifth century] to be unphilosophical and becoming only in the vulgar. Many of those, however, who attempted to explain and illustrate these doctrines, opened the way rather to disputation than for a rational faith and a holy life; for they did not so much explain, as involve in greater obscurity, and darken with ambiguous terms and incomprehensible distinctions the deep mysteries of revealed religion. And hence arose abundant matter for difficulties, contentions and animosities which flowed down to succeeding ages, and which can scarcely be removed by the efforts of human power. It hardly need be remarked, that some, while pressing their adversaries, incautiously fell into errors of an opposite character which were no less dangerous.—Mosheim.
10. Immaterialists are Atheists.—There are two classes of atheists in the world. One class denies the existence of God in the most positive language; the other denies his existence in duration or space. One says, "There is no God;" the other says "God is not here or there, any more than he exists now and then." The infidel says, "There is no such a substance as God." The immaterialist says, "There is such a substance as God, but it is 'without parts.'" The atheist says, "There is no such substance as spirit." The immaterialist says, "A spirit, though he lives and acts, occupies no room and fills no space, in the same way and after the same manner as matter not even so much as does the minutest grain of sand." The atheist does not seek to hide his infidelity; but the immaterialist, whose declared belief amounts to the same thing as the atheist's endeavors to hide his infidelity under the shallow covering of a few words.—Orson Pratt (Absurdities of Immaterialism, page 11).
REVIEW.
1. Describe the simplicity of public worship in early Christian times. (Note 2, end of section III.)
2. What changes in the public worship were gradually introduced? (Note 1).
3. What was the object in introducing these changes?
4. In what manner was incense introduced into public worship?
5. What especially obnoxious practice became prevalent in the 4th century?
6. What can you say of the worship of martyrs? (Note 2).
7. Give an account of the decline of spiritual gifts in the church.
8. On this point what difference exists between Catholics and Protestants?
9. What can you say of Protestant excuses for the absence of the spiritual gifts of the gospel? (Notes 3 and 4).
10. What does the absence of spiritual gifts prove?
11. In what way were grievous offenses punished by the church?
12. What ceremonies finally became associated with excommunication?
13. What temporal punishments were sometimes associated with excommunication?
14. What can you say of the mingling of pagan philosophy with the Christian religion?
15. Give the scriptural doctrine respecting God.
16. Give an instance from scripture where the personages of the Godhead are seen to be distinct.
17. In what does the oneness of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost consist? (Note 5.)
18. How did the early Christians regard the scriptural doctrine of the Godhead?
19. By what means did men at last try to explain the revelation?
20. Give the Gnostic idea respecting God.
21. How did the Gnostics account for the creation of the world?
22. In what way did the Gnostics avoid making God the author of evil?
23. What is the nature of man according to the Gnostic philosophy?
24. What did the Gnostic philosophy look to as the culmination between the struggle of man with evil?
25. In what light did the Gnostics look upon Jesus Christ?
26. What fanciful theory did some of them hold respecting him? (Note 7).
27. To what two modes of life did the Gnostic philosophy lead?
28. What was the new Platonic philosophy?
29. What was Plato's idea of God?
30. In what way was there an attempt to harmonize the philosophy of Plato with the writings of St John?
31. State the "orthodox" doctrine respecting Deity in those times.
32. State the Sabellian theory.
33. Give an illustration of it.
34. State the Arian theory.
35. In what way did the Nicene Council decide the trinity controversy?
36. What confession did Athanasius make as to his inability to comprehend the Nicene creed?
37. What great error resulted from the controversy on the nature of Deity?
38. What passages of scripture refute the "orthodox" Christian notion that God is immaterial?
39. How from reason would you refute the notion that God is an immaterial Being?
SECTION VI.
1. Departure from Moral Precepts of the Gospel.—There was as wide a departure from the moral precepts of the gospel among the Christians as there was from the doctrines, ordinances and government of the church. From the nature of the reproofs, the admonitions and warnings to be found in the epistles of the apostles to the churches, one may see that while they yet lived the saints were prone to wickedness, and great errors in regard to moral conduct crept into the churches. The writings of the early fathers of the church who succeeded the apostles also bear witness to the continuance and increase of these errors.
2. Double Rule of Life.—As early as the second century the idea became prevalent that messiah had prescribed a twofold rule of moral conduct; the one ordinary, the other extraordinary; one for those engaged in ordinary affairs of life, the other for persons of leisure and such as desired a higher glory in the future life. This led the early Christian doctors to divide whatsoever had been taught by the apostles in respect to Christian life and morals, into precepts and counsels. The precepts were those laws which were equally binding on all men the counsels were binding only on those who aspired to a closer union with God.
3. Of course there soon appeared a class of persons who sought to attain to this closer union; and they adopted the method of life practiced among the pagan philosophers who wished to excel in virtue. They considered many things forbidden to them which were proper for ordinary Christians to indulge in; such as wine, flesh, matrimony, and secular business. They thought the holiness of life they aspired to could sooner be attained by emaciating the body by fastings, watchings, excessive toil, hunger, insufficient and coarse raiment. In short, they "thought to merit heaven by making earth a hell." Those who engaged in this kind of life soom came to distinguish themselves by their dress as well as by the austerity of their lives. They soon began to withdraw themselves from association with their fellow Christians and the world and retire to the deserts and the wilderness, where by severe meditation they sought to abstract their minds from external objects and those things which minister to sensual delights. They sometimes lived alone but oftener in association with those devoted to the same manner of life.
4. When peace was assured to the Christian church, early in the fourth century, the number of those who became ambitious for this austere righteousness greatly increased, until vast multitudes of monk and sacred virgins spread with remarkable rapidity throughout Christendom. About the year 305, A. D., the practice of collecting these people into associated communities and regulating their mode of living by fixed rules was introduced. St Anthony of Egypt was the prime mover in this work. Thus monasteries and nunneries were established; and in a short time the east, especially, swarmed with persons who abandoned the conveniences, associations and business of ordinary life, to pine away in these institutions and hardships and sufferings, in order to attain a closer communion with God and a more excellent salvation.
5. Origin of the False Idea of Moral Life.—"The Christian church would have remained free from these numerous tortures of the mond and body," remarks Dr. Mosheim, "had not that great and fascinating doctrine of the ancient philosophy gained credence among Christians that to attain to happiness and communion with God, the soul must be freed from the influence of the body, and for this purpose the body must be subdued."[[100]]
6. As a further evidence that these false notions of life and virtue came from the pagan philosophy rather than from the Christian religion, we quote again from Mosheim:
The causes of this institution [austere method of life] are at hand. First, the Christians did not like to appear inferior to the Greeks, the Romans, and the other people; among whom were many philosophers and sages, who were distinguished from the vulgar by their dress and their whole mode of life, and who were held in high honor. Now among these philosopher (as is well known), none better pleased the Christians than the Platonists and Pythagoreans [Pyth-a-go-re-ans]; who are known to have recommended two modes of living, the one for philosophers who wished to excel in virtue, and the other for the people engaged in the common affairs of life.[[101]]
The Platonists prescribed the following rules for philosophers:
The mind of a wise man must be withdrawn, as far as possible, from the contagious influence of the body, and as the oppressive load of the body and social intercourse are most adverse to this design, therefore all sensual gratifications are to be avoided; the body is to be sustained or rather mortified, with coarse and slender fare; solitude is to be sought for; and the mind is to be self-collected, and absorbed in contemplation, so as to be detached as much as possible from the body. Whoever lives in this manner, shall in the present life have converse with God; and when freed from the load of the body, shall ascend without delay to the celestial mansions and shall not need, like the souls of other men, to undergo purgation.[[102]]
7. It will be remembered that the Christians adopted the pagan philosophy—of which the teachings of Plato were the basis—and employed it to explain the Christian religion. It is not surprising, therefore, that they adopted its moral precepts, and by so doing corrupted that reasonable and healthy moral life enjoined upon all alike in the gospel of Jesus Christ.
8. Celibacy of the Clergy.—From the same source came the celibacy of the clergy. It was considered that those who lived in wedlock were more subject to the assaults of evil spirits than those who lived in celibacy; hence those who were appointed to teach and govern others were supposed to be all the better qualified for their work if they had nothing to do with conjugal life. It was a matter, however, which during the first centuries was not strictly enjoined by any formal regulations of the church; it was left for Pope Gregory VII in the eleventh century to bind such a wicked regulation upon the clergy by express law. In the third century the most shameful abuses arose out of this doctrine; for men sought to fulfill its requirements with the least violence to their inclinations, and many of those who had taken upon themselves vows of chastity, took to their houses and even to their beds some one of those holy females under like vows of chastity, yet maintained that there was no improper relations between them. It is but just to say that many bishops condemned this shameful practice but it was some time before the church was rid of it, and the scandal it created, and even when such practices did cease openly it may well be doubted if it really ceased among those forced into such unnatural conditions.
9. Deceiving and Lying Accounted Virtues.—Another evil which went far toward corrupting the church was the idea that to deceive and lie are virtues when religion can be promoted by them. This pernicious doctrine was accepted early in the first centuries and it accounts for the existence and circulation of that great mass of childish fable and falsehood respecting the infancy and youth of Messiah and the miraculous, wonder-working power of the relics of the saints and martyrs, from which the cause of the Christian religion has suffered so much. "If some inquisitive person were to examine the conduct and the writings of the greatest and most pious teachers of this century" [the fourth], writes Dr. Mosheim, "I fear he would find about all of them infected with this leprosy. I cannot except Ambrose, nor Hilary, nor Augustine, nor Gregory Nazianzen nor Jerome."[[103]]
10. Immoral Condition of the Church in General.—The wickedness of the clergy in the last centuries, the ambition of the bishops and their imitating in their lives the voluptuousness of princes, we have already noted in section four of part II, and therefore little need be said here further than to remark that those vices very rapidly increased. As time rolled on worldly prosperity seemed to relax the nerves of discipline. "Fraud, envy and malice prevailed in every congregation. The presbyters aspired to the episcopal office, which every day became an object more worthy their ambition. The bishops who contended with each other for ecclesiastical pre-eminence, appeared by their conduct to claim a secular and tyrannical power in the church; and the lively faith which still distinguished the Christians from the Gentiles was shown much less in their lives than in their controversial writings."[[104]]
11. Sometimes these struggles for place and power resulted in war and bloodshed. Such was the case in the fourth century when a new pope was to be elected to succeed Liberius [Li-be-ri-us]. One party in Rome was for one Damasus [Dam-a-sus], and another party for Ursicinus [Ur-si-ci-nus]. The contest resulted in a bloody conflict, houses were burned and many lost their lives. In one church alone one morning after the conflict there were found one hundred and thirty-seven corpses to bear witness to the violence of the struggle for what was claimed to be the office of viceregent of God on earth.
12. Moral Condition of the Church in the Fourth Century.—In the fourth century—"If we look at the lives and morals of the Christians—we shal find, as heretofore, that good men were commingled with bad, yet the number of the bad began gradually to increase, so that the truly pious and godly appeared more rare. when there was no more to fear from enemies from without; when the character of most bishops was tarnished with arrogance, luxury, effeminacy, animosity, resentments, and other defects; when the lower clergy neglected their proper duties, and were more attentive to controversies, than to the promotion of piety and the instruction of the people; when vast numbers were induced not by a rational conviction, but by the fear of punishment and the hope of worldly advantage to enroll themselves as Christians, how can it surprise us, that on all sides the vicious appeared a host, and the pious a little band almost overpowered by them. Against the flagitious and those guilty of heinous offenses, the same rules for penance were prescribed, as before the reign of Constantine. But as the times continually waxed worse and worse, the more honorable and powerful could sin with impunity, and only the poor and the unfortunate felt the severity of the laws."[[105]]
13. Moral Condition of the Church in the Fifth Century.—About the middle of the fifth century we have Salvian [Sal-vi-an] saying:
The very church which should be the body to appease the anger of God, alas! what reigns there but disorders calculated to incense the Most High? It is more common to meet with Christians who are guilty of the greatest abominations than with those who are wholly exempt from crime. So that today it is a sort of sanctity among us to be less vicious than the generality of Christians. We insult the majesty of the Most High at the foot of his altars. Men, the most steeped in crime enter the holy places without respect for them. True all men ought to pay their vows to God, but why should they seek his temples to propitiate him, only to go forth to provoke him? Why enter the church to deplore their former sins, and upon going forth—what do I say?—in those very courts the commit fresh sins, their mouths and their hearts contradict one another. Their prayers are criminal meditations rather than vows of expiation. Scarcely is the service ended before each returns to his old practices. Some go to their wine, others to their impurities, still others to robbing and brigandage, so that we cannot doubt that these things had been occupying them while they were in the church. Nor is it the lowest of the people who are thus guilty. There is no rank whatever in the church which does not commit all sorts of crimes.
14. It may be urged that we are at heart better than the barbarians who oppose us. Suppose this to be granted; we ought to be better than they. But as a matter of fact, they are more virtuous than we. The mass of Christians are below the barbarians in probity. True, all kinds of sins are found among them but what one is not found among us? The several nations have their peculiar sin; the Saxons are cruel; the Franks perfidious; the Gepidae inhuman; the Huns lewd. But we, having the law of God to restrain us, are given over to all these offenses. Then to confine ourselves to the single sin of swearing, can many be found among the faithful who have not the name of Jesus Christ constantly upon their lips in support of their perjuries? This practice coming down from the higher to the lower classes, has so prevailed that Christians might be deemed pagans. This, although the law of God expressly forbids to take his name in vain. We read this law but we do not practice it; as a consequence the pagans taunt us that we boast ourselves the sole possessors of God's law, and of the rules of truth and of what that law enjoins. Christians, indeed, to the shame of Jesus Christ! say they.[[106]]