Antiquity of the Gospel.
The History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is also the
history of the opening and progress of the Dispensation of the fullness of
Times; and as that dispensation bears an important relation to all
dispensations which have preceded it, let us here ascertain in what that
relation consists. By doing so we shall have a better appreciation of the
full import of those events which make up the history of the Church.
A dispensation, without reference to any specific application or
limitation of the term, is the act of dealing out or distributing, such as
the dispensation of justice by courts, the dispensation of blessings or
afflictions by the hand of Providence. Theologically a dispensation is
defined as one of the several systems or bodies of law in which at
different periods God has revealed his mind and will to man, such as the
Patriarchal Dispensation, the Mosaic Dispensation, or the Christian
Dispensation. The word is also sometimes applied to the periods of time
during which the said laws obtain. That is, the period from Adam to Noah
is usually called the Patriarchal Dispensation. From Noah to the calling
of Abraham, the Noachian Dispensation; and from Abraham to the calling of
Moses, the Abrahamic Dispensation. But the word dispensation as connected
with the Gospel of Jesus Christ means the opening of the heavens to men;
the giving out or dispensing to them the word of God; the revealing to men
in whole or the part the principles and ordinances of the Gospel; the
conferring of divine authority upon certain chosen ones, by which they are
empowered to act in the name, that is, in the authority of God, and for
Him. That is a dispensation as relating to the Gospel; and the
Dispensation of the Fulness of Times is the dispensation which includes
all others and gathers to itself all things which bear any relation
whatsoever to the work of God. Also it is the last dispensation, the one
in which will be gathered together in one all things in Christ, both which
are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in Him.[1]
It is the dispensation which will see fulfilled all the decrees of God
respecting the salvation of men and the redemption of the earth itself;
and bears such relation to all other dispensations of the Gospel as the ocean does
to all earth's streams. It receives and unites them all in itself.
That there have been many dispensations of the Gospel, many times that
divine authority has been conferred upon men, is apparent from the
Scripture narrative of such events. And yet, strange as it may seem, in
the face of such Scripture narratives, there are those among professing
Christians who hold that the Gospel had no earlier origin than the time of
Messiah's ministry in the flesh. As a matter of fact, however, the Gospel
of Jesus Christ has existed from the very earliest ages of the world.
There are, indeed, certain passages of Scripture which lead us to believe
that even before the earth was made or ever man was placed upon it, the
Gospel had been formulated and was understood by the spirits which
inhabited the kingdom of the Father; and who, in course of time, would be
blessed with a probation on the earthan earth-life. If this be not true,
of what significance is the Scripture which speaks of Jesus as the Lamb
ordained before the foundation of the world, but revealed in this day for
the salvation of man?[2]
What of the "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world"?[3]
And further: "They that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were
not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world."[4]
"Where wast thou," asked the Lord of Job, "when I laid the foundations of
the earth? * * * When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of
God shouted for joy?"[5]
There is evidence in these expressions found in Scripture that before the
foundations of the earth were laid the sacrifice necessary to the
redemption of men was understood, and the "Lamb" for the sacrifice was
chosen, Jesus, the Messiah. There is evidence in these expressions from
Scripture of the pre-existence of the spirits of men, and the names of
some of them at least were written in the "Book of Life" from the
foundation of the world, and it is not unlikely that the shouting of all
the sons of God for joy, at the creation of the earth was in consequence
of the prospects which opened before them because of the earth-life and
the salvation that would come to them through the Gospeleven in the
prospects of that "eternal life, which God that cannot lie, promised
before the world began."
The Gospel Revealed to Adam.
The Gospel, then, is of great antiquity. Older than the hills, older than the
earth; for in the heavenly kingdom was it formulated before the
foundations of the earth were laid. Nor were men left in ignorance of the
plan of their redemption until the coming of the Messiah in the flesh.
From the first that plan was known. Our annals are imperfect on that head,
doubtless, but enough exists even in the Jewish scriptures to indicate the
existence of a knowledge of the fact of the Atonement and of the
redemption of man through that means. Abel, the son of Adam, is the first
we read of in the Jewish scriptures as offering "the firstlings of his
flock" as a sacrifice unto God. How came he to offer sacrifice of the
firstlings of his flock? Doubtless behind Abel's sacrifice, as behind
similar offerings in subsequent ages, stood the fact of the Christ's
Atonement.[6]
In it was figured forth the means of man's redemptionthrough a sacrifice,
and that the sacrifice of the first-born. But where learned Abel to offer
sacrifice if not from his father Adam? It is reasonably certain that Adam
as well as Abel offered sacrifices, in like manner and for the same
intent; and to Adam, though the Jewish scriptures are silent respecting
it, God must have revealed both the necessity of offering sacrifice and
the great thing of which it was but the symbol. And here, to some
advantage, may be quoted a passage from the writings of Moses, as revealed
to Joseph Smith, in December, 1830. From what was then made known to the
great latter-day Prophet of the writings of Moses, it appears that our
book of Genesis does not contain all that was revealed to Moses respecting
the revelations of God to Adam and his children of the first generation.
According to this more complete account of the revelation to Moses, after
Adam was driven from Eden, God gave commandments both to him and his wife,
that they should worship the Lord their God, and should offer the
firstlings of their flocks for an offering unto the Lord, and Adam was
obedient unto the commandment:
And after many days an angel of the Lord appeared unto Adam, saying: Why
doest thou offer sacrifices unto the Lord? And Adam said unto him: I
know not, save the Lord commanded me. And the angel spake, saying: This
thing is a similitude of the sacrifice of the Only Begotten of the
Father, which is full of grace and truth. Wherefore, thou shalt do all
that thou doest in the name of the Son, and thou shalt repent and call
upon God in the name of the Son for evermore.[7]
After some time elapsed and men multiplied in the earth and wickedness
increased; after Abel, the righteous, was slain and Cain was a vagabond in
the earth for the murder; after Lamech had also become a murderer and
Satan had great power among the disobedientthen, it is written:
And
God cursed the earth with a sore curse, and was angry with the wicked,
with all the sons of men whom he had made; for they would not hearken unto
His voice, nor believe on His Only Begotten Son, even Him whom He declared
should come in the meridian of time, who was prepared from before the
foundation of the world. And thus the Gospel began to be preached, from
the beginning, being declared by holy angels sent forth from the presence
of God, and by His own voice, and by the gift of the Holy Ghost. And thus
all things were confirmed unto Adam, by an holy ordinance, and the Gospel
preached, and a decree sent forth, that it should be in the world, until
the end thereof.[8]
Establishment of the Ancient Church.
As the Gospel was thus preached there were those among the children of
Adam who obeyed it, and a record of those men was kept, and they
constituted the ancient Church of God. Enoch was of the number of
righteous ones, and a preacher of righteousness. In these revealed
writings of Moses he is represented in the course of his ministry as
referring to the manner in which the Gospel was taught to Adam;
And he said unto them: Because that Adam fell, we are and by his fall
came death; and we are made partakers of misery and woe. Behold Satan
hath come among the children of men, and tempteth them to worship him;
and men have become carnal, sensual, and devilish, and are shut out from
the presence of God. But God hath made known unto our fathers that all
men must repent. And He called upon our father Adam by His own voice,
saying: I am God; I made the world, and men before they were in the
flesh. And He also said unto him: If thou wilt turn unto me, and hearken
unto my voice, and believe, and repent of all thy transgressions, and be
baptized, even in water, in the name of mine Only Begotten Son, who is
full of grace and truth, which is Jesus Christ, the only name which
shall be given under heaven, whereby salvation shall come unto the
children of men, ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, asking all
things in His name, and whatsoever ye shall ask, it shall be given you.[9]
Adam was obedient to the commandments of the Lord, and taught them to his
children, many of whom believed them, obeyed, and became the sons of God.
Enoch, we are told, "walked with God: and he was not; for God took him."[10]
Paul, in speaking of him, says: "By faith Enoch was translated that he
should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him."[11]
But the writings of Moses, as revealed to Joseph Smith, and from which I
have been quoting, give information that not only was Enoch translated but
the Saints inhabiting his city, into which he had gathered his people, and
this city was called Zion; "And it came to pass that Zion was not, for God
received it up into His own bosom; and from thence went forth the saying,
Zion is fled."[12]
The Gospel versus the Law.
Thus the gospel was taught to the ancients. Noah was a preacher of it as
well as Enoch. So, too, was Melchizedek, priest of the Most High God, King
of Salem, who met Abraham in his day and blessed him.[13]
Paul, the Apostle of the Gentiles, bears unmistakable testimony to the
fact that the Gospel was preached unto Abraham; and also that it was
offered to Israel under Moses before "the law of carnal commandments" was
given. "I would not that ye should be ignorant," he says, "how that all
our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were
all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and did all eat the
same spiritual meat; and did all drink the same spiritual drink: for
they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was
Christ."[14]
Referring again to the fact of the presentation of the Gospel to ancient
Israel, Paul says that the Gospel was preached unto ancient Israel, as
well as unto Israel in his day; but the preaching of the Gospel to ancient
Israel was not profitable to them, because they received it not in faith,
and as a result displeased God by their unbelief, and the rebellious
perished in the wilderness.[15]
Paul's great controversy with the Christian Jews was in relation to the
superiority of the Gospel to the law of Moses. Many of the Christian Jews
while accepting Jesus of Nazareth as the promised Messiah, still held to
the law with something like superstitious reverence, and could not be
persuaded that the Gospel superseded the law, and was, in fact, a
fulfillment of all its types and symbols. This controversy culminated in
Paul's now celebrated letter to the Galatians, wherein he says:
Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children
of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the
heathen through faith, preached before the Gospel unto Abraham,
saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. * * * * Now to Abraham and
his seed were the promises made. He saith not And to seeds, as of many:
but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. And this I say, that the
covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was
four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make
the promise of none effect. * * * * Wherefore then serveth the law? It was
added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the
promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
* * * Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that
we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no
longer under a schoolmaster. For ye are all the children of God by faith
in Christ Jesus.[16]
From Moses to John the Baptist and Messiah.
In greater clearness, however, than in these sayings of Paul gathered up
from his writings like scattered rays of light from a prism's reflection,
the antiquity of the Gospel, as far as it concerns ancient Israel, is
stated in a revelation of God to the Prophet Joseph Smith. And not only
the antiquity of the Gospel, but in greater clearness also is stated the
reasons why, after the Gospel was first preached to ancient Israel, the
law of carnal commandments was "added" to the Gospel, or given in its
place, to act as a schoolmaster to bring Israel unto Christ. And by the
knowledge imparted in that revelation the time between the Mosaic
dispensation and the coming of John the Baptist, to prepare the way for
the coming of Christ, is spanned by a statement so rational, that the
truth of it cannot be reasonably questioned. Speaking of the Melchizedek
Priesthood and its powers in administering the ordinances of the Gospel,
and how it came to disappear as an organization in Israel, the passage in
question says:
This greater Priesthood administereth the Gospel and holdeth the key of
the mysteries of the kingdom, even the key of the knowledge of God;
Therefore, in the ordinances thereof, the power of godliness is
manifest; and without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the
Priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the
flesh, for without this no man can see the face of God, even the Father,
and live. Now this Moses plainly taught to the children of Israel in the
wilderness, and sought diligently to sanctify his people that they might
behold the face of God: but they hardened their hearts and could not
endure his presence, therefore, the Lord in His wrath (for His anger was
kindled against them) swore that they should not enter into his rest
while in the wilderness, which rest is the fullness of his glory.
Therefore He took Moses out of their midst, and the Holy Priesthood
also; and the lesser Priesthood continued, which Priesthood holdeth the
key of the ministering of angels and the preparatory Gospel; which
Gospel is the Gospel of repentance and of baptism, and the remission of
sins, and the law of carnal commandments, which the Lord in His wrath,
caused to continue with the house of Aaron among the children of Israel
until John, whom God raised up, being filled with the Holy Ghost from
his mother's womb; for he was baptized while he was yet in his
childhood, and was ordained by the angel of God at the time he was eight
days old unto this power to overthrow the kingdom of the Jews, and to
make straight the way of the Lord before the face of His people, to
prepare them for the coming of the Lord, in whose hand is given all
power.[17]
As before remarked, this passage spans the interval of time between Moses
and John the Baptist, and gives a fuller explanation than can be found in
the writings of Paul or elsewhere, for the reason why and in what manner
the law supplanted the Gospel; and what measure of the Priesthood remained
with Israel unto the coming of John; in what the mission of John
consisted, and in what manner he was qualified to fulfill that mission.
It should be remarked, however, that while the Lord took Moses out of the
midst of ancient Israel, and the Holy Melchisedek Priesthood also, as an
institution, as an organization, it is evident that subsequently special
dispensations of that Priesthood were given to individual prophets, such
as Samuel, Nathan, Elijah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel: for
these men exercised powers and enjoyed privileges which belong exclusively
to the Melchisedek Priesthood.
The Dispensation of the Meridian of Time.
With the period between Moses and John the Baptist spanned, we come to the
Dispensation of the Meridian of Time. This dispensation begins with the
preaching of John the Baptist in the wilderness. It was made glorious by
the personal ministry of Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God; by His
suffering and death, for the redemption of mankind; by His glorious
resurrection from the dead; by his subsequent ministry among his
followers, and His final ascension into heaven to the throne of His
Father; by the faithful ministry of His Apostles, by whom the good tidings
of man's salvation were published to the world: by the establishment of
the Church as the agency through which the Gospel was to be more widely
proclaimed, and those who accepted the Gospel were more thoroughly
instructed in its doctrines, guarded from error, and finally perfected in
the Christian life. An inspired volume of Scripture, the New Testament,
was also brought
into existence, from the teachings of the inspired Apostles, in which the
great fundamental truths of the Gospel were embodied and cast in a form
that would be enduring, and to which men could appeal through all the ages
to come, as an authoritative statement, not only of what Jesus said and
what He did, but also a statement of what doctrines are to be believed;
what precepts to be practiced; what ordinances to be observed. By thus
embodying the chief doctrines of Christ in a volume of Scripture that
should live forever, and be published in all the languages of the world,
provision was made for such a dissemination of the knowledge of God, that
the world would never again be wholly without that knowledge; and though
the Church might become corrupted, as it afterwards did; though men
ambitious of distinction and power might usurp authority and establish
churches, in which they taught for doctrines the commandments of men, as
they certainly did; still in this volume of Scripture men henceforth would
have at hand a standard of truth by which to test the utterances of
would-be teachers, while at the same time it would keep above the horizon
of a world's knowledge the great truths of the Gospelthe existence and
character of God; the manifestation of Him through the person and
character of Jesus of Nazareth; the relationship existing between God and
man; the fall of man; and the redemption provided for him in the atonement
of Jesus Christ. All this was achieved in the Dispensation of the Meridian
of Time; a mighty work accomplished by the Son of God and His associates;
a work sealed not only by the blood of Jesus Christ, but by the blood also
of many faithful witnesses, which shall make their testimony of force in
the world.
Identity of the Dispensation of the Meridian of Time and the
Dispensation of the Fulness of Times Considered.
At this point we are confronted with a question that must be settled
before progress is possible with this Introduction. Owing to the
phraseology of certain passages of Scripture, making reference to the
coming of Messiah in the flesh, and to the work of God in those days, the
Dispensation of the Meridian of Time is mistaken for the Dispensation of
the Fulness of Times. In Mark's Gospel, for instance, John the Baptist is
represented as saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of
God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel."[18]
The words in Italics are usually understood to make reference to the
Dispensation of the Fulness of Times. Again it is written: "But when
the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a
woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law."[19]
The words, "when the fulness of the time was come," are supposed to refer
to the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times. Other passages of Scripture
referring to the days of Messiah's personal ministry among men in the
flesh, speak of them as the "last days." Paul in the opening sentence of
his letter to the Hebrews, does this: "God, who at sundry times and in
divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath
in these last days spoken unto us by His Son, whom He hath
appointed heir of all things."[20]
So St. John, in addressing the Saints in his day: "Little children, it
is the last time: and as ye have heard that anti-Christ shall come,
even now are there many anti-Christs; whereby we know that it is the
last time." [21]
These with two other special passages of Scripture to be separately
considered, constitute the authority upon which the Meridian Dispensation
is confounded with the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times. And yet all
these passages are susceptible of quite a different and more natural
rendering. Without controversy it will be conceded that the Lord had an
appointed time for His Son Jesus to come to earth in the flesh and perform
the mission that had been assigned him; to suffer; to die; to arise again
from the dead. And when the fullness of this time was come, God indeed
sent forth His Son into the world. As for those inspired writers who speak
of the "last days," and the "last times"they speak relatively; that is,
with reference to former days and times; and, of course, the days and
times in which they lived to them were the last days, and the last times;
but they were not the last days of the earth's temporal existence; they
were not the last days in any general sense at all, as there have been now
some two thousand years of days since then. They were not the "last days"
that are understood as immediately preceding the glorious coming of the
Son of God.
Joel's Great Prophecy of the Dispensation of the Last Days.
Of the special passages before referred to, and which I said would receive
separate consideration, the first is Peter's quotation from the Prophet
Joel concerning the outpouring of the Spirit of God upon "all flesh in the
last days." This quotation from Joel is regarded as identifying the days
in which the Apostle was speaking, as "the last days;" and the
dispensation in which he was living as the Dispensation of the Last Days
and of the Fulness of Times. The conditions existing when Peter was
speaking, and the prophecy of Joel, however, admit of no such interpretation. The
circumstances were as follows: The Holy Ghost in an extraordinary manner
rested upon the Apostles and gave them the power of speaking in other
languages than those they had learned. Some in the listening multitude
attributed this singular manifestation to drunkenness, whereupon the
Apostle Peter arose and refuted the slander, saying: "These are not
drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day. But
this is that which was spoken by the Prophet Joel; and it shall
come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my
Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
and on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of
my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: and I will show wonders in heaven
above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapor of
smoke: the sun shall be turned into darkness and the moon into blood,
before that great and notable day of the Lord come: and it shall come to
pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved."[22]
"For," to finish the passage as it stands in Joel, but which is not in
Peter's quotation, "For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be
deliverance, as the Lord hath said, and in the remnant whom the Lord shall
call."[23]
Because Peter, referring to the Spirit that was then resting upon the
Twelve Apostles, said, "this is that which was spoken by the Prophet
Joel," etc., the very general opinion prevails that Joel's prophecy was
then fulfilled; and hence the last days were come. This is an
entire misapprehension of the purpose of Peter in making the quotation; as
also of the quoted passage itself. Beyond all controversy Peter meant
only: This Spirit which you now see resting upon these Apostles of Jesus
of Nazareth, is that same Spirit which your Prophet Joel says will, in the
last days, be poured out upon all flesh. Obviously he did not mean that
this occasion of the Apostles receiving the Holy Ghost was a complete
fulfillment of Joel's prediction. To insist upon such an exegesis would be
to charge the chief of the Apostles with palpable ignorance of the meaning
of Joel's prophecy. On the occasion in question the Holy Ghost was poured
out upon the Twelve Apostles, who were given the power to speak in various
tongues; Joel's prophecy for its complete fulfillment requires that the
Spirit of the Lord, the Holy Ghost, shall be poured out upon all
flesh; and undoubtedly refers to that time which shall come in the
blessed millennium when the enmity shall not only cease between man and
man, but even between the beasts of the forests and of the fields; and
between man and beast, as described by Isaiah in the following language:
The wolf also shall dwell with the Lamb, and the leopard shall lie down
with the kid; and the calf, and the young lion, and the fatling together;
and a little child shall lead them. And the cow and the bear shall feed;
their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw
like the ox. And the suckling child shall play on the hole of the asp; and
the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice's den. They shall
not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full
of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.[24]
Compare these conditions so vividly described with what Joel himself says
of the period when the Spirit of the Lord shall be poured out upon all
flesh, and it will at once be clear that the two Prophets are dealing with
the same period, and not only dealing with the same period, but that the
period itself is certainly far beyond in time the days of Peter; in fact
is still in the future; for the sun has not yet been turned into
blackness; nor the moon into blood; nor have the stars withdrawn their
shining. It is obvious that the events upon the day of Pentecost did not
fulfil the terms of this prophecy, except in those particulars already
pointed out. The mention in this prophecy, however, of those special signs
which Jesus refers to as immediately preceding His own second and glorious
coming, clearly demonstrate that Joel was speaking of the last days
indeed, and not of a circumstance that occurred in connection with a
period more properly designated as the Dispensation of the Meridian of
Time. Immediately following his prediction of the outpouring of God's
Spirit upon all flesh, Joel represents the Lord as saying: "And I will
show wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars
of smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood,
before the great and the terrible day of the Lord come." And later: "The
sun and the moon shall be darkened, and the stars shall withdraw their
shining. The Lord also shall roar out of Zion, and utter his voice from
Jerusalem; and the heavens and the earth shall shake: but the Lord will be
the hope of his people, and the strength of the children of Israel."
Compare this with the Savior's description of conditions in the earth that
will precede His own second coming:
Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened,
and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from
heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: and then shall
appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes
of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds
of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a
great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together His elect from
the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.[25]
The same wonders in heaven and earth; the same changes in sun, and moon,
and stars; the same promises of the gathering of God's people as are found
in the prophecy of Joel. There can be no question, then, but that the
prophecy of Joel refers to the same "last days" that Jesus here alludes
tothe days of the coming of the Son of Manand not to the days of Peter
and the other Apostles in the Meridian of time.
The sum of the matter then is, that Peter was not living in the "last
days;" that the prophecy of Joel was not in its entirety fulfilled in the
outpouring of God's Spirit upon the Apostles on the day of Pentecost; that
at no time subsequent to the days of the Apostles has there existed such
conditions in the earth as amount to a complete fulfilment of Joel's
prophecy; therefore at some time future from the days of the Apostles, we
may look forward to a universal outpouring of God's Holy Spirit upon all
flesh, resulting in a universal peace and widespread knowledge of God,
brought about, unquestionably, by a subsequent dispensation from that in
which Peter wroughtthe Dispensation of the Fulness of Times, in which God
promises to "gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are
in heaven and which are on earth; even in Him."[26]
Daniel's Prophecy of the Rise of the Kingdom of God in the Last Days.
The second special Scripture to which I have promised a separate
consideration is the prophecy of Daniel relative to the succession of the
great earth empires; and the final establishment of the Kingdom of God,
which in "the last days" shall fill the whole earth and remain for ever.
By an error on the part of Christian writers Daniel's prophecy concerning
the Kingdom of God to be set up in "the last days" is supposed to have
been fulfilled by the founding of "The spiritual kingdom of Christ" in the
days of Messiah's earthly ministry; and therefore the conclusion is drawn
that those days were "the last days," and the dispensation then ushered
in, the final dispensation of the Gospel. It is my purpose here to refute
that error.
The prophecy in question is familiar, and comes from Daniel's
interpretation of the king of Babylon's dream of the great image, whose
"brightness was excellent, whose form was terrible." The head of the image
was of gold; his breast and arms were of silver; the body and thighs of
brass; the legs of iron; and the feet and the toes part of iron and part
of clay. The king in his dream also saw a little stone cut out of the
mountain without hands, that smote the image upon the feet of mixed clay
and iron, and broke it to piecesuntil it became like the chaff of the
summer
thrashing floor, and the wind of heaven carried it away, that no place was
found for it: but the little stone cut from the mountain without hands,
which smote the image on the feet and ground it to dust, became a great
mountain and filled the whole earth. This it the dream; and this is the
prophet's interpretation, addressed to the king of Babylon:
Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee
a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory. And wheresoever the children
of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven hath
He given into thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all. Thou
art this head of gold. And after thee shall rise another kingdom
inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear
rule over all the earth. And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron:
forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things: and as
iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise. And
whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters' clay, and part
of iron, the kingdom shall be divided: but there shall be in it of the
strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with the
miry clay. And as the toes and the feet were part of iron, and part of
clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken. And
whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle
themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to
another, even as iron is not mixed with clay. And in the days of these
kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be
destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it
shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms and it shall stand
forever. Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the
mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass,
the clay, the silver, and the gold, the great God hath made known to the
king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and
the interpretation thereof sure.[27]
As understood by the learned, Daniel's interpretation stands thus:
"(1) The Golden Headthe Assyrio-Babylonish monarchy (the 6th and
5th century B.C.);
"(2) The Silver Breast and Armsthe Medo-Persian empire (from 538
B.C. to about 330 B.C.);
"(3) The Brazen Belly and Thighsthe Greco-Macedonian kingdom,
especially after Alexander, those of Egypt and Syria (from about 330 B.C.
to 160 B.C.);
"(4) The Legs of Ironthe power of Rome, bestriding the east and
west, but broken into a number of states, the ten toes, which retained
some of its warlike strength (the iron), mingled with elements of weakness
(the soft potters' clay), which rendered the whole imperial structure
unstable.
"(5) The Stone cut without hands out of the Living Rock,
dashing down the image, becoming a great mountain, and filling all the
earthThe Spiritual Kingdom of Christ."
The last phrase"The Spiritual Kingdom of Christ"meaning of course the
"Christian churches" which have existed from the time of Christ, and that
now exist, and which, taken together, form Christ's spiritual kingdom.
On the foregoing exegesis, which is the one commonly accepted by orthodox
Christians, I make the following several observations:
First: The phrase with reference to the little Stone, "cut out of
the Living Rock," is one introduced by Dr. Smith, from whose "Old
Testament History" [28]
the above analysis of Daniel's interpretation is taken. The language of
the Bible is, "cut out of the mountain without hands." Why it is changed
by the Doctor one may not conjecture, unless it is to lay the foundation
of an argument not warranted by the text of Daniel's interpretation. It is
enough here to note that the change in phraseology is wholly gratuitous
and unwarranted.
Second: The claim that the "little Stone cut from the mountain
without hands," is the "Spiritual Kingdom of Christ"if by that
"spiritual kingdom" is meant not a real kingdom, actually existing,
visible and tangibleis an assumption of the Doctor's. It is not the
language of the Bible, nor is there any evidence in Scripture for
believing that the "kingdom," represented by "the stone cut out of the
mountain without hands," is any less a material kingdom than
those which preceded it. The differences between this kingdom of God and
the other kingdoms of the vision are not in the kingdom being "spiritual,"
but in these: (1) that the kingdom which God shall set up will never be
destroyed; (2) never left to another people: (3) will break in pieces and
consume all other kingdoms: (4) it shall fill the whole earth; (5) and
stand forever. We are warranted in the belief, however, that it will be a
tangible, bona fide, government of God on earth, consisting of a
king; subordinate officers; laws; subjects; and the whole earth for its
territoryfor its dominion. The coming forth of such a government, the
founding of such a kingdom, is in harmony with all the hopes of all the
saints, and the predictions of all the prophets who have touched upon the
subject. It is the actual reign of Christ on earth with His Saints, in
fulfillment of the hopes held out to them in every dispensation of the
Gospel. It is to be the burden of the song of the redeemed out of every
kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation, that Christ has made them
unto their God kings and priests"and we shall reign on the earth." [29]
It is to be the chorus in
heaventhe kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and
of His Christ; and He shall reign for ever and ever. [30]
And the elders in heaven shall say:
We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art
to come; because thou hast taken to thee Thy great power, and hast
reigned. And the nations were angry, and Thy wrath is come, and the time
of the dead, that they should be judged, and that Thou shouldst give
reward unto Thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that
fear Thy name, small and great; and shouldst destroy them which destroy
the earth.[31]
And still again:
Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such
the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of
Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years.[32]
It should be observed respecting the last passage and the one preceding
it, that "the reign on earth" of the kingdom of God is connected with the
resurrection of the righteous saints; so that it will be the "last days"
indeednot in the days of the Roman empire. And this reign of the saints
on earth, this kingdom of God which they shall constitute shall be a reign
of righteousness, but a veritable kingdom nevertheless.
Third: The orthodox exegesis under consideration omits one
important matter of fact, viz., that instead of four great dominant
political powers symbolized in the image which Nebuchadnezzar saw, and
which Daniel interpreted, there are five: viz., (1) The Head of
GoldBabylonish kingdom; (2) the Chest and Arms of Silverthe Medo-Persian
monarchy; (3) the Brazen Belly and Thighsthe Greco-Macedonian Empire: (4)
the Legs of IronRome; (5) the Feet and Toes mixed of iron
and claythe modern kingdoms and states of the world.
This failure to recognize the fifth political power represented by the
feet and toes of Daniel's image leads to serious errors with respect to
this prophecy. It has led the theologians to assign the setting up of
God's kingdom spoken of in the prophecy to the wrong period of the world's
history. They say the kingdom represented by the stone cut from the
mountain without hands is "the spiritual kingdom of Christ;" and that the
said kingdom was set up in the days of Messiah's earthly ministry in the
meridian of time. This, however, cannot be correct; for the Church which
Jesus established by His personal ministry and which, it is granted, is
sometimes spoken of as the Kingdom of God, was founded in the days of the Roman empire,
the fourth world power of Daniel's prophecy; and at a time, too, when
imperial Rome was at the very zenith of her glory and power. Whereas the
terms of Daniel's prophecy require that the kingdom which God shall
establish, and which was represented by the stone cut from the mountain
without hands, shall be set up in the days of the fifth political world
powerin the days of the kingdom represented by the pieces of iron and
clay in the feet and toes of the image. The language of the prophecy on
this point is: "And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of
potters' clay, and part of iron, the kingdom [i. e. the political power so
represented, and that succeeds the fourth power or Roman empire,] shall be
divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch
as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay. And as the toes of the feet
were part of iron, and part of clay, * * * they [i. e., the kingdom
represented by the pieces of iron and clay,] shall mingle themselves with
the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is
not mixed with clay. And in the days of these kings [not in the
days of the Roman empire]in the days of these kings shall the
God of heaven set up a kingdom, which never shall be destroyed."
Fourth: One of the peculiarities of the kingdom of God of
Daniel's prophecy is, that when it is established among men it will not
only never be destroyed, but "the kingdom shall not be left to other
people." By which saying we can only conclude that when the kingdom
of God shall be set up by the Lord in the last days, it will not be taken
from the people to whom it shall come, and be given to, or left, to
another people. But how stands it with the institution which arose from
the preaching of the Gospel in the days of Messiah's earthly ministry, the
church, sometimes called the kingdom of God, and the kingdom of heaven?
Was it not "left to other people"? Messiah Himself said of the Jews,
"Therefore say I unto you, the kingdom of God shall be taken from you
and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof." This
passage comes, too, as a conclusion to the parable of the householder who
let both his house and his vineyard to unworthy husbandmen, who
successively beat, stoned, and slew the servants, and even the son and
heir whom the master sent to collect his portion of the fruit of the
vineyard. "When the Lord of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto
those husbandmen?" asked Jesus of his hearers. "He will miserably destroy
these wicked men," they replied, "and will let out his vineyard unto other
husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their season." They had
pronounced judgment among themselves. The parable presented the case of
the Jews to whom Jesus was speaking, exactly, and Jesus quickly made the
application of the judgment"Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God
shall be taken from you, and given unto a nation bringing forth the fruits
thereof." [33]
There can be no mistaking the meaning of the parable or its application;
and some years later we have Paul saying to the contradicting and
blaspheming Jews of Antioch in Pisidia: "It was necessary that the word of
God should first have been spoken to you; but seeing ye put it from you,
and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the
Gentiles. For so hath the Lord commanded us." [34]
And so it came to pass that as Israel in those days rejected the Gospel of
the kingdom which was first offered to them, so God also rejected them;
and they have stood rejected to this day; smitten and trodden under food
of the Gentile races, a scoff, a hiss, and a byword in every land that
they have inhabited; while the kingdom of God first offered to them was
left to other people, to the Gentiles, who, for a season, brought forth
the fruits thereof. But the fact that the kingdom then preached to the
Jews was taken from them and given to another people, is proof positive
that it was not the kingdom which was to fulfill the terms of Daniel's
great prophecy.
Fifth: Another characteristic of the kingdom of God of Daniel's
prophecy is, that it will never be destroyed, but will break in pieces and
consume all other kingdoms, and stand for ever. This is not true of that
institution brought into existence by the preaching of Messiah and the
Apostles, sometimes called the kingdom of God, but more properly the
Church of Christ. Saddening as the thought may seem, the Church founded by
the labors of Jesus and His Apostles was destroyed from the earth; the
Gospel was perverted; its ordinances were changed; its laws were
transgressed; its covenant was, on the part of man, broken; and the world
was left to flounder in the darkness of a long period of apostasy from
God. For the reason, then, that the institution founded by the preaching
of the Apostles was destroyed in the earth, as well as for the other
reasons considered, the conclusion is forced upon the mind that the Church
founded by Jesus and the Apostles was not the fulfillment of Daniel's
great prophecy respecting the kingdom which God promised to set up in the
last days: and hence we may look for another dispensation beyond the times
of the Apostles, which will culminate in subduing the kingdoms of this
world and making them the kingdom of our God and His Christ, followed by
that reign of righteousness and peace of which all the prophets have
spoken.
Having considered the Dispensation of the Meridian of Time and corrected
the popular error which confounds that dispensation with the Dispensation of
the Fulness of Times, it is necessary now to consider the decline of the
Christian religion.
The Announcement of the Universal Apostasy.
It is a most startling announcement with which the Prophet Joseph Smith
begins his message to the world. Concerning the question, he asked
God"Which of all the sects is right, and which shall I join?" he says:
"I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all
wrong, and the personage who addressed me said that all their creeds
were abomination in His sight: that those professors were all corrupt;
that they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from
me; they teach for doctrines the commandments of men: having a form of
godliness, but they deny the power thereof."[35]
This is a tremendous arraignment of all Christendom. It charges a
condition of universal apostasy from God, especially upon Christendom that
was dwelling in a fancied security of being the farthest removed from the
possibility of such a charge; each division of the so-called Christian
Church felicitating itself with the flattering unction that its own
particular society possessed the enlightened fullness of the Christian
religion. While the boldness of this declaration of the young Prophet is
astounding, upon reflection it must be conceded that just such a condition
of affairs in the religious world is consistent with the work he, under
the direction of divine Providence, was about to inaugurate. Nothing less
than a complete apostasy from the Christian religion would warrant the
establishment of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Of sects
there were already enough in existence. Division and subdivision had
already created of confusion more than enough, and there was no possible
excuse for the introduction of a new Christian sect. But if men through
apostasy had corrupted the Christian religion and lost divine authority to
administer the ordinances of the Gospel, it was of the utmost importance
that a new dispensation of the true Christian religion should be given to
the world. It should also be observed at this point, that Joseph Smith,
then but a boy, scarcely removed from childhood, was not himself
pronouncing judgment upon the status of Christendom. It was not he who
declared the sects to be all wrong, their creeds an abomination, and the
professors thereof corrupt. He of all persons, both on account of his
extreme
youthfulness and his lack of general information, was among the least
qualified to pronounce upon such a question. Indeed, he himself confesses
his unfitness for such an office. His seeking knowledge from God upon this
very question"which of all the sects is right?" is a confession of his
own inability to determine the matter. No human wisdom was sufficient to
answer that question. No man in all the world was so pre-eminent as to be
justified in proclaiming the divine acceptance of one church in preference
to another. Divine wisdom alone was sufficient to pass judgment upon such
a question; and there is peculiar force in the circumstance that the
announcement which Joseph Smith makes with reference to this subject is
not formulated by him nor by any other man, but is given to him of God.
God has been the judge of apostate Christendom, Joseph Smith but His
messenger, to herald that judgment to the world.
It now becomes my melancholy task to trace through the early Christian
centuries the decline of the Christian religion. By this phrase I mean
that a really unchristian religion was gradually substituted for the
beautiful religion of Jesus Christ; that a universal apostasy from the
Christian doctrine and the Christian Church took place. So tracing the
decline of Christianity, I shall establish the truth of the first great
message with which the modern prophet, Joseph Smith, came to the world;
and shall also prove the fact, that a necessity existed for the
establishment of such a work as he claims, under God, to have founded, and
of which the several volumes of this work are the detailed history.
Character of the Early Christians.
First of all, it should be remarked that the early Christians were not so
far removed from the possession of the common weaknesses of humanity as to
preclude the possibility of apostatizing from the Christian religion.
Owing to our being so far removed from them in time, by which many of
their defects are obscured, and the exaggerated celebration of their
virtues, extravagant ideas of the sanctity of their lives, and the
holiness of their natures have very generally obtained, whereas a little
inquiry into the character of the early Saints will prove that they were
very human, and men of like passions with ourselves. The mother of
Zebedee's children exhibited a rather ambitious spirit, and the two
brethren themselves gave much offense to their fellow Apostles by aspiring
to sit one on the right hand of Jesus and the other on His left when He
should come in His kingdom.[36]
Even Peter, the chief Apostle, exhibited his full share of human weakness
when he
thrice denied his Lord in the presence of his enemies, through fear, and
even confirmed that denial by cursing and swearing.[37]
It was rather a heated controversy, too, that arose in the early Christian
Church as to whether those who accepted the Christian faith were still
bound to the observances of the law of Moses, and more especially to the
rite of circumcision. Although there seems to have been an amicable and
authoritative settlement of that question by the decision of what some
learned writers have called the first general council of the Church held
by the Apostles and Elders at Jerusalem,[38]
yet the old difficulty broke out again and again, not only between the
Jewish saints and the Gentile converts, but even among the Apostles
themselves, leading to serious accusations one against another, the
straining of friendship between fellow-workmen in the ministry, through
criminations and recriminations.
After the settlement of this very question of circumcision by the council
at Jerusalem, Peter went down to Antioch and at first mingled unreservedly
with both Gentile and Jewish converts without distinction, accepting both
Jew and Gentile in perfect fellowship, departing entirely from the
restraints placed on a Jew by the law of Moses, which rendered it unlawful
for one who was a Jew to have such unrestricted fellowship with the
Gentiles. But when certain ones came down from James, who resided at
Jerusalem, then Peter, fearful of offending "them which were of the
circumcision," suddenly withdrew his social fellowship from the Gentile
converts. Other Jewish brethren did the same; Barnabas, the friend of
Paul, being among the number. Whereupon Paul, as he himself testified,
withstood Peter to the face, directly charging him before all the brethren
with dissimulation, saying: "If thou being a Jew livest after the manner
of Gentiles and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to
live as do the Jews?"[39]
Yet this same Paul notwithstanding his loyalty to the Gentile converts on
that occasion, his zeal for the decision which had been rendered by the
council of the Church at Jerusalem, and notwithstanding his usually strong
moral courage, subsequently showed by his conduct, that he, too, was not
beyond the weakness of "becoming all things to all men;" for a short time
after the incident with Peter at Antioch, when in the province of Galatia,
and he desired Timothy to be his companion in the ministry, Paul took him
and circumcised him, because it was well known that while his mother was a
Jewess, his father was a Greek, and all this for fear of the Jews.[40]
This
question continued to be a cause of contention, even after this sharp
disputation at Antioch; for though the decision of the council at
Jerusalem was against the contention of the Judaizing party, yet they
continued to agitate the question whenever opportunity presented itself,
and seemed especially to follow close upon the footsteps of Paul in his
missionary journeys; and in Galatia, at least, succeeded in turning the
saints of that province from the grace of Christ unto another gospel,
perverting the Gospel of Christ.[41]
This question continued to agitate the Church throughout the Apostolic
age, and was finally settled through overwhelming numbers of Gentiles
being converted, and taking possession of the Church, rather than through
any profound respect for the decision of the council at Jerusalem.
The withdrawal of John Mark from the ministry while accompanying Paul and
Barnabas on their first mission in Asia Minor, and which withdrawal grew
out of a faltering of his zeal or a misunderstanding with his companions,
will be readily called to mind.[42]
Subsequently, when Paul proposed to Barnabas that they go again and visit
the brethren in every city where they had preached while on their first
mission, a sharp contention arose between them about this same John Mark.
Barnabas desired to take him again into the ministry, but Paul seriously
objected; and so pronounced was the quarrel between them that these two
friends and fellow yokemen in the ministry parted company no more to be
united. It is just possible also that in addition to this misunderstanding
about John Mark, the severe reproof which Paul administered to Barnabas in
the affair of dissimulation at Antioch had somewhat strained their
friendship.
Turning from these misunderstandings and criminations among the leading
officers of the Church, let us inquire how it stood with the members. The
epistle of Paul to the church at Corinth discloses the fact that there
were serious schisms among them; some boasting that they were of Paul,
others that they were of Apollos, others of Cephas, and still others of
Christ; which led Paul to ask sharply, "Is Christ divided? was Paul
crucified for you?"[43]
There were endless strifes as well as divisions among them, which caused
Paul to denounce them as carnally minded.[44]
Among them also was such fornication as was not named among the Gentiles,
"that one should have his father's wife!" And this shameful sin had not
humbled the church at Corinth, for Paul denounced them for being puffed up
in the presence of such a crime, rather than having mourned over it.[45]
They were in the habit of going to law one with another, and that before the
world, in violation of the teachings of Jesus Christ.[46]
They desecrated the ordinance of the Lord's Supper by their drunkenness,
for which they were sharply reproved by the Apostle.[47]
They ate and drank unworthily, "not discerning the Lord's body; for which
cause many were sickly among them, and many slept" (that is, died). There
were heresies also among them,[48]
some denying the resurrection of the dead, while others possessed not the
knowledge of God, which the Apostle declared was their shame.[49]
It is true, this sharp letter of reproof made the Corinthian saints sorry,
and sorry, too, after a godly fashion, in that it brought them to a
partial repentance; but even in the second epistle, from which we learn of
their partial repentance, the Apostle could still charge that there were
many in the church who had not repented of the uncleanness and fornication
and lasciviousness which they had committed.[50]
From this second letter, also, we learn that there were many in the Church
at large who corrupted the word of God;[51]
that there were those, even in the ministry, who were "false prophets,
deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the Apostles of Christ."[52]
Of the churches throughout the province of Galatia, it is scarcely
necessary to say more than we have already said concerning the invasion of
that province by Judaizing Christian ministers who were turning away the
saints from the grace of Christ back to the beggarly elements of the law
of carnal commandments; a circumstance which led Paul to exclaim: "I
marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that had called you unto the
grace of Christ, unto another gospel; which is not another, but there be
some that trouble you, and would pervert the Gospel of Christ."[53]
That there were two distinct parties in the Church at this time, between
whom bitter contentions arose, is further evidenced by the letter of Paul
to the Philippians. Some preached Christ even of envy and strife, and some
of good will. "The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely," says
Paul, "supposing to add affliction to my bonds: but the other of love,
knowing that I am set for the defense of the Gospel."[54]
"Beware of dogs," said he again to the same people; "beware of evil
workers; beware of the concision."[55]
"Brethren, be
followers of me," he admonishes them, "and mark them which walk so as ye
have us for an example, for many walk of whom I have told you often, and
now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of
Christ: whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose
glory is their shame, who mind earthly things."[56]
To the Colossians Paul found it necessary to say: "Beware lest any man
spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the traditions of men,
after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. * * * * Let no man
beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshiping of
angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed
up by his fleshly mind."[57]
But it is in Paul's pastoral letters that we get a deeper insight into
corruptions threatening the early church, and even beginning to lay the
foundation for that subsequent apostasy which overwhelmed it. The Apostle
sent Timothy to the saints at Ephesus to represent him, that he might
charge some to teach no other doctrines than those which he had delivered
to them: "Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which
minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith," for
some had turned aside from the commandment of charity, out of a pure
heart, and a good conscience, and faith unfeigned, unto "vile jangling,
desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say
nor whereof they affirm."[58]
Others concerning faith had made shipwreck, of whom were Hymenaeus and
Alexander, whom Paul had delivered unto Satan that they might learn not to
blaspheme.[59]
Others had "erred concerning the faith" and had "given heed to vain
babblings, and opposition of science falsely so called."[60]
In his second letter to Timothy, Paul informs him that all the saints in
Asia had turned away from him, "of whom were Phygellus and Hermogenes."[61]
He admonishes Timothy again to shun "profane and vain babblings," "for,"
said he, "they will increase unto more ungodliness, and their word will
eat as doth a canker; of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; who, concerning
the truth, have erred, saying that the resurrection is passed already, and
overthrown the faith of some."[62]
Demos, once a fellow-laborer with Paul, had forsaken him, "having loved
this present world;"[63]
and at Paul's first answer, that is, when arraigned before the court at
Rome, no man
stood with him, but all men forsook him; he prays that God will not lay
this to their charge.[64]
Paul admonished Titus to hold fast to the faith, for there were many
unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, especially those of the
circumcision; who subverted whole houses, teaching things which they ought
not, for filthy lucre's sake; and were giving heed to Jewish fables and
commandments of men and turning from the truth.[65]
Peter also had something to say with reference to the danger of heresies
and false teachers which menaced the Church. He declared that there would
be false teachers among the saints, who "privily would bring in damnable
heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon
themselves swift destruction." "And many," said he, "shall follow their
pernicious ways: by reason of whom the truth shall be evil spoken of. And
through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of
you; whose judgment now for a long time lingereth not, and their damnation
slumbereth not. For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast
them down to hell and delivered them unto chains of darkness to be
reserved unto judgment"he argued that the Lord would not spare these
corrupters of the Gospel of Christ, who, like the dog, had turned again to
his own vomit, and the sow who was washed to her wallowing in the mire.[66]
He charged also that some were wresting the epistles of Paul, as they were
some of the "other scriptures," unto their own destruction.[67]
John, the disciple whom Jesus loved, also bears testimony to the existence
of anti-Christs, false prophets, and the depravity of many in the early
Church. "It is the last time," said he, "and as ye have heard that
anti-Christ shall come, even now there are many anti-Christs, whereby we
know that it is the last time;" * * * * "They went out from us * * * *
that they might be manifest that they were not all of us."[68]
"Try the spirits," said he, in the same epistle, "whether they are of God;
because many false prophets are gone out into the world."[69]
Again: "Many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that
Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver, an anti-Christ."[70]
Jude also is a witness against this class of deceivers. He admonished
the
saints to "contend earnestly for the faith which was once delivered unto
the saints;" "for," said he, "there are certain men crept in unawares, * *
* ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness and
denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ."[71]
The rest of the epistle he devotes to a description of their wickedness,
comparing it with the conduct of Satan, and the vileness of the
inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah.
I have not given this review of the condition of the Church of Christ in
the Apostolic age with the view of establishing the idea that the Church
at that time was in a complete state of apostasy; nor have I dwelt upon
the weaknesses and sins of the early saints for the purpose of holding
them up for contempt. My only purpose has been to dispel, first of all,
the extravagant ideas that obtain in many minds concerning the absolute
sanctity of the early Christians; and secondly, and mainly, to show that
there were elements and tendencies existing in the early Church, even in
the days of the Apostles, that would, when unrestrained by Apostolic
authority and power, lead to its entire overthrow.
We have no good reason to believe that there occurred any change for the
better in the affairs of the Church after the demise of the Apostles, no
reason to believe that there were fewer heresies or fewer false teachers,
or false prophets to lead away the people with their vain philosophies,
their foolish babblings, and opposition of science falsely so called. On
the contrary, one is forced to believe the prediction of Paul, viz., that
evil men and seducers would wax worse and worse, deceiving and being
deceived;[72]
for who, after the Apostles were fallen asleep, would stand up and correct
the heresies that were brought into the Church, rebuke the schismatics,
the false teachers and false prophets that arose to draw away disciples
after them? If false teachers insinuated themselves into the Church,
brought in damnable heresies by reason of which the way of truth was evil
spoken of, and the pure religion of Jesus Christ corrupted even while
inspired Apostles were still in the Church, it is not unreasonable to
conclude that all these evils would increase and revel unchecked after the
death of the Apostles.
The Rise of False Teachers.
I cannot, of course, in this introduction, enter into even a brief history
of false teachers in the early Christian centuries. That of itself would
be matter for a volume. I shall therefore content myself with making
quotations from reliable authorities that will directly establish the fact
of the rapid increase in the number of false teachers, and the pernicious effects of
their doctrines upon the Christian religion. It should be said before
making these quotations, however, that Protestant writers are interested
in maintaining that the Christian religion was perpetuated, even through
the ages of apostasy, and given back to mankind by the agency of the
so-called "Reformation" of the sixteenth century. Hence in their writings,
when stating the corruptions of the early Church, they are especially
guarded lest too strong a statement would lead to the belief that the
Christian religion had been utterly subverted. Indeed, it is well known
that Milner wrote his Church Historywhich should be regarded not so much
as the history of the Church as the history of pietyto counteract the
influence of Mosheim's Institutes of Ecclesiastical History, which work
Milner considered too frank in its statements of perversions and abuses of
religion. The Protestant writers must need set forth the theory that the
Christian religion survived all the abuses and corruptions of it through
ages of apostasy, else they would have no logical ground for the sixteenth
century "Reformation" to stand upon. They seem not oblivious to the fact,
though never mentioning it, that if the Christian religion was displaced
by a paganized religiona false religionas is fully predicted, as we
shall see later, in the New Testament prophecies, and of which the works
of Protestant writers go far towards provingthen the only possible way in
which the true Christian religion and the Church of Christ could be
restored would be by re-opening of the heavens, and the giving forth of a
new dispensation of the Gospel, together with a renewal of divine
authority to preach it, and administer its ordinances of salvation.
Catholics hold that there has been no great apostasy in the Church. Their
theory is, that there has been a constant, unbroken, perpetuation of the
Christian Church from the days of the Messiah and His Apostles until now;
and that the Roman Catholic church is that very Church so perpetuated
through the ages. Catholic writers admit that there have been very corrupt
periods in the Church and many wicked prelates, and some vile popes; yet
they hold that the Church has persisted, that the Christian religion has
been preserved in the earth.
With these remarks on the position of the Protestant and Catholic churches
respecting their attitude on the subject of the perpetuation of the
Christian religion, I proceed with the quotations promised; and, first, a
passage from Neander's History of the Christian Religion and Church, on
the very great difference between the writings of the Apostles and the
writings of the so-called Apostolic Fathers; and the suddenness of that
transition, to the disparagement of the productions of the Fathers:
A phenomenon, singular in its kind, is the striking difference between
the writings
of the Apostles and the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, who were so
nearly their contemporaries. In other cases, transitions are wont to be
gradual; but in this instance we observe a sudden change. There are here
no gentle gradations, but all at once an abrupt transition from one
style of language to another; a phenomenon which should lead us to
acknowledge the fact of a special agency of the Divine Spirit in the
souls of the Apostles. After the time of the first extraordinary
operations of the Holy Ghost followed by the period of the free
development of human nature in Christianity; and here, as in all other
cases, the beginning must be small and feeble before the effects of
Christianity could penetrate more widely, and bring fully under their
influence the great powers of the human mind. It was to be shown first,
what the divine power could effect by the foolishness of preaching. The
writings of the so-called Apostolic Fathers have unhappily for the most
part, come down to us in a condition very little worthy of confidence,
partly because under the name of these men, so highly venerated in the
Church, writings were early forged for the purpose of giving authority
to particular opinions or principles; and partly because their own
writings which were extant became interpolated in subservience to a
Jewish hierarchical interest which aimed to crush the free spirit of the
Gospel.[73]
There is no authority of scripture for the supposition made here by Dr.
Neander that the extraordinary operations of the Holy Ghost were to be
confined to the Apostles; the whole tenor of scripture authority is to the
contrary. It is the theory of the Gospel itself, that all who receive it,
and particularly its ministers, shall have the divine Spirit as a special
agency working in their souls, through all time, and there is no warrant
for the belief that its operations were to be confined to those who first
received it and became its first ministers. Therefore, this sudden
transition in the matter of excellence and trustworthiness between the
writings of the Apostles and the writings of the Apostolic Fathers
indicates not only a deterioration in the character of the teachers in the
Church and what is taught, but more especially indicates the progress of
the "mystery of iniquity" which was at work subverting the Christian
religion and destroying the Church of Christ.
On the question of forged books and writings mentioned in the passage from
Neander, Dr. Nathaniel Lardner refers to a dissertation written by Dr.
Mosheim, which shows the reasons and causes for the many forged writings
produced in the first and second centuries, and then adds: "All own that
Christians of all sorts were guilty of this fraud. Indeed we may say it
was one great fault of the times; for truth needs no such defenses, and
would blush at the sight of them."[74]
Eusebius, quoting Hegesippus on the subject of false teachers and
referring to the condition of the Church about the close of the first
century, says:
The Church
continued until then [close of the first century] as a pure and
uncorrupt virgin, whilst if there were any at all that attempted to
pervert the sound doctrine of the saving Gospel, they were yet skulking
in dark retreats: but when the sacred choir of Apostles became extinct,
and the generation of those that had been privileged to hear their
inspired wisdom had passed away, then also the combinations of impious
errors arose by the fraud and delusions of false teachers. These also,
as there were none of the Apostles left, henceforth attempted without
shame, to preach their false doctrine against the gospel of truth.[75]
Dr. Mosheim has the following on the same subject:
Not long after the Savior's ascension, various histories of His life and
doctrines, full of impositions and fables, were composed by persons of
no bad intentions, perhaps, but who were superstitious, simple, and
piously fraudulent; and afterwards various other spurious writings were
palmed upon the world, falsely inscribed with the names of the holy
Apostles.[76]
This condition of things with reference to the writers in the centuries
under consideration, naturally leads one to the reflection, that if there
were so much of fraud, and so many forged writings, what must have been
the state of the Church at this time with reference to oral teaching? We
are justified in believing, I think, that bad as was the state of things
with reference to the writings of these early teachers of the Church, the
discourses of such as preached may be depended upon as being much worse.
In this view of the case, one can readily understand that the "authority
of antiquity" so generally urged as a reason for accepting the testimonies
of the Fathers, that "handmaid to scripture," as "antiquity" is sometimes
called, the whole body of it, written and oral, may indeed "be regarded,"
as Dr. Jortin remarks, "as Briarean, for she has a hundred hands, and
these hands often clash and beat one another."[77]
Moreover, it often happens that those who are condemned by some of these
Fathers as heretics were not only censured for their heresies, but
sometimes for the truths which they held. For example: Papias, a Bishop
and Christian Father in the second century, is condemned by Eusebius for
saying that he received from Apostolic menmeaning thereby men who were
associated with the Apostlesthe fact that there would be a corporeal
reign of Christ on earth with the saints, after the resurrection, which
would continue through a thousand years.[78]
Prodicus
is censured by Clement of Alexandria for holding that men are by nature
the children of Deity.[79]
Marcion, besides being condemned for his many errors, is also censured by
Irenaeus for believing in salvation for the dead, concerning which, it
must be acknowledged, Marcion did hold peculiar views; but that is no
reason why the general principle should be condemned.[80]
He taught that Jesus Christ went to Hades and preached there, and brought
hence all that believed on him. "The ancients," continue Irenaeus, as
quoted by Lardner, "being of opinion that eternal life is not to be
obtained but through faith in Jesus Christ, and that God is too merciful
to let men perish for not hearing the Gospel, supposed that the Lord
preached also to the dead, that they might have the same advantage with
the living." He further adds, "In the language of Marcion and the fathers,
hell does not necessarily mean the place of the damned; in that place is
Tartarus, the place of torment, and Paradise, or the bosom of Abraham, a
place of rest and refreshment. In that part of Hades Jesus found the just
men of the Old Testament. They were not miserable, but were in a place of
comfort and pleasure." "For Christ," he continues, "promiseth the Jews
after this life, rest in Hades, even in the bosom of Abraham." This far
the doctrine of Marcion is in strict agreement with the New Testament,
though denounced as blasphemy by his opponent. The unfortunate part of
Marcion's doctrine on this head is that he taught that Cain and the wicked
of Sodom and the Egyptians, and in fact all the nations in general, though
they had lived in all manner of wickedness, were saved by the Lord, but
that Abel, Enoch, Noah, and the patriarchs and prophets and other
righteous men who walked with God and pleased Him in their earth life, did
not obtain salvation because they suspected that in the preaching of
Christ in the spirit world there was some scheme of deception to lead them
away from their present qualified acceptance with God, and therefore they
would not come to Christ nor believe in him, for which reason, as he says,
"their souls remained in hell."[81]
Marcion is also condemned for believing in the eternity of matter.[82]
So, too, Hermogenes is censured by Tertullian for the same cause, and for
arguing that God made the world out of matter and could not have made it
out of nothing.[83]
And so throughout there is censure and counter censure between the
orthodox and the heretics, and it is difficult at times to determine which
are the orthodox and which heretics, so frequently do they change places. Nor was
there any improvement in the ages that succeeded these that have been
briefly considered. The editor of Dr. Jortin's learned work on
ecclesiastical history, William Trollope, on a passage of Jortin's on the
early fathers, says of the fathers of the fourth century:
After the counsel of Nice,[84]
a class of writers sprung up, greatly inferior to their predecessors, in
whatever light their pretensions are viewed. Sadly deficient in
learning, prejudiced in opinion, and inelegant in style, they cannot be
admitted for a moment into competition with those who were contemporary
with the Apostles and their immediate successors.[85]
The whole tenor of his remarks is to the effect that while the fathers of
the second and third centuries, are not to be relied upon in their
interpretations of scripture, were frequently deceived in opinions, and
not always to be depended upon in matters of tradition, yet they were
greatly to be preferred in all respects to the fathers of succeeding
centuries.
The Development of False Doctrines After the Death of the Apostles.
Here, too, I shall rely very largely upon the conclusions of the learned.
Dr. Lardner, referring to the development of the heresies, the seeds of
which were sown in the days of the Apostles, says:
Eusebius relates that Ignatius, on his way from Antioch to Rome,
exhorted the churches to beware of heresies which were then springing
up, and which would increase; and that he afterwards wrote his epistles
in order to guard them against these corruptions, and to confirm them in
the faith. This opinion that the seeds of these heresies were sown in
the time of the Apostles, and sprang up immediately after is an opinion
probable in itself and is embraced by several learned moderns;
particularly by Vitringa, and by the late Rev. Mr. Brekel of Liverpool.[86]
A certain Mr. Deacon attempted to refute the Mr. Brekel referred to by Dr.
Lardner, and to maintain the purity of the Church of the first three
centuries. On this Mr. Brekel observed that "If this point were thoroughly
examined, it would appear that the Christian Church preserved her virgin
purity no longer than the Apostolic age, at least if we may give credit to
Hegesippus." Relying upon the
support of the ecclesiastical history of Socrates, a writer of the first
half of the fifth century, Mr. Brekel also says: "To mention the
corruptions and innovations in religion of the four first centuries, is
wholly superfluous; when it is so very notorious, that, even before the
reign of Constantine, there sprang up a sort of heathenish Christianity
which mingled itself with the true Christian religion."[87]
Of the impending departure from the Christian religion immediately
succeeding the days of the apostles, Dr. Neander says:
Already, in the latter part of the age of St. Paul, we shall see many
things different from what they had been originally; and so it cannot
appear strange if other changes come to be introduced into the
constitution of the [Christian] communities, by the altered
circumstances of the times immediately succeeding those of St. Paul or
St. John. Then ensued those strongly marked oppositions and schisms,
those dangers with which the corruptions engendered by manifold foreign
elements threatened primitive Christianity.[88]
Dr. Philip Smith, the author of the "Students' Ecclesiastical History," in
speaking of the early corruptions of the Christian religion, says:
The sad truth is that as soon as Christianity was generally diffused, it
began to absorb corruption from all the lands in which it was planted,
and to reflect the complexion of all their systems of religion and
philosophy.[89]
Dean Milman, in his preface to his annotated edition of Edward Gibbon's
great work, "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire," and commenting
upon that great author's attitude respecting the Christian religion, says:
If, after all, the view of the early progress of Christianity be
melancholy and humiliating, we must beware lest we charge the whole of
this on the infidelity of the historian. It is idle, it is disingenuous
to deny or to dissemble the early depravations of Christianity, its
gradual but rapid departure from its primitive simplicity and purity,
still more from its spirit of universal love. It may be no unsalutary
lesson to the Christian world, that this silent, this unavoidable
perhaps, yet fatal change shall have been drawn by an
impartial, or even an hostile hand.[90]
Dr. Mosheim, in his "Institutes," deals at length with the abuses which
arose in the Church in the second and third centuries, which I abridge to
the following, and first as to the second century: Many rites were added
without necessity to both public and private religious worship, to the great
offense of good men; and principally because of the perversity of mankind
who are more delighted with the pomp and splendor of external forms and
pageantry than with the true devotion of the heart. There is good reason
to believe that the Christian bishops purposely multiplied sacred rites
for the sake of rendering the Jews and pagans more friendly to them. For
both these classes had always been accustomed to numerous and splendid
ceremonies, and believed them an essential part of religion. In pursuance
of this policy, and to silence the calumnies of the pagans and the Jews
against themto the effect that the Christians were pronounced atheists,
because destitute of temples, altars, victims, priests, and all that pomp
in which the vulgar suppose the essence of religion to consistthe
Christian leaders introduced many rites, that they might be able to
maintain that they really had those things which the pagans had, only they
subsisted under different forms. Some of these ritesjustified, as was
supposed, by a comparison of the Christian oblations with Jewish victims
and sacrificesin time corrupted essentially the doctrine of the Lord's
supper, and converted it into a sacrifice. To add further to the dignity
of the Christian Religion, the churches of the east feigned mysteries
similar to those of the pagan religions; and, as with the pagans, the holy
rites of the mysteries were concealed from the vulgar: "And they not only
applied the terms used in the pagan mysteries to the Christian
institutions, particularly baptism and the Lord's supper, but they
gradually introduced also the rites which were designated by those terms."
This practice originated in the eastern provinces of the empire, and
thence, after the times of Adrian (who first introduced the Grecian
mysteries among the Latins), it spread among the Christians of the west.
"A large part, therefore, of Christian observances and institutions, even
in this century, had the aspect of the pagan mysteries." In like manner
many ceremonies and customs of the Egyptians were adopted.[91]
Speaking of the third century the Doctor says that all the monuments of
this century show that there was a great increase of ceremonies in the
Church owing to the prevailing passion for the Platonic philosophy. Hence
arose the public exorcisms, the multiplication of fasts, the aversion to
matrimony, and the painful austerities and penances which were enjoined
upon offenders.[92]
The Revolution of the Fourth Century: Constantine.
It will be observed that I have so far confined my quotations concerning
the corruptions which arose in the Church to the first three centuries
of the
Christian Era. I have done so purposely; and chiefly that I might show by
such quotations that the forces which were to bring about the destruction
of the Christian Church were active during those ages; and also because an
event took place in the first part of the fourth century that culminated
in the triumph of those forces. This event was the establishment of
Christianity as the state religion of Rome. Constantine the Great was the
emperor under whose reign this unlooked for revolution took place. He was
the son of Constantine Chlorus, emperor of the West in the preceding
reign, which reign he had shared with Galerius Maximianus, who ruled the
East. Constantine was an "emperor born of an emperor, the pious son of a
most pious and virtuous father," is the flattering announcement of his
parentage on the paternal side, by his contemporary, Eusebius, the church
historian; though he neglects to mention the obscure origin and humble
vocation (that of inn keeper) of his mother, Helena, whom her husband
repudiated when raised to the dignity of "Caesar" in the reign of
Diocletian.
Constantine was proclaimed emperor by the army in Britain on the death of
his father at York, 306 A. D.; but civil strife raged through the empire
for eighteen years, occasioned by the contending aspirants for the
imperial dignity. The future patron of Christianity, however, overcame all
his rivals and reigned sole monarch of Rome from 323 A. D., to the time of
his death, fourteen years later.
The policy of Constantine's father towards the Christians in his division
of the empire, the West, had been one not only of toleration but also of
friendship; and this policy the son followed from the commencement of his
career as emperor. The fact of both his own and his father's friendliness
toward the Church on the one hand, and the hostility of his rivals against
the Church on the other, brought to him the united support of the
Christians throughout the empire; and though they were not so numerous as
they are frequently represented to be, yet it cannot be denied that the
Christians were important factors in determining the course of events in
the empire at this time, and truly they were faithful allies to
Constantine, and he, on his part, neglected not to meet their
anticipations of reward.
A careful study of his life and character will force the conviction upon
the mind that Constantine was a most suitable head for the revolution
which ended by establishing a pseudo-Christianity as the state religion of
the decaying empire. A professed Christian for many years, if we may
believe Lactantius and Eusebius he postponed his baptism, after the
fashion of his times, until the very last year of his life, in order that,
purified at once from all the stains of sin by means of it, he might be
sure of entering into bliss. Such the explanation of those who would
defend this delay of the emperor's; but one cannot fail to remember
that it was quite customary at this time among many professing the
Christian religion to put off baptism as long as they dared that they
might enjoy a life of sin, and then through the means of baptism, just
before death, as by magic, obtain forgiveness.[93]
On the motives that prompted Constantine's acceptance of Christianity, our
historians are not agreed. According to Eusebius his conversion was
brought about through seeing in the heavens a luminous cross at midday,
and above it the inscription: "By this Conquer." This miraculous
sign was supplemented on the night following by the appearance of Jesus
Christ to the emperor in a dream, with the same symbol, the cross, and
directed him to make it the ensign of his banners and his protection
against the power of the enemy.[94]
According to Theodoret the emperor was converted through the arguments of
his Christian mother.[95]
According to Zosimus, it was through the arguments of an Egyptian
Christian bishopsupposed to be Hosius, Bishop of Cordubawho promised him
absolution for his crimes, which included a number of murders, if he would
but accept Christianity.[96]
It is as difficult to settle upon the time of Constantine's conversion as
it is the means and nature of it. Neander inclines to the opinion that he
was early influenced in favor of Christianity through the example if not
the teachings of his parents, who, if not fully converted to the Christian
faith, were at least tolerant of it; and may be reasonably counted among
that number who at least admitted Christ to the pantheon of the gods. But
an act of his in 308 A. D., after the death of his father, and he himself
had been proclaimed emperor of the West, shows that he was at that time
still attached to the pagan forms of worship; for hearing that the Franks
who had been inclined to rebellion against his government had, on his
preparations to make war upon them, laid down their arms, he offered
public thanks in a celebrated temple of Apollo and gave a magnificent
offering to the god.[97]
The story of his conversion as related by Eusebius would fix that event in
the year 312 A. D.; and surely if the open vision of the luminous cross
and the subsequent appearing of Christ in his dream, were realities,
Constantine had sufficient grounds for a prompt and unequivocal conversion
to the Christian faith. But after that, if we consider the conduct of the
emperor, we shall find him, however astonishing it may seem, still
attached to pagan ceremonies of worship. As late as 321, A. D., nine years
after the visitation of Christ to him, we find him accused of artfully
balancing the hopes and fears of both his pagan and Christian subjects by
publishing in the same year two edicts; the first of which enjoined the
solemn observance of Sunday; and the second directed the consultation of
the Haruspices[98]the
soothsayers of the old pagan religion. Of this circumstance, Neander, who
is disposed to palliate the conduct of Constantine as far as possible,
after intimating that this lapse might be accounted for on the grounds of
state policy, says, "Yet the other hypothesis, viz., that Constantine had
actually fallen back into heathen superstitions may indeed be regarded as
the more natural."[99]
Five years after his supposed miraculous conversion "we find marks of the
pagan state religion upon the imperial coins."[100]
"A medal was struck," says Dr. John W. Draper, doubtless referring to the
same thing, "on which was impressed his [Constantine's] title of 'God,'
together with the monogram of Christ." "Another," he continues,
"represented him as raised by a hand from the sky while seated in the
chariot of the Sun. But more particularly the great porphyry pillar, a
column one hundred and twenty feet in height, exhibited the true religious
condition of the founder of Constantinople. The statue on its summit
mingled together the Sun, the Savior, and the Emperor. Its body was a
colossal image of Apollo, whose features were replaced by those of
Constantine, and around the head, like rays, were fixed the nails of the
cross of Christ recently discovered in Jerusalem."[101]
While on the day Constantinople was formally made the capital of the
empire, he honored the statue of Fortune with his gifts. In view of all
these acts, ranging as they do over the greater part of the first
Christian emperor's life, and through many years after his supposed
conversion, I think Gibbon is justified in his remarks upon this part of
Constantine's conduct: "It was an arduous task to eradicate the habits and
prejudices of his education, to acknowledge the divine power of Christ,
and to understand that the truth of his revelation was
incompatible with the worship of the gods."[102]
Turning from the consideration of the equivocal conduct of the emperor to
his character, we have a subject about which there is less disagreement
among authorities; for even Christian apologists are compelled to admit
the wickedness of this first Christian emperor. "Relying with presumptuous
confidence," says Neander, "on the great things which God had done,
through him, for the advancement of the Christian Church, he found it easy
to excuse or extenuate to his conscience many a wrong deed, into which he
had suffered himself to be betrayed by ambition, the love of rule, the arbitrary exercise
of power, or the jealousy of despotism."[103]
"It is indeed true that Constantine's life was not such as the precepts of
Christianity required," Dr. Mosheim remarks, but softens the statement
against the emperor by saying that, "It is but too notorious that many
persons who look upon the Christian religion as indubitably true and of
divine origin, yet do not conform their lives to all its holy precepts."[104]
Dr. Lardner, after drawing a most favorable outline of Constantine's
person and character, and citing the flattery of contemporary panegyrists
as a description of the man, says: "Having observed these virtues of
Constantine, and other things, which are to his advantage; a just respect
to truth obligeth us to take notice of some other things, which seem to
cast a reflection upon him."[105]
And then in the most naive manner he adds: "Among these, one of the chief
is putting to death so many of his relatives!" He enumerates the victims
of the first Christian emperor as follows: "Maximilian Herculius, his
wife's father; Bassianus, husband of his sister Anastasia; Crispus, his
own son; Fausta, his wife; Licinius, husband of his sister Constantia; and
Licinianus, or Licinius the younger, his nephew, and son of the
forementioned Licinius."[106]
The last named victim was a mere lad when put to death, "not more than a
little above eleven years of age, if so much," is Dr. Lardner's own
description of him. Fausta was suffocated in a steam bath, though she had
been his wife for twenty years and mother of three of his sons. It should
be remembered that this is the list of victims admitted by a most learned
and pious Christian writer, not a catalogue drawn up by pagan historians,
whom we might suspect of malice against one who had deserted the shrines
of the ancient gods for the faith of the Christians. But this rather
formidable list of murdered victims admitted by Dr. Lardner, shakes not
his faith in the goodness of the first Christian emperor. Some of these
"executions" he palliates, if not justifies, on the ground of political
necessity; and others on the ground of domestic perfidy; though he almost
stumbles in his efforts at excusing the taking off of Crispus, the
emperor's own son; Fausta, his wife; and the lad Licinius. "These are the
executions," he says, "which above all others cast a reflection upon the
reign of Constantine; though there are also hints of the death of some
others about the same time, with whom Constantine had till then lived in
friendship."[107]
After which the Doctor immediately addsin the very face of all the facts
he adduces, and after reciting the condemnation of both heathen and
Christian writers of some of these murdersthe following: "I do by no
means think that Constantine was a man of a cruel disposition; and
therefore I am unwilling to touch upon any other actions of a like nature:
as his making some German princes taken captive, fight in the theatre; and
sending the head of Maxentius to Africa, after it had been made a part of
Constantine's triumphal entry at Rome." When one finds a sober Christian
writer of the eighteenth century who can thus speak of Constantine; and
further remembers that to this day a priest of the Greek church seldom
mentions the name of the "imperial saint," without adding the title, "Equal
to the Apostles;" one is not surprised that while he lived, and at
his court a Christian bishop could be found who "congratulated him as
constituted by God to rule over all, in the present world, and destined to
reign with the son of God in the world to come."[108]
Or that Eusebius, who is spoken of as one of the best bishops of the
imperial court, "did not scruple for a moment to ascribe to the purest
motives of a true servant of God all those transactions into which the
emperor, without evincing the slightest regard to truth or to humanity,
had suffered himself to be drawn by an ambition which could not abide a
rival, in the struggle with Licinius; when he represents the emperor, in a
war which, beyond a doubt, had been undertaken from motives of a purely
selfish policy, as marshalling the order of the battle, and giving out the
words of command by divine inspiration bestowed in answer to his prayer."[109]
Enough of this. Let us look no longer at this first of the Christian
emperors through the eyes of churchmen seeking to extol his virtues and
hide his crimes, all for the honor of the Church. So odious had he become
in Rome for his many murders that a pasquinade which compared his reign to
that of the detested Nero was nailed to the palace gates. "The guilty
emperor," says one, "in the first burst of anger, was on the point of
darkening the tragedy, if such a thing had been possible, by a massacre of
the Roman populace who had thus insulted him." His brothers were consulted
on this measure of vengeance, however, and the result of their counsel was
a resolution to degrade Rome to a subordinate rank, and build a metropolis
elsewhere, and hence the new capital of the empire rose on the shores of
the Bosphorus.
Reflecting upon the career of Constantine from the days of his young
manhood, which had in it something of the quality that makes the
successful leader of men, to the time when he fell under the influence of
the false priests of a corrupted religion, Draper says:
From
the rough soldier who accepted the purple at York, how great the change
to the effeminate emperor of the Bosphorus, in silken robes stiffened
with threads of gold, a diadem of sapphires and pearls, and false hair,
stained of various tints; his steps stealthily guarded by mysterious
eunuchs flitting through the palace, the streets full of spies, and an
ever watchful police! The same man who approaches us as the Roman
imperator retires from us as the Asiastic despot. In the last days of
his life he put aside the imperial purple, and, assuming the customary
white garments, prepared for baptism, that the sins of his long and evil
life might all be washed away. Since complete purification can thus be
only once obtained, he was desirous to procrastinate that ceremony to
the last moment. Profoundly politic, even in his relations with heaven,
he thenceforth reclined on a white bed, took no further part in worldly
affairs, and, having thus insured a right to the continuance of that
prosperity in a future life which he had enjoyed in this, expired.[110]
And so Gibbon:
The sublime theory of the gospel had made a much fainter impression on
the heart, than on the understanding, of Constantine himself. He pursued
the great objects of his ambition through the dark and bloody paths of
war and policy; and, after the victory, he abandoned himself, without
moderation, to the abuse of his fortune. Instead of asserting his just
superiority above the imperfect heroism and profane philosophy of Trajan
and the Antonines, the mature age of Constantine forfeited the
reputation which he had acquired in his youth. As he gradually advanced
in the knowledge of truth, he proportionately declined in the practice
of virtue; and the same year of his reign in which he convened the
council of Nice, was polluted by the execution, or rather murder of his
eldest son [Crispus]. * * * * At the time of the death of Crispus, the
emperor could no longer hesitate in the choice of religion; he could no
longer be ignorant that the church was possessed of an infallible
remedy, [baptism] though he chose to defer the application of it till
the approach of death had removed the temptation and danger of a
relapse. * * * * The example and reputation of Constantine seemed to
countenance the delay of baptism. Future tyrants were encouraged to
believe that the innocent blood which they might shed in a long reign
would instantly be washed away in the waters of regeneration; and the
abuse of religion dangerously undermined the foundations of moral
virtue.[111]
Such, then, was the first Christian emperor. He uplifted "Christianity"
from the condition of a persecuted religion, and made it the state
religion of Rome; and also provided means for its wider acceptance. If for
this it shall be claimed, as it is, that much in his evil life should be
overlooked, it would still be pertinent to ask whether his acts in
connection with Christianity did not debase rather than exalt it; and if
his provisions for its wider acceptation did not tend rather to the
corruption of what remained true in the Christianity then extant, than to
the establishment of true religion.
Christianity
made a Persecuting Religion.
The edict of Milan, by which was intended no more than the establishment
of religious liberty in the empire, and which was issued in 313 A. D., by
Constantine and his colleague, Licinius, was well enough. Freedom to teach
and practice the truth is all the Christian church could ask or expect.
Had he stopped here, his action in this particular would have met with
universal applause. But he went beyond this. He not only protected the
Christians by his laws, but prohibited by express edicts the free exercise
of religion to the pagans. His proscriptions were mild at first, going no
further than to prohibit soothsaying and divination in private houses or
anywhere in secret. Later, however, if we may believe the words of
Eusebius, he placed the pagan religion under the ban of the laws. Eusebius
says:
The emperor proceeded to act with great vigor, gave the government of
the provinces chiefly to Christians, and when any Gentiles were made
governors they were prohibited to sacrifice. Which law comprehended not
only presidents of provinces but also higher officers, and even the
praetorian praefects. If they were Christians, they were required to act
according to their principles. If they were otherwise disposed, still
the practice of idolatrous rites were forbidden. * * * * And soon after
that were two laws published, at one and the same time, one prohibiting
the detestable rites of idolatry hitherto practiced in cities and
country places; and that for the future none should erect statues to the
gods, nor perform the vain arts of divination, nor offer up any
sacrifices. The other law was for enlarging Christian oratories and
churches, or for rebuilding them more grand and splendid.[112]
When contrasting the course of the first Christian emperor with the pagan
emperors, Eusebius says, "They commanded the temples to be magnificently
adorned; he demolished them to the foundation, especially such as were
most respected by superstitious people."[113]
Later he expressly says that throughout the whole Roman empire, the doors
of idolatry were shut to the commonalty and to the soldiery, and that
"every kind of sacrifice was prohibited." Again he says, that there were
several laws published for these purposes, forbidding sacrifices,
divinations, raising statues, and the secret mysteries or rites of
initiation. And he says further, that "in Egypt a sort of priesthood,
consecrated to the honor of the Nile, was entirely suppressed."[114]
I am not unmindful that some respectable authorities question if
Constantine really departed from the policy of toleration announced in his
edict of Milan; and that even Gibbon is inclined to believe in his
toleration of
paganism. The statement here made by Eusebius, the contemporary and
biographer of Constantine, however, together with reference to the edicts
of suppression quoted by his son Constans in the succeeding reign, and
which is quoted by Lardner,[115]
establishes beyond question the policy of intolerance of Constantine
toward paganism. Especially when what Eusebius has said is supplemented by
the fact that the emperor destroyed a number of heathen temples, and
peremptorily ordered the closing of the others. Among the heathen temples
destroyed was one at Aegae, in Cilicia, erected to Aesculapius, celebrated
for the number of sick that had been healed there, and held in high esteem
by men of the better class among the pagans and philosophers. It is said
that by its destruction and the public exhibition of certain images of the
gods, many tricks of the priests were exposed and became objects of sport
to the populace.[116]
But while this may have been the conduct of some insincere pagans, those
who remained heathens, as LeClerc has well said, "were no doubt extremely
shocked at the manner in which the statues of their gods were treated; and
could not consider the Christians as men of moderation. For, in short,
those statues were as dear to them, as anything, the most sacred, could be
to the Christians."[117]
Eusebius taunted the philosophers about the destruction of the temple,
without any interference on the part of the god to whom it had been
erected, apparently all unmindful of the fact that just such taunts had
been hurled at the Christian martyrs in the days that the "kingdom of God
suffered violence, and the violent took it by force." "Had not Eusebius,"
remarked Lardner, "often heard with his own ears, and read in the history
of ancient martyrs, the insults and triumphs of the heathens over the
Christians, that they professed themselves the worshipers of the great and
only true God, and yet everybody, that pleased, was able to molest and
destroy them, as he saw good?"[118]
The zeal of Christian writers has done all in its power to excuse or
palliate the conduct of Constantine in his acts for the suppression of the
pagan religion and worship; but after all is said by his apologists that
can be said; after every allowance is conceded for the times in which he
lived, and the previous conduct of the pagans through two centuries of
violence towards the Christians, the fact remains that the first Christian
emperor did by his edicts put the ancient religion of the empire under the
ban of the law, and by acts of violence destroyed some of its temples and
closed the rest by imperial decree, that the pagan gods might not be
worshiped; and this, doubtless, with the approvaland it would not be difficult to
believe, under all the circumstances, at the suggestionof Christian
bishops who thronged his court. On the foundation of intolerance thus laid
by him, others hastened to build. In the succeeding reign, among the first
laws enacted was this one against pagan sacrifices:
Let superstition cease; let the madness of sacrificing he abolished. For
whoever shall presume contrary to the constitution of our father, a
prince of blessed memory, and contrary to this command of our clemency,
to offer sacrifices, let a proper and convenient punishment be
inflicted, and execution presently done upon him.[119]
This edict was supplemented a few years later[120]
by the following edict:
It is our pleasure that in all places and in all cities, the temples be
immediately shut, and carefully guarded that none may have the power of
offending, It is likewise our pleasure, that all our subjects should
abstain from sacrifices. If any one should be guilty of such an act, let
him feel the sword of vengeance; and after his execution, let his
property be confiscated to the public use. We denounce the same
penalties against the governors of the provinces, if they neglect to
punish the criminals.[121]
It is not necessary to pursue the subject much further. It will be
sufficient to say that during the fourth century, by following the policy
of suppression inaugurated by this first Christian emperor, Christianity
was changed from a persecuted to a persecuting religion. Without restraint
from the ecclesiastical authorities, the Christian emperors issued edicts
against the pagan religion, proscribed its followers, destroyed its
temples, and confiscated its property to the uses of the rival religion.
Even Neander, speaking of this revolution, and constrained as he is to say
all that he can for the honor of the Christian Church, is compelled to
admit that "the relation of things had become reversed. As in former times
the observance of the pagan ceremonies, the religion of the state, had
appeared in the light of a civil duty, and the profession of Christianity
in that of a crime against the state; so now it was the case, not indeed
that the outward profession of Christianity was commanded as a universal
civil duty, for against this the spirit of Christianity too earnestly
remonstrated; but that the exercise of the pagan religion was made
politically dangerous."[122]
In the pages of this eminent Christian historian one may read that before
the close of the century which witnessed the elevation of Christianity to
the dignity of the state religion of the empire, wild troops of Christian
monks were undertaking campaigns, especially in the country, for the
destruction of the
heathen temples in which sacrifices were alleged to have been performed;
of bishops who not only superintended the destruction of heathen temples
at the head of bands of soldiers and gladiators, but paraded through the
streets of the cities the symbols of the heathen faith, provoking civil
conflicts which Christian emperors did not hesitate to take advantage of
for the more complete suppression of paganism.[123]
Meantime a pagan apologist, Libanius, arises to plead the cause of
religious toleration, and in the course of his address to the Christian
emperor, Theodosius, he puts to shame the Christianity then in vogue, by
showing the emperor how far the Church had departed from the spirit of the
Christian religion, by saying: "Force is said not to be permitted, even
according to the laws of your own religion: persuasion is said to be
praised, but force condemned by them. Why then, do you wreak your fury
against the temples, when this surely is not to persuade, but to use
force? Thus, then, it is plain you would transgress even the laws of your
own religion."[124]
Lardner calls attention to the fact that as under pagan emperors previous
to Constantine Christianity had been in a state of persecution, so now,
after Constantine, he proceeds to show that paganism under Christian
emperors was all along in a state of persecution"However, I would hope,
not so severe and vigorous as that of the Christians in the foregoing
period of near three hundred years."[125]
And so LeClerc, as quoted by Lardner:
Thus it was that the Christians continued to return to the pagans what
they had suffered from them during the first three centuries, instead of
gaining them by patience and mildness, which they had so much
recommended when they were the weakest. This conduct was proper to make
the pagans more obstinate, by teaching them that the Christians affected
to speak of humanity and moderation from interest only, and not from a
principle of religion as they pretended. At least it is certain, that
thereby they lost the right to complain of the manner in which the
pagans had treated them in times past, or to boast of the mildness of
their religion, which they effectually disparaged by those persecutions.
* * * Nor ought we to imagine that the penalties laid by Christians upon
the pagans were light. If a sacrifice was offered in a private place,
with the knowledge of the proprietor, the place was confiscated; if not,
they were to pay a fine of twenty pounds of gold, as much as if it had
been done in a temple; and in some cases the penalty of death was
appointed. We may look into the oration of Libanius for the temples,
where that orator sustains the same character before Theodosius as the
Christians had formerly done before pagan emperors. I must acknowledge
that this phenomenon, if I may so call it, gives me pain: for I could
wish that they who defended the truth had preserved to themselves the
honor of being the only persons that were persecuted for religion.[126]
Persecution of "Heretics."
Once started upon the policy of suppressing by force those of a different
religion, Christianity did not stop with the persecution of the pagans;
bad and un-Christian as that was, still more serious results occurred from
the persecutions inflicted upon so-called heretics in the Church, by those
who were considered orthodox. It is true that there were heretics in the
Church before the days of Constantine; much progress had been made in the
matter of paganizing Christianity, and more or less of intolerance was
manifested by Christian sects towards one another; but it was the policy
and example of this first Christian emperor that laid the real foundation
for that monument of shame and disgrace to the Christian name which rises
upon the plains of Christian discord and strife and war waged against
heretics in the name and for the glory of Christ. It is this which
constitutes the most melancholy page of ecclesiastical history.
In his office of supreme pontiff in the old pagan religion, which he held
by virtue of being emperor of Rome, Constantine may naturally have
supposed that the supreme headship of the religion he had protected and
the Church he had elevated fell to him for the same reason; and with it
the right to reconcile differences, compose factions, and determine what
should be the orthodox faith. At any rate we find him acting somewhat in
this capacity. When contending church parties appealed to him, he at first
was indifferent to their disputes, and tried to shame them into harmony by
referring to the conduct of the Greek philosophers, who never discussed
difficult questions before ignorant multitudes; who could "maintain their
arguments without losing their temper; and assert their freedom without
violating any friendship."[127]
His efforts at reconciling the differences that arose among Christians
over what is known as the Arian controversy were of no avail; and after
six years of bitter strife, the emperor summoned the bishops of the Church
to Nicea in Bithynia. After long deliberation Arianism was condemned, and
orthodox Christianity was established by decree of the council, ratified
by the emperor, to which all Christians must conform. Those who resisted
the divine judgment of the synod must prepare themselves for immediate
exile.[128]
How effectual the argument, "belief or banishment," even among the bishops
at the council, was, may be determined from the fact that "the opposition
to the decision of the council was almost instantly reduced from
seventeen to two."[129]
In his zeal to enforce orthodoxy the emperor forgot his former moderation,
and in 326 A.D.the year following the council of Niceahe issued a
general edict against heretics, in which, after condemning his own past
forbearance as occasioning men's being seduced, he says to the various
heretical parties:
Wherefore, since this your pernicious wickedness is no longer to be
endured, we by this present law command you, that you no more presume to
meet together. And we have given orders that all those places where you
are wont to hold assemblies should be taken away. Yea, our concern for
this matter is such, that we not only forbid you to assemble to any
public place; but we likewise forbid all assemblies of your foolish
superstition in private houses, and in all private places whatever. All
of you, therefore, who have any sincere love of truth, come to the
Catholic church. And that this remedy may have its full effect, we
ordain that all your superstitious conventicles, I mean oratories of all
heretics, if it be fit to call such houses oratories, be forthwith taken
away, and without any opposition delivered to the Catholic church: and
that the rest of your places be adjudged to the public.[130]
"Thus the dens of heretics were laid open by the imperial edict,"
exultantly exclaims Eusebius, the Christian bishop, "and the wild beasts,
the ring leaders of their impiety, were scattered."[131]
And thus was the paganized Christian church launched upon that career of
persecution of heretics within the church, as well as upon the policy of
persecuting those of a different religion; a policy that has filled the
world with religious wars, and deeds of cruelty which would better become
the reign of a Nero than Christian rulers of Christian nations. It is a
terrible arraignment which Gibbon draws against apostate Christendom in
the concluding paragraph of his review of the persecutions which had been
endured by the followers of Christ in the Christian centuries preceding
Constantine. He says:
We shall conclude this chapter by a melancholy truth, which obtrudes
itself on the reluctant mind; that, even admitting, without hesitation
or inquiry, all that history has recorded, or devotion has feigned, on
the subject of martyrdoms, it must still be acknowledged that the
Christians, in the course of their intestine dissensions, have inflicted
far greater severities on each other than they have experienced from the
zeal of infidels. During the ages of ignorance which followed the
subversion of the Roman empire in the west,[132]
the bishops of the imperial city extended their dominion over the laity
as well as clergy of the Latin church. The fabric of superstition which
they had erected, and which might long have defied the feeble efforts of
reason, was at length assaulted by a crowd of daring fanatics, who, from
the twelfth to the sixteenth century, assumed the popular character of
reformers. The church of Rome defended by violence the empire which she
had acquired by fraud; a system of peace and benevolence was soon
disgraced by proscriptions, wars, massacres, and the institution of the
holy office; and as the reformers were animated by the love of civil as
well as religious freedom, the Catholic princes connected their own
interest with that of the clergy, and enforced by fire and sword the
terror of spiritual censures. In the Netherlands alone more than one
hundred thousand of the subjects of Charles the Fifth are said to have
suffered by the hand of the executioner; and this extraordinary number
is attested by Grotius, a man of genius and learning, who preserved his
moderation amidst the fury of contending sects, and who composed the
annals of his own age and century, at the time when the invention of
printing had facilitated the means of intelligence and increased the
danger of detection. If we are obliged to submit our belief to the
authority of Grotius, it must be allowed that the number of protestants
who were executed in a single province and a single reign far exceeded
that of the primitive martyrs in the space of three centuries, and of
the Roman empire![133]
Both Guizot and Milman, eminent Christian scholars, annotated the work of
Edward Gibbon, the former in French, the latter in an English edition; and
at every point where they could modify a statement or soften a passage
apparently unjust to Christianity, they did so; but in the presence of the
important and terrible passages just quoted, they remained absolutely
silent! Nor has any other Christian writer since their day, so far as I
know, attempted to contradict the statement of Mr. Gibbon. It is proper to
say, however, that in a note Mr. Gibbon himself cites the fact that Fra
Paola, an Italian writer, places the number of Belgic martyrs at fifty
thousand, but even that computation would still leave the conclusion of
Mr. Gibbon's reflections unimpaired.
The circumstance of the Church elevated by Constantine becoming a
persecuting Church is a strong evidence of its paganized state; for the
true Christian religion is not a persecuting religion; the true Church of
Christ is not a persecuting Church. When the Samaritans would not receive
the Messiah, some of the Apostles would have them consumed by fire from
heaven; but the Master turned and rebuked them, saying, "Ye know not what
manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy
men's lives, but to save them."[134]
It is true that Messiah said: "Think not that I am come to send peace on
earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man
at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and
the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a man's foes shall be
they of his
own household."[135]
This, however, is but a prediction of the effect of the proclamation of
the Gospel, not an authorization to force the acceptance of Christianity
by the sword; nor does it authorize the Church to invoke the arm of the
civil authority to execute by force her doctrinal decrees. The Gospel of
Jesus Christ, it is true, did not bring peace, but a sword; the sword,
however, was found in the hands of those who rejected the Gospel, not in
the hands of those who accepted and preached it. And when the Church
departed so far from the spirit of Christ that she grasped the sword in
her own hands, or dictated the civil authority to wield it in her behalf,
and that became the policy of the Church, the adoption of that policy
proclaimed her apostate condition to the world, in a manner to be known
and read of all men.
Christianity Before and After Constantine.
I think sufficient has been said to justify the belief that the reign of
Constantine marks the period when the paganization of Christianity had
become complete. I do not mean by this that there is any particular date
which one may set down to show that here true Christianity ceases, and
there apostate Christianity begins; which is a point frequently insisted
upon by those who contend for the unbroken perpetuity of Christianity from
the days of Messiah. They demand to know on what night it was that the
whole collection of Christians, of different nationalities and languages,
went to bed sound in the Christian faith, to awake the next morning all
pagans.[136]
I claim no such sudden revolution brought about the apostasy which I am
sure took place. We have seen by what has already been said, that even in
the time of the Apostles there was a tendency on the part of the
Christians to depart from the religion of Jesus Christ; that after the
days of the Apostles there was a steady increase in the number and
influence of false teachers; an insidious introduction of heresies; a
multiplication of rites and ceremonies well known in the pagan celebration
of religious mysteries, but entirely foreign to the Gospel; and an
amalgamation of pagan doctrines with Christian principles. It remains to
be shown that there was a steady increase of immorality among the
professing Christians; a marked loss of spirituality; a rapid growth of
pride and worldliness on the part of Christian bishops and other church
leaders; and at last, an utter departure from the true and living God and
Jesus Christ whom He had sent, and the establishment of a system in its
place, as debasing to men as it was dishonorable to God.
Taking then the reign of Constantine as the period beyond which the true religion
of Christ did not extend, nor the true Church of Christ exist, let us
consider Christianity before his reign and after it. Here I shall ask the
reader to take into account as part of the consideration of Christianity
previous to Constantine what I have already set before him in this
introduction concerning the tendency to division and heresies which
existed in the Church in the days of the Apostles; and also those
quotations I have made from eminent Christian authorities, which give
evidence of the early corruption of Christianity, and which too plainly
testify that it was in a state of steady decline through the second and
third centuries, until it was fit only for such enthronement as a
Constantine could give it, when he made it the state religion of a corrupt
empire hastening to its decay. If the reader will do this, it will obviate
the necessity of my referring to these matters again.
Decline in Moral and Spiritual Living Among Christians.
It will be conceded that the Gospel of Jesus Christ commands a very high
order of moral and spiritual living, and that the Apostles enjoined this
moral law upon the early saints as essential to the favor of God. Others
also after the days of the Apostles, followed in the same admonition, and
indeed the sharp contrast that existed between the lives of converts
before and after their acceptance of Christianity was a matter of pride
not only to St. Paul,[137]
but to Justin Martyr of the second century, who, in reference to the
change produced in the lives of Christian converts, said:
We who were once slaves of lust, now have delight only in purity of
morals; we, who once practiced arts of magic, have consecrated ourselves
to the Eternal and Good God; we, who once prized gain above all things,
give even what we have to the common use, and share it with such as are
in need; we, who once hated and murdered one another, who on account of
differences of customs would have no common hearth with strangers, do
now, since the appearance of Christ, live together with them; we pray
for our enemies; we seek to convince those that hate us without cause,
so that there may order their lives according to Christ's glorious
doctrine and attain to the joyful hope of receiving like blessings with
us from God, the Lord of all.[138]
It was not long, however, before there was a marked departure from this
high moral level among the Christians. In tracing that decline I shall use
chiefly the History of the Church by Joseph Milner, published in 1794. My
reason for doing so is as follows: I have already stated in this writing,
that Milner wrote what some regard as his "great history of the Church,"
to counteract the influence of Dr. Mosheim's splendid "Institutes of
Ecclesiastical History," which is evidently by some regarded as too much a history
of the perversions and abuses of religion. Milner plainly informs his
readers that he intends to write the history of those only who have been
real, not nominal, Christians, irrespective of the external Church to
which they belonged, proceeding upon the theory that these good men
constitute the Church of Christ. His history, in other words, is a history
of piety, not of the Church. It will be his purpose therefore to exalt the
morality of the Christians in all ages; and I quote his work respecting
the moral deteriorations of the Christians that I may not be charged with
quoting authorities who some think have made too much of Christian
shortcomings. Milner says that a gloomy cloud, concerning moral
conditions, hung over the close of the first century, and proceeds to
argue that the first impressions made by the effusions of the spirit are
the strongest; that human depravity overborne for a time arose afresh,
particularly in the next generation, and hence the disorders of schisms
and heresies in the Church. Neander does not agree with the philosophy of
Milner. He says, "Christianity, since it first entered human nature, has
operated, wherever it has struck root, with the same divine power for
sanctification; and this divine power cannot be weakened by the lapse of
ages. In this respect, therefore, the period of the first appearance of
Christianity could have no advantage over any of the following ages of the
Christian Church."[139]
And he follows this declaration with a statement, that the change which
Christianity produced in the lives of those who accepted it appeared so
strongly marked by the contrast it presented with what they had previously
been when pagans. The correctness of the philosophy I shall leave these
two great Christian authorities to settle between themselves. I am
concerned more particularly with the facts in the case.
In consequence of the prominence that has been given to the persecutions
of the Christians during the first three centuries, the impression very
extensively prevails that the early Christian Church was constantly under
the hard pressure of continuous and relentless persecutions. This,
however, is not the case. There were many periods of peace granted to the
Christians. Indeed their periods of persecution were only occasional, and
it is a question if these periods of peace were not more detrimental to
Christianity than the seasons of persecution. Milner, under the authority
of Origen, says that the long peace granted the Church in the third
century, during the reign of the several emperors, from about 260 A. D.,
to the opening of the fourth century, produced a great degree of
luke-warmness and religious indecorum. "Let the reader," he says, "only
notice the indifference which Origen here describes and the conduct of
Christians both in the first and second centuries, and he will
be affected with the greatness of the declension." Then he quotes Origen:
"Several come to church only on solemn festivals, and then not so much for
instruction as diversion. Some go out again as soon as they have heard the
lecture, without conferring or asking the pastors questions. Others stay
not till the lecture is ended, and others hear not so much as a single
word, but entertain themselves in a corner of the church."[140]
Coming to the middle of the third century, just previous to that severe
persecution inaugurated by the emperor Decius, and speaking of Cyprian,
Bishop of Carthage, Milner exclaims: "A star of the first magnitude, when
we consider the time in which he lived! Let us recreate ourselves with the
contemplation of it. We are fatigued with hunting for Christian goodness,
and we have discovered but little and that little with much difficulty. We
shall find Cyprian to be a character who partook indeed of the declensions
which we have noticed and lamented, but who was still far superior, I
apprehend, in real simplicity and piety, to the Christians of the East."[141]
This same Cyprian, in which Milner delights, speaking of the effects of
the long peace upon the Church which preceded the Decian persecution,
says:
Each had been bent on improving his own patrimony, and had forgotten
what believers had done under the Apostles, and what they ought always
to do. They were brooding over the arts of amassing wealth; the pastors
and the deacons each forgot his duty; works of mercy were neglected, and
discipline was at the lowest ebb; luxury and effeminacy prevailed;
meritricious arts in dress were cultivated; fraud and deception
practiced among brethren. Christians would unite themselves in matrimony
with unbelievers; could swear, not only without reverence but without
veracity. With haughty asperity they despised their ecclesiastical
superiors; they railed against one another with outrageous acrimony, and
conducted quarrels with determined malice. Even many bishops, who ought
to be guides and patterns to the rest, neglected the peculiar duties of
their stations, gave themselves up to secular pursuits. They deserted
their places of residence and their flocks; they traveled through
distant provinces in quest of pleasure and gain; gave no assistance to
their needy brethren, but were insatiable in their thirst of money. They
possessed estates by fraud and multiplied usury. What have we not
deserved to suffer for such conduct? Even the divine word hath foretold
us what we might expect: "If his children forsake my law and walk not in
my judgments, I will visit their offenses with the rod and their sins
with scourges." These things had been denounced and foretold, but in
vain. Our sins had brought our affairs to that pass, that because we had
despised the Lord's directions, we were obliged to undergo a correction
of our multiplied evils and a trial of our faith by severe remedies.[142]
Referring to the long reign of peace in the closing decade of the third
century, Milner says:
This new scene [the toleration of Christianity by a pagan government]
did not prove favorable to the growth of grace and holiness. In no
period since the Apostles was there ever so great a general decay as in
this. Not even in particular instances can we discover during this
interval much of lively Christianity.[143]
Here I drop Milner to take up Eusebius, who was an eye witness of the
moral declension among the Christians previous to the last great pagan
persecution under the emperor Diocletian. Referring to the long period of
peace which the Church had enjoyeda period of forty yearshe says:
But when, by reason of excessive liberty, we sunk into negligence and
sloth, one envying and reviling another in different ways, and we were
almost, as it were, upon the point of taking up arms against each other
with words as with darts and spears, prelates inveighing against
prelates, and people rising up against people, and hypocrisy and
dissimulation had arisen to the greatest height of malignity, then the
divine judgment, which usually proceeds with a lenient hand, whilst the
multitudes were yet crowding into the Church, with gentle and mild
visitations began to afflict the episcopacy; the persecution having
begun with those brethren in the army. But as if destitute of all
sensibility, we were not prompt in measures to appease and propitiate
the Deity; some indeed like atheists, regarding our situation as
unheeded and unobserved by a Providence, we added one wickedness and
misery to another. But some that appeared to be our pastors deserting
the law of piety, were inflamed against each other with mutual strifes,
only accumulating quarrels and threats, rivalship, hostility and hatred
to each other, only anxious to assert the government as a kind of
sovereignty for themselves.[144]
Here I shall avail myself of some reflections upon this condition which I
have elsewhere expressed;[145]
Let it be remembered that what is said in the foregoing quotation is from
a writer contemporary with the events, and who says, in the very chapter
following the one from which I have just quoted, that it was not for him
to record the dissensions and follies which the shepherds of the people
exercised against each other before the persecution. He also adds: "We
shall not make mention of those that were shaken by the persecution, nor
of those that suffered shipwreck in their salvation, and of their own
accord were sunk in the depths of the watery gulf."[146]
Then in his Book of Martyrs, referring to events that occurred between the
edicts ordering the persecution, he says: "But the events that occurred in
the intermediate times, besides those already related, I have thought proper
to pass by; I mean more particularly the circumstances of the different
heads of the churches, who from being shepherds of the reasonable flocks
of Christ, that did not govern in a lawful and becoming manner, were
condemned by divine justice, as unworthy of such a charge, to be the
keepers of the unreasonable camel, an animal deformed in the structure of
his body; and condemned further to be the keepers of the imperial horses.
* * * * Moreover, the ambitious aspirings of many to office, and the
injudicious and unlawful ordinations that took place, the divisions among
the confessors themselves, the great schisms and difficulties
industriously fomented by the factions among the new members, against the
relics of the Church, devising one innovation after another, and
unmercifully thrusting them into the midst of all these calamities,
heaping up affliction upon affliction. All this, I say, I have resolved to
pass by, judging it foreign to my purpose, wishing, as I said in the
beginning, to shun and avoid giving an account of them."[147]
Hence, however bad the condition of the Church is represented to be by
ecclesiastical writers, we must know that it was still worse than that;
however numerous the schisms; however unholy the ambition of aspiring
prelates; however frequent and serious the innovations upon the primitive
ordinances of the Gospel; however great the confusion and apostasy in the
Church is represented to be; we must know that it is still worse than
that, since the Church historians contemporaneous with the events refused
to record these things in their fulness, lest it should prove disastrous
to the Church; just as some of our modern scholars professing to write
Church history express their determination to close their eyes to the
corruption and abuses which form the greater part of the melancholy story
of ecclesiastical history, for fear that relating these things would make
it appear that real religion scarcely had any existence.[148]
I shall say no more upon the matter of moral declensions among Christians,
except this: If there was such moral declensions among Christians as is
represented by the foregoing high authorities on Christian affairs in the
centuries preceding Constantine, what moral declension must have prevailed
when from a proscribed religion Christianity was exalted to the dignity of
the state religion of the empire; and her prelates and clergy were
recalled from exile and suffering, poverty and disgrace, and loaded with
the wealth and honors that the lord of the Roman world could bestow?
Consider, in this connection, the propositions of Constantine at the
council of Nicea for the propaganda of Christianity, and pass a candid
judgment upon the moral or rather immoral effect they would produce upon
the Church. Neander thus states them:
"The
heathen would be most easily led to salvation, if the condition of the
Christians were made to appear to them in all respects enviable.
"They [the bishops] should consider, that the advantage to be derived
from preaching could not belong to all.
"Some, he said, might be drawn to the faith by being seasonably
supplied with the means of subsistence.
"Others were accustomed to repair to that quarter where they found
protection and intercession (alluding to the intercessions of the bishops).
"Others would be won by an affable reception.
"Others by being honored with presents.
"There were but few who honestly loved the exhibitions of religious
doctrine; but few were the friends of truth (therefore but few sincere
converts).
"For this reason they should accommodate themselves to the characters
of all, and like skillful physicians, give to each man that which might
contribute to his cure, so that in every way the saving doctrine might be
glorified in all."[149]
The effect of adopting such methods for the more rapid propagation of
Christianity, as is here proposed by the emperor to the bishops assembled
at the council of Nicea, must be apparent to all, and is quite universally
lamented by Christian writers of later ages. "A course of proceeding upon
such principles," remarks Neander himself, "must entirely have thrown open
a wide door for all manner of hypocrisy. Even Eusebius, the panegyrist of
Constantine, blinded as he was by the splendor which the latter had cast
over the outward Churcheven he is obliged to reckon among the grievous
evils of this period, of which he was an eye witness, the indescribable
hypocrisy of those who gave themselves out as Christians merely for
temporal advantage, and who, by their outward show of zeal for the faith,
contrived to win the confidence of the emperor, which he suffered them to
abuse."[150]
"The piercing eye of ambition and avarice," says Gibbon, "soon discovered
that the profession of Christianity might contribute to the interest of
the present as well as of a future life. The hopes of wealth and honors,
the example of an emperor, his exhortations, his irresistible smiles,
diffused conviction among the venal and obsequious crowds which usually
fill the apartments of a palace. The cities which signalized a forward
zeal by the voluntary destruction of their temples, were distinguished by
municipal privileges and rewarded with popular donatives. * * * As the
lower ranks of society are governed by imitation, the conversion of those
who possessed any eminence of birth, of power, or of riches, was soon
followed by dependent multitudes. The salvation of the common people was
purchased at an easy rate, if it be true that in one year twelve
thousand men were baptized at Rome, besides a proportionable number of
women and children; and that a white garment, with twenty pieces of gold,
had been promised by the emperor to every convert."[151]
Under all these circumstances it is small wonder if men exclaimed as
Augustine did somewhat later in his commentary on St. John"How many seek
Jesus only that He may benefit them in earthly matters! One man has a law
suit, so he seeks the intercession of the clergy: another is oppressed by
his superior, so he takes refuge in the Church. Others are seeking, one in
this way and another in that, to be interceded for in some quarter where
they have but little influence themselves. The Church is daily full of
such persons. Seldom is Jesus sought for Jesus' sake!"[152]
After nicely balancing the possibility and probability of those who came
into the Church for present worldly advantage being converted in time to a
true faith in the Christian religion, Neander says: "Beyond all doubt the
number was far greater of those who grew hardened in that worldly sense by
which from the first they had profaned a holy profession, and who were
thus the means of introducing into the Church a great mass of corruption."
"Unhappily," he adds, "there were bishops whose only wish was to make the
conversion to Christianity a right easy thing for the pagans. * * * Hence
they baptized even those who lived in open sin, and who plainly enough
manifested that it was not their purpose to forsake it. They imagined that
when these were only baptized and introduced into the fellowship of the
Church, it was then time enough to admonish them against sin."[153]
Surely it was not difficult among such a mass of unconverted members thus
brought into the Church to find elements that would foster the errors,
both in ethics and in doctrine, which about this time arose in the Church.
It is small wonder that it was well nigh publicly adopted in this ageas
we are informed by Mosheim"That to deceive and lie is a virtue when
religion can be promoted by it, and that error in religion ought to be
visited with penalties and punishments." The first of these evils resulted
in the accumulation of that mass of myth and fable that burdens the annals
of the dark ages; the second established the "holy inquisition," alike the
shame of the Roman Catholic church and the so-called Christian
civilization she has influenced. "It is almost incredible," continues
Mosheim, speaking of the first evil referred to, "what a mass of the most
insipid fables, and what a host of pious falsehoods have, through all the
centuries, grown out of it, to the great detriment of true religion. If
some inquisitive person were to examine the conduct and the writings of
the
great and most pious teachers of this century, I fear he would find about
all of them infected with this leprosy." "Those idle fictions," he adds,
"which a regard for the Platonic philosophy, and for the prevailing
opinions of the day had induced most theologians to embrace, even before
the time of Constantine, were now in various ways confirmed, extended and
embellished. Hence it is that we see, on every side, evident traces of
excessive veneration for departed saints; of a purifying fire for the soul
when separated from the body; of the celibacy of the clergy; of the
worship of images and relics; and of many other opinions, which in process
of time almost banished the true religion, or"and here the Doctor perhaps
remembered that he was a Protestant and that his position as such would
not admit of conceding the utter subversion of the Christian religion, and
hence added"or at least very much obscured and corrupted it." "Genuine
piety" he continues, "was supplanted by a long train of superstitious
observances which originated partly from opinions inconsiderately
embraced, partly from a preposterous disposition to adopt profane rites
and combine them with Christian worship, and partly from the natural
predilections of mankind in general for a splendid and ostentatious
religion."[154]
The Loss of Spiritual Gifts.
Not only did the moral declensions in the Church, which started soon after
the demise of the Apostles, proceed with accelerated pace after
Constantine became the patron of the Church, and with such resulting evils
as I have pointed out, but there was a like declension in the enjoyment of
spiritual gifts in the Church. It is well known that the Apostles promised
the Holy Ghost to those who received the Gospel, and the enjoyment of
those supernatural gifts which go with it. Indeed Jesus Himself said in
His last commission to his disciples:
Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature. He
that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not
shall be damned. And these signs shall follow them that believe: In my
name they shall cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they
shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not
hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.[155]
Paul, in speaking of the spiritual gifts promised in the Gospel, says:
Now there are diversities of gifts, by the same Spirit. And there are
differences of administrations, but the same Lord. And there are
diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in
all. But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit
withal. For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another
the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; to another faith by the same
Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; to another
the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of
spirits, to another diverse kinds of tongues; to another the
interpretation of tongues: but all these worketh that one and the
self-same Spirit, dividing to every man severally as He will.[156]
It is well known that the spiritual gifts here enumerated were enjoyed by
the saints in the early Christian centuries; and especially in Apostolic
times. The New Testament books are replete with reference to the enjoyment
of these gifts of the Spirit among the saints. Nor is there any intimation
of the discontinuance of them. On the contrary it is reasonable to
conclude that so long as the saints shall continue in the enjoyment of the
Holy Ghost, that long also will they enjoy the spiritual gifts which
proceed from a possession of Him. Moreover, "the fruit of the Spirit is
love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness,
temperance: against such there is no law. And they that are Christ's have
crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts."[157]
Such are the effects of the operations of the Holy Ghost upon the nature
of man. These fruits of the Spirit indicate the change that the Spirit of
God may effect in human nature; by which that which is corrupted through
sin may be conformed to that which is pure and holy, according to the
working whereby the Spirit is able to subdue all things unto Himself, in
them that give place for His indwelling in their souls. This effectual
working of the Spirit in the souls of men, by which they were transformed
from vileness to holiness, was the boast of the early saints. And, upon
reflection, all will concede that the victories of the Spirit in reforming
the lives of men and making them in their very nature conform to the
likeness of Christ in righteousness, are more to be desired and more to be
celebrated than those victories which are physical or intellectual merely
in their nature. Indeed these latter fruits of the Spirit derive their
chief value from the extent to which they contribute to the production of
the formerthat is, to the extent that they establish men in the faith,
enable them to crucify the flesh with the lusts thereof, and help them to
live in harmony with the sweet influence of the Spirit of God. When men
live in harmony with that Spirit there will righteousness obtain; there
will love abound; there will the Gospel of Christ appear triumphant. Where
these fruits do not appear, there the Gospel of Christ is not; there the
powers of darkness for the time being, are triumphant. Yet notwithstanding
this promise
concerning the enjoyment of the spiritual gifts of the Gospel, the
evidence is abundant and conclusive that when all the Apostles were
deceased, then there was a marked declension in the manifestation of the
spiritual powers of the Gospel. "With the close of the New Testament
records," says Dr. Phillip Smith, author of The Student's Ecclesiastical
History, "and the death of the last surviving Apostle, the history of the
Church passes from its sacred to its purely human phase. The miraculous
gifts which attested the divine mission of the Apostles ceased; not indeed
by any formal record of their withdrawal, but by the clear evidence that
they were possessed no longer."[158]
Dr. Jortin bears witness to the same fact. He says:
The words Eusebius intimated that he thought those extraordinary powers
to be, at least, not very common afterwards[i. e., the
beginning of the second century]. "They went about," says he, "with
God's co-operative grace, for even then the divine Spirit performed many
miracles by them." * * * This brings the probability of miracles down to
the beginning of the second century, in the middle of which Justin
Martyr says: "There are prophetic gifts among us even until now:" and
amongst these gifts he reckons up miraculous powers, as healing the
sick, casting out evil spirits, etc. His words imply an opinion that
such gifts were not only exercised in his time, but had been continued
down to his time, and he may be justly supposed to speak the sense of
his contemporary Christians; and that is all that I cite him for. It
seems probable that if we bad a full and authentic history of the
propagation of the Gospel, from the time of the Apostles to the middle
of the second century, composed by eye witnesses and by the preachers of
Christianity, we should find miracles wrought for the conversion of the
pagans. But from A. D. 70 to 150 is a dark interval, and we have very
short accounts of the transactions of those days, unless we should
accept of groundless rumors and frivolous tales.[159]
So, also, Dr. Mosheim, speaking of the second century, and after
commenting on the extent to which the extraordinary divine gifts
contributed to the extension of the limits of the Church, says: "The gift
of foreign tongues appears to have gradually ceased, as soon as many
nations became enlightened with the truth; * * * but the other gifts with
which God favored the rising Church of Christ, were, as we learn from
numerous testimonies of the ancients, still conferred upon particular
persons here and there." And when writing of the fourth and succeeding
centuries, he, too, bears witness of the declension, and final cessation
of these spiritual powers among the Christians; and, indeed, the most of
our ecclesiastical writers form the same conclusion.
Thus the Christians lost the enjoyment of the spiritual gifts of the Gospel, such
as inspired dreams, prophecies, healings, speaking in new tongues,
ministering of angels, and, most to be lamented of all, direct revelation
from God, by which the will of God might be made known to His people and
His Church preserved from error, from decadence, and from destruction: and
by the absence of these spiritual gifts and powers among the Christians of
the third and fourth centuries, we may know that a mere man-made religion,
having indeed a form of godliness but denying the power thereof, had
succeeded to the spiritually gifted religion, of Jesus Christ, wherein the
power of God is ever present and outwardly as well as inwardly manifested.
Departure of "Christendom" from the True Doctrine of Deity.
In nothing perhaps was there a wider departure from the real truth of
Christianity than in the doctrine concerning God defined by the general
council of the Church held within the lifetime of Constantine, and which,
in fact, he assembled upon his own authority. This was the celebrated
Council of Nicea in Bithynia, Asia Minor, held in 325 A.D. The main
purpose for which the first general Council of the Church was assembled
was to settle a dispute between one Arius, a presbyter of Alexandria, and
his bishop, Alexander, of the same city, respecting the doctrine of the
Godhead. The dispute proved to be far-reaching in its effects, and for
three hundred years the rivalry of the contending factions disturbed the
peace of Christendom. We shall have clearer conceptions of the subject,
however, and be better able to judge of the extent to which there was a
departure from the true doctrine respecting the Godhead, by the
definitions formulated and enforced upon the Church by the council of
Nicea, if we first consider the doctrine of the Godhead as found in the
Testament.
The Christian Doctrine of God.
The existence of God both Jesus and the Apostles accepted as a fact. In
all the teachings of the former He nowhere seeks to prove God's existence.
He assumes that, and proceeds from that basis with His doctrine. He
declares the fact that God was His Father, and frequently calls Himself
the Son of God.[160]
After His resurrection and departure into heaven, the Apostle taught that
He, the Son of God, was with God the Father in the beginning; that He, as
well as the Father, was God; that under the direction of the Father He was
the Creator of
worlds; that without Him was not anything made that was made.[161]
That in him dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily;[162]
and that He was the express image of the Father's person.[163]
Jesus Himself taught that He and the Father were one[164]
that whosoever had seen Him had seen the Father also;[165]
that it was part of His mission to reveal God, the Father, through His own
personality; for as was the Son, so too was the Father.[166]
Hence Jesus was God manifested in flesha revelation of God to the world.[167]
That is, a revelation, not only of the being of God, but of the
kind of being God is.
Jesus also taught (and in doing so showed in what the "oneness" of Himself
and His Father consisted) that the disciples might be one with Him, and
also one with each other, as He and the Father were one.[168]
Not one in personnot all merged into one individual, and all distinctions
of personality lost; but one in mind, in knowledge, in love, in willone
by reason of the indwelling in all of the one spirit, even as the mind and
will of God the Father was also in Jesus Christ.[169]
The Holy Ghost, too, was upheld by the Christian religion to be God.[170]
Jesus ascribed to Him a distinct personality; as proceeding from the
Father; as sent forth in the name of the Son, as feeling love;
experiencing grief; as forbidding; as abiding; as teaching; as bearing
witness; as appointing to work; and as interceding for men. All of which
clearly establishes for Him a personality.
The distinct personality of these three individual Gods (united however
into one Godhead, or Divine Council), was made apparent at the baptism of
Jesus; for as He, God the Son, came up out of the water from His baptism
at the hands of John, a manifestation of the presence of the Holy Ghost
was given in the sign of the dove which rested upon Jesus, while out of
the glory of heaven the voice of God the Father was heard saying, "This,"
referring to Jesus, "is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." The
distinctness of the personality of each member of the Godhead is also
shown by the commandment to baptize those who believe the Gospel equally
in the name of each person of the Holy Trinity. That is, in the name of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.[171]
And again, also, in the Apostolic benediction, viz., "The grace of the
Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy
Ghost, be with you all."[172]
These three personages constitute the Christian Godhead, the Holy Trinity.
In early Christian theology they were regarded as the Supreme Governing
and Creating Power in heaven and in earth. Of which Trinity the Father was
worshiped in the name of the Son, while the Holy Ghost bore record of both
the Father and the Son. And though the Holy Trinity was made all of three
distinct persons, yet did they constitute but one Godhead, or Supreme
Governing Power.
This outline of the doctrine of God derived from the New Testament
represents Him as anthropomorphic; that is, like man in form; or, rather,
it re-affirms the old doctrine found in the book of Genesis, viz., that
man is created in the image of God, and after His likeness. The outline of
New Testament doctrine of God also ascribes to Him what are called human
attributes and feelings; but as in the foregoing we first say that God is
represented as being in human form, and then to get the exact truth say:
"Or, rather, man was created in the image and likeness of God," so in this
latter case, when we have said that the doctrine of the New Testament
ascribes human attributes and feelings to God, to get the exact truth we
should say: "Or, rather, man possesses the attributes of God"the
attributes of knowing, willing, judging, loving, etc.though it should be
stated, of course, that man does not possess these attributes in their
perfection, as God does. The same may also be said of the physical
perfections. While man has been created in the image and likeness of God,
yet our bodies in their present state of imperfectionsometimes stunted in
growth, diseased, subject to sickness, wasting, decay, and deathcannot be
said to be like God's glorious, perfect physical body, yet we have the
Divine word that our bodies shall be like His:
"For our conversation is in heaven: from whence also we look for the
Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ: who shall change our vile body, that it may
be
fashioned like unto His glorious body, according to the working whereby He
is able even to subdue all things unto Himself."[173]
So also the attributes of the spirit of manthe attributes of the mindnow
imperfect, impure, unholy, and limited in the range of vision and
apprehension of things, owing largely to the conditions in which man finds
himself placed in this earth-life (and all for a wise purpose in God's
economy); yet the time will come that it will be with the spirit as with
the body; for God shall change our vile spirit that it may be fashioned
like unto His own glorious spirit, "according to the working whereby He is
able even to subdue all things unto Himself." That whereas now we see only
as through a glass, darkly, then we shall see as we are seen; that whereas
now we know but in part, then we shall know even as we are known.[174]
The foregoing doctrine of God, taught to the Christians in Apostolic
times, awakened their pious reverence without exciting their curiosity.
They dealt with no metaphysical abstractions, but were contented to accept
the teachings of the Apostles in humble faith, and believed that Jesus
Christ was the complete manifestation of Deity, and the express image of
God His Father; and hence a revelation to them of God; while the Holy
Ghost they accepted as God's witness and messenger to them.
Paganization of the Christian Doctrine of God.
But Christianity, as is well known, came in contact with other doctrines
concerning Deity. It was almost immediately brought in touch with the
mysticism of the Orient and also with the philosophy of the Greeks, who
took so much delight in intellectual subtleties. In the Oriental
philosophies, and in the Greek, there was conceived the idea of a trinity
in Deity; an idea which possibly may have come down from the doctrines
revealed to the patriarchs concerning the Godhead, but which had been
corrupted and rendered unintelligible by the vain philosophizings of men.
In some of the Oriental systems the trinity or Trimurti consisted of
Brahma, the Creator; Vishnu, the Preserver; and Siva, the Destroyer. It
will be seen, however, that this trinity is not necessarily one of
persons, or individuals, but may be one of attributes, qualities, or even
a trinity of functions in one being; and in this way it is
usually understood.[175]
Plato's trinity is sometimes stated in the terms, "First Cause; Reason, or
Logos; and Soul of the Universe;" but more commonly in these: "Goodness,
Intellect, and Will." The nature of the Greek trinity has long been a
matter of contention among the learned, and one indeed that is not settled
to this day. Is there indicated in his system "a true and proper
tri-personality, or merely a personification of three impersonalities," a
trinity of attributes or functions? The answers to these questions are
varied, and would require too much space for consideration here.
Christians having been taught to accept the New Testament doctrine of the
Father, Son and Holy Spirit as constituting one Godhead, Christianity no
sooner came in contact with the philosophies of the Greeks and Egyptians
than there was an effort made to identify the Christian trinity with that of
the Greek and other philosophies. The temptation to do this was very
great. Christianity was a proscribed religion and its followers detested.
Whenever it could be shown, therefore, that under new symbols the Church
really taught the same doctrines that the old philosophers, which were
held in esteem, did, it was regarded as a distinct gain to Christianity.
The mere fact of Christianity teaching a trinity of any kind was a
sufficient basis of comparison, under the temptation offered, and hence in
a short time we have the alleged followers of Christ involved in all the
metaphysical disputations of the age. The chief difficulty in those
speculations was to define the nature of the Logos, or Word of God; a
title that is given to our Savior by the Apostle St. John,[176]
be it remembered. Adopting absolute "being" as the postulate of their
conception of God, absolute oneness, and therefore absolute singleness,
their difficulties arose in trying to reconcile the existence of three
persons in the Godhead to the postulate of unity. The disputations were
carried on chiefly concerning Christ, the "Word," in His relationship to
the Godhead; and the disputants concerned themselves with such questions
as these: "Is Jesus the Word?" "If He be the Word, did He emanate from God
in time or before time?" "If He emanated from God, is He co-eternal and of
the same, that is identical, substance with Him, or
merely of a similar substance?" "Is He distinct from the Father,
that is, separate from Him, or is He not?" "Is He made or begotten?" "Can
He beget in return?" "Has He paternity, or productive virtue without
paternity?" Similar questions were asked as to the other Person of the
Godhead, the Holy Spirit. These questions were violently agitated at
Alexandria by the bishop of that city, Alexander, and one of the
presbyters, Arius, 318-321 A. D.; thence spread throughout Christendom,
and culminated finally in the Council at Nicea, 325 A. D. Arius held the
doctrine that Logos or Word was a dependent or spontaneous production
created out of nothing by the will of the Father, hence the Son of God, by
whom all things were made, begotten before all worlds; but there had been
a time when the Logos was not; and also He was of a substance,
however similar it might be, different from the Father. This doctrine, in
the minds of the opponents of Arius, detracted from the divine nature of
Christ, in fact, denied Him true Deity and relegated Him to the position
of a creature, against which the piety of a large number of Christians
rebelled. After six years of hot disputation and frequent appeals by the
contestants to the emperor, the council of Nicea was assembled and the
mysteries of the Christian faith submitted to public debate, a portion of
the time, at least, in the presence of the emperor, who, to some
extent, seemed to exercise the functions of president over the assembly.
The doctrine of Arius was condemned, and after "long deliberations, among
struggles, and scrupulous examinations," the following creed was adopted:
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, creator of all things
visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God,
only begotten of the Father, that is, of the substance of the Father,
God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made,
being of the same substance with the Father, by whom all things were
made in heaven and in earth, who for us men and for our salvation came
down from heaven, was incarnate, was made man, suffered, rose again the
third day, ascended into the heavens, and He will come to judge the
living and the dead; and in the Holy Ghost. Those who say there was a
time when He was not, and He was not before He was begotten, and He was
made of nothing (he was created), or who says that He is of another
hypostatis, or of another substance (than the Father), or that the Son
of God is created, that he is mutable, or subject to change, the
Catholic church anathematizes.[177]
Arius himself was condemned as a heretic and banished into one of the
remote provinces, Ilyricum, his friends and disciples branded by law, with
the odius name of "Porphyrians," because it is supposed that Arius, like
Porphyry, had sought to injure Christianity. His writings were condemned
to the flames and a capital punishment was pronounced against those in
whose possession they should be found. Three years later, however, through
the influence of the women at the imperial court, Constantine softened in
his demeanor towards Arius and his followers. The exiles were recalled and
Arius himself was received at court and his faith approved by a synod of
prelates and presbyters at Jerusalem; but on the day that he was to be
publicly received in the cathedral church at Constantinople, by the order
of the emperor, who, by the way, received the sacrament at the hands of
Arius, he expired under circumstances which have led many to believe that
other means than the prayers of the orthodox against him were the cause of
his death. The leaders of the orthodox party, Athanasius of Alexandria,
Eustathius of Antioch, and Paul of Constantinople, were now to feel the
wrath of the first Christian emperor. They were deposed on various
occasions and by the sentence of numerous councils, and banished into
distant provinces. In fact, so far from the adoption of the Nicene creed
ending the conflict which had arisen, it was more like the opening of that
controversy which agitated Christendom for so long, and resulted in so
many shameful conflicts. Councils were arrayed against councils, and
though they never could convince one another of error, they never failed,
in the spirit of such Christian charity as was then extant, to close their
decrees with curses. Votes were bartered for and purchased in those
councils, and facts justify the latent sarcasm in Gibbon's remark, that
"the cause of truth and justice was promoted by the influence of gold."
There were persecutions and counter-persecutions, as now one party and
then the other prevailed; there were assassinations and bloody battles
over this doctrine of Deity, the accounts of which fill, as they also
disgrace, our Christian annals. The creed which was adopted at Nicea,
however, became the settled doctrine of orthodox Christendom, and remains
so to this day.
It is difficult to determine which is really the worst, the creed itself
or the explanations of it. At any rate, we do not clearly see the impiety
of its doctrines until we listen to the explanations that have been made
of it. Athanasius himself has left on record a creed explanatory of the
one adopted at Nicea. True, among the learned, many doubt Athanasius being
the author of the creed which bears his name; but, however much doubt may
be thrown upon that question, no one hesitates to accept it as the
orthodox explanation of the doctrine of Deity, and, in fact, it is
accepted as one of the important symbols of the Christian faith, and is as
follows:
We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in 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 there are not three
eternals, but one eternal. As also there are not three
incomprehensibles, nor three uncreate, but one uncreate 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 there are not three Gods, but one God.
As already stated, this creed of St. Athanasius is accepted as one of the
symbols of the orthodox Christian faith. It is understood that these two
creeds teach that God is incorporeal, that is to say, an immaterial being.
The Catholic church says: "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."[178]
While the Church of England teaches in her articles of faith "that there
is but one living and true God everlasting, without body,[179]
parts, or passions, of infinite power, wisdom and goodness." This view
of God as an incorporeal, immaterial, bodiless, partless, passionless,
being is now and has been from the days of the great apostasy from God and
Christ, in the second and third centuries, the doctrine of Deity generally
accepted by apostate Christendom. The simple doctrine of the Christian
Godhead, set forth in the New Testament is corrupted by the meaningless
jargon of these creeds, and their explanations; and the learned who
profess a belief in them are wandering in the darkness of the mysticisms
of the old pagan philosophies. No wonder that Athanasius himself, whom
Gibbon with a quiet sarcasm calls the most sagacious of the Christian
theologians, candidly confessed that whenever he forced his understanding
to mediate on the divinity of the Logos (and which, of course, involved
the whole doctrine of the Godhead), his "toilsome and unavailing efforts
recoiled on themselves; and the more he thought, the less he comprehended:
and the more he wrote, the less capable was he of expressing his
thoughts!" It is a fine passage with which Gibbon closes his reflections
upon this subject, and hence I shall give it place here:
In every step of the inquiry, we are compelled to feel and acknowledge
the immeasurable disproportion between the size of the object and the
capacity of the human mind. We may try to abstract the notions of time,
of space, and of matter, which so closely adhere to all the perceptions
of our experimental knowledge; but as soon as we presume to reason of
infinite substance, or spiritual generation; as often as we deduce any
positive conclusions from a negative idea, we are
involved in darkness, perplexity, and inevitable contradiction.[180]
Recurrence to the New Testament doctrine of God, and a comparison of it
with the doctrine of Deity set forth in the Nicean and Athanasian creeds,
will exhibit the wide departurethe absolute apostasythat has taken place
in respect of this most fundamental of all doctrines of religionthe
doctrine of God. Truly "Christians" have denied the Lord that bought them,[181]
and turned literally to fables. They have enthroned a conception of a
negative idea of "being," which can stand in no possible relationship to
man, nor man to it; and to this they ascribe divine attributes and give it
title, knee and adoration which belong to God alone. Small wonder that the
angel whom John saw flying in the midst of heaven having the everlasting
Gospel to commit to the earth in the hour of God's judgment, in the last
days, should cry aloud to the inhabitants of the earth, saying, "Fear God
and give glory to Him; * * * * and worship Him that made heaven,
and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters"[182]small
wonder, I repeat, that such should be part of this great message, for
truly the whole world had departed from the worship of the true and living
God.
The Church of Christ Displaced by the Churches of Men.
The departure from the form and spirit of church government was no less
marked than the moral and spiritual declension among the Christians of the
early centuries of the era, or the departure from the true doctrine of
Deity. Beyond filling the vacancy in the council of the Twelve Apostles,
occasioned by the fall of Judas, there is no clear and satisfactory
evidence that other successors of the Apostles were ever chosen, though
the fair implication is that the organization of the Church with Apostles,
Prophets, Evangelists, Seventies, Bishops, Teachers, etc., was to be
perpetuated as at first established. At least this organization was given
for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, until the
saints should come to a unity of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of
God;[183]
so that the plain inference is that as long as there are saints to be
perfected, or edified, or united, or brought to the knowledge of God; so
long as there is work for a ministry, or the necessity of a Church through
the agency of which the truth is to be taught to the world, so long as it
will be necessary to perpetuate the organization given of God for the
achievement of those high purposes. To say that man could devise a better
organization for the accomplishment of these several objects would be to
challenge the wisdom of God. To say that any of these means provided in
the Church organization could be dispensed with, would be to contradict
the plain teaching of scripture, which, in this very connection forbids
the eye to say to the hand, I have no need of thee; or the head to the
feet, I have no need of you; that is, one officer of the Church may not
say to another officer, I have no need of thee.[184]
The doctrine of scripture is that all the officers of the Church together
with their several gifts are essential to the Church of Christ; essential
to its perfection; essential to the performance of the sacred functions
assigned to it. Yet it must be conceded that the organization described in
the New Testament did not survive the last of the Apostles; or preserve
much beyond that time, the spirit which the Master had impressed upon it.[185]
The Apostles, while they lived, exercised a general jurisdiction over the
Church, to which all submitted without question. In the exercise of their general
authority they organized branches of the Church, appointed Elders or
Bishops to take the oversight of them, and instructed them in Church
government, and discipline, and doctrine. After the demise of the
Apostles, there seems to have been left no central authority to exercise
the functions of general supervision or presidency over the entire Church,
such as the Twelve had exercised. That center of unity, together with the
power thereof, seems to have vanished from the Church with the Apostles.
The bishops and some subordinate officers remained, it is true, but these
were local, not general authorities. The Church in each city or district
of country after the Apostolic age, seems to have been regarded as a sort
of independent republic of itself, without any bond of consociation with
any other church beyond that which was the result of possessing a common
faith in Christianity, which bond was one of sympathy merely, not of
hierarchal association. The rise of the hierarchy with the centralization
of its powers in the bishop of Rome, and which ultimately dominated the
whole Church, and not only the Church but, directly or indirectly, the
western civilized world, came later, and was of gradual development; and
when it was finally established, it was not the organization described in
the New Testament, the Church with an inspired priesthood of Apostles, and
Prophets, Evangelists, Seventies, and Pastors, etc., but a hierarchy
fashioned by man out of such remnants of Church organization as survived
Apostolic times. As the number of Christians increased, the bishops of
large cities organized new branches of the Church in the suburbs of their
cities, and in the towns and villages adjacent, and ordained for them a
ministry. It was but natural perhaps that the officers of these new
branches of the Church, both the bishops and the subordinate clergy,
should look to the one who had brought them into existence as a sort of
general presiding authority over them. And hence, in time arose what were
called metropolitan bishops, bishops who had under their direction the
bishops of neighboring towns and villagesbishops of the "suburbs and the
fields," they were sometimes calledand perhaps of the entire province of
which the metropolitan city was recognized as the center. As the bishops
of the metropolis of a province, in the manner described, became the
center of ecclesiastical unity for that province, so, too, in time, the
bishops of cities which were the capitals of the three great divisions
of the
empireAntioch, Alexandria and Romeasserted a superior dignity over
metropolitan bishops. It was in these cities that the exarchs of the
empire resided, and if we may trust the authority of Neander, the bishops
of these cities also, at first, took that title, but later made choice of
the more ecclesiastical name of Patriarch.[186]
In addition to the importance attached to these cities as the capitals of
the great divisions of the empire, a superior dignity in the minds of
Christians attached to the Churches founded by the Apostles as the surest
depositories of the Apostolic teaching and doctrine; and as Apostolic
origin could be claimed for the churches in the three cities named, it is
not surprising, when their political importance is added, that the bishops
of those cities claimed superior dignity for their office, and united
under their jurisdiction the metropolitan bishops of the respective three
great divisions of the empire. Subsequently the same title was granted to
the bishop of Jerusalem, and to the bishop of Constantinople; to the
former it was granted in virtue of the peculiar sanctity which attaches to
Jerusalem, and the fact that the first Christian Church was planted there;
to the latter, because it was made the capital of the empire, "New Rome;"
and because also it was peculiarly the city of the first imperial patron
of Christianity. Thus five patriarchates were established.
Through circumstances too numerous and intricate to detail here, the
bishops of Rome changed the primacy of mere precedence which had been
accorded them among associated brethren, to a primacy of power and
jurisdiction, which resulted in the bishops of Rome becoming recognized as
the supreme head of the Christian Church; and the papacy entered upon that
marvelous career which by the impartial can but be regarded as the shame
of the Christian name.
Attention has already been called to the corruptions which prevailed in
that period of peace in the closing decades of the third century, where
bishops are represented as being full of pride and ostentation; as
deserting the law of piety and being inflamed against each other with
mutual strifes, only accumulating quarrels, threats, rivalships,
hostilities, hatred towards each other, and only anxious to assert the
Church government as a kind of sovereignty for themselves.[187]
And all this when Christianity was a proscribed religion; and when the
Church, and especially its leaders, the bishops, were liable to severest
persecution. Reason and a due consideration of human nature both combined
to fix upon us the conviction that the bitterness of rivalry, of hatred,
of ambition, must have greatly increased when metropolitan and patriarchal
bishops, formerly proscribed and hunted like wild beasts, rose to the
dignity of civil princes, and took upon them more and ever more of the
spirit of worldliness as wealth and honor and popular applause were made
the accompaniments of their ecclesiastical offices. History confirms what
reason and a knowledge of human nature suggests; for the history of the
Church after the elevation of proscribed Christianity to the dignity of
the state religion of the Roman empire, is but the melancholy history of
unholy ambitions, jealousies, strifes, contentions, murders, and wars
between rival bishops and their adherents on the one hand; and equally unholy struggles
for worldly advantages with kings and rulers of this world, on the other.
The spirit that actuated the bishops of the Church after their elevation
through the policy of Constantine is admirably illustrated by a remark of
Gregory of Nazianzus, made in Constantinople, 380 A. D., when deploring
the evils of the Church. He says:
Would to heaven there were no primacy, no eminence of place, and no
tyrannical precedence of rank; that we might be known by eminence of
virtue alone! But, as the case now stands, the distinction of a seat at
the right hand or the left, or in the middle; at a higher or a lower
place; of going before or aside of each other, has given rise to many
disorders among us, to no salutary purpose whatsoever and plunged
multitudes in ruin.[188]
Matters in Church government did not mend with time, but grew worse and
worse. Pride increased; rivalship between contending prelates grew more
embittered; ambition mounted higher and ever higher in the breasts of the
shepherds of the flock of Christ. In his association with his Apostlesto
whom he committed the keys of His kingdomthe Master had discouraged
ambition and had said that he who would be great among his followers must
be their minister; and whosoever would be chief among them, was to be
their servant; and the government of His Church was to be distinct in
these particulars from the governments of this world.[189]
But all in vain were the instructions of Messiah to the worldly, ambitious
prelates of an apostate Christianity which had gradually supplanted the
religion of Jesus Christ; and henceforth we may see in that hierarchy
which usurped the place of the Church of Christ from the time of
Constantine, all the spirit of pride, envy, jealousy, contention, strife,
selfishness, bitterness, and unholy ambition which characterized the
princes and rulers of this world; attended, too, with all the evils that
wait upon these passions of rulers when once let loose, viz., secret
plottings, usurpations of authority, corrupt elections, cruel
imprisonments, banishments, secret and public murders, and wars; all
undertaken, of course, in the interest of the gentle religion of Jesus
Christ, and the maintenance of that authority which is based on love, and
whose control over men is through the means of persuasion and the teaching
of true knowledge. Is it not evident that the kingdom of peace, wherein
was to dwell righteousness and truth, had become merely one of the
kingdoms of this world? And were not the Fratriceli of the thirteenth
century, though denounced as heretics, right when they loudly proclaimed
their conviction that "the fatal gift of a Christian emperor had been the
doom of the true Christian religion?"
The
Testimony of Prophecy to the Universal Apostasy.
Clear as the fact is made in this historical view that there was a
complete and universal apostasy from the religion established in the
Dispensation of the Meridian of Time; and clear as is the proof from the
same review that the Church of Christ then established was destroyed,
there is yet another line of evidence pointing to the same solemn fact
that I can not altogether omit, though often used in our literature, viz.,
the testimony of prophecy to the apostasy from the Christian religion, and
the destruction of the Church of Christ.
The Apostles themselves through the inspiration of the Holy Ghost were
fully aware that such an apostasy would take place, as the following
several predictions bear witness: Paul passing through Ephesus admonished
the Elders of that Church to take heed to the flock "over which the Holy
Ghost hath made you overseers; * * * * * for I know this, that after my
departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw
away disciples after them."[190]
To Timothy Paul said: "the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter
times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits,
and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their
conscience seared with a hot iron; forbidding to marry and commanding to
abstain from meats."[191]
And again: "I charge thee to preach the word; be instant in season, out of
season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine. For
the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but after
their own lusts they shall heap to themselves teachers, having itching
ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be
turned unto fables."[192]
And still again he said to Timothy: "This know also, that in the last days
perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves,
covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents,
unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, truce breakers, false
accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors,
heady, highminded, lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God; having a
form of Godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away."[193]
Peter's prophecy concerning the rise of false teachers among the saints,
who privately would bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord who
bought them, and by reason of whom the way of truth would be evil spoken
of, we have already quoted.[194]
Paul in
his second epistle to the Thessalonians gives utterance to a prophecy
which covers the whole ground of the absolute and universal apostasy of
Christendom. A prophecy which, if the apostasy of so-called Christendom
has not been complete and universal, proves beyond all question that the
great Apostle of the Gentiles is a false prophet; or if fulfilled, then it
proves that the Church of Christ, so far as it existed in the earth was to
be destroyed; that another and different religion was to be substituted
for the Christian religion: that another church, one founded by men, was
to take the place of the Church of Christ, a worldly church dominated by
the very spirit of Lucifer, who, under its rule, would oppose and exalt
himself above all that is called God; and sit in the temple of God showing
himself, so far as this world is concerned, that he is God. Moreover Paul
declared in this very prophecy I am about to quote that the forces which
would ultimately bring to pass this universal apostasy from the Christian
religion"the mystery of iniquity" was already at work even in his day.
With this introduction, which is also to be considered as my comment upon
and interpretation of the passage, I quote Paul's great prediction on the
universal Apostasy.
Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ,
and by our gathering together unto Him, that ye be not soon shaken in
mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as
from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by
any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away
first, and that man of sin be revealed, the Son of Perdition; who
opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is
worshiped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing
himself that he is God. Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you,
I told you these things? And now ye know what withholdeth that he might
be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work:
only he who now letteth [hindereth] will let [hinder], until he be taken
out of the way. And then shall that wicked be revealed, whom the Lord
shall consume with the spirit of His mouth, and shall destroy with the
brightness of His coming: even him whose coming is after the working of
Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, and with all
deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they
receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for
this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe
a lie: that they all might be damned who believe not the truth, but had
pleasure in unrighteousness.[195]
A more ancient prophet than Paul also predicted a like condition of the
world in the last days. "Behold," says Isaiah, "the Lord maketh the earth
empty, and maketh it waste, and turneth it upside down, and scattereth
abroad the inhabitants thereof. And it shall be, as with the people, so
with the priest. * * * * * The land shall be utterly emptied and utterly
spoiled: for the Lord hath spoken this word. The earth mourneth and fadeth away, the
world languisheth and fadeth away, the haughty people of the earth do
languish. The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because
they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the
everlasting covenant. Therefore hath the curse devoured the earth, and
they that dwell therein are desolate: therefore the inhabitants of the
earth are burned, and few men left."[196]
Clearly all this prophecy of Isaiah's has not yet been fulfilled; for the
earth, however much it may have been defiled under the inhabitants
thereof, has not yet been burned, and but few men left. That is a judgment
that still hangs over the world; and will come upon it as sure as the Lord
has spoken the word; and that, too, because men have transgressed the
laws; because they have changed the ordinances, because they have
brokennot the covenant made with Moses, or with Abrahambut because they
have broken the everlasting covenant; of which covenant the blood of
Christ is the sign and seal.[197]
In other words, they have broken the Gospel covenantdeparted from the
Gospel faithhence the predicted judgment.
If I did not think these two great prophecies foretold completely the
universal apostasy of Christendom, I should be tempted to enter into the
consideration of the great prophecies to be found in the book of Daniel
and the book of Revelation, and show how to both of these prophets, as
well as unto Paul and other New Testament writers, the Lord revealed the
rise of an earth power that would not only open his mouth in blasphemy
against God, to blaspheme His name and them who dwell in heaven;[198]
who would speak great words against the Most High, and so magnify himself
as to stand up against the Prince of princes[199]but
who would also make war with the saints and "prevail against them;"[200]
who would "wear out the saints of the Most High;"[201]
"destroy the mighty and the holy people;"[202]
"make war with the saints and overcome them."[203]
But believing that the two passages quoted at length entirely cover the
subject prophetically, I shall not here enter into further prophetic
proofs either as to the corruptions of the Christian religion or the
destruction of the Christian Church, deeming that what has already been
set forth sufficient on that head.
Conclusion.
The sum of the whole matter is:The purpose of man's creation, and the
plan of his redemption, were known to God and the immense host of the spirits
of men before the creation of the earth. Adam came to the new creation,
the earth, under the divine commandment to people it with his offspring.
From Adam to Messiah numerous dispensations of the Gospel were given to
men; but these dispensations were limited in their effectiveness, owing to
the proneness of men to reject the truth, and to walk in darkness rather
than light because their deeds were evil. Yet God left not Himself without
witnesses in the earth; for there were a few in all dispensations that
honored Him and His righteous laws. Finally, when the appointed time was
come, Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God, came and made the appointed
Atonement for the sins of the world and brought men under the dominion of
His mercy. He taught the Gospel; He brought life and immortality to light;
He brought into existence His Church, and then ascended on high to His
Father. For a time the Gospel in its purity was preached in the world by
the chosen Apostles, though even in their day men began to mar it with
their vain philosophies, their doctrines of science, falsely so called;
and when the Apostles were all fallen asleep, then corruptions ran riot in
the Church, doctrines of men were taught for the commandments of God; a
church made by men was substituted for the Church of Christ; a church full
of pride and worldliness; a church which while it clung to forms of
godliness ran riot in excesses and abominationsuntil spiritual darkness
fell like a pall over the nations; and thus they lay for ages. In vain men
sought to establish reforms, and through them bring back the religion of
Jesus Christ, and the Church of Christ. To do that, however, was beyond
the power of these men, however good their intentions. The Gospel taken
from the earth, divine authority lost, the Church of Christ destroyed,
there was but one way in which all these could be restored, viz.: By
re-opening the heavens and dispensing again a knowledge of the Gospel; by
once more conferring divine authority upon men, together with a commission
to teach all the world, and re-establish the Church of Christ on earth. In
a word, it would require the incoming of the Dispensation of the Fulness
of Times to restore all things, and gather together in one all things in
Christ, both in heaven and in earth. Such Dispensation is promised of God,
as we have seen; and now it only remains to add that the History of the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as set forth in these
volumes, is the history of that series of events which has resulted in the
restoration of the Gospel in its fullness, and the re-establishment of the
Church of Jesus Christ on earth.
1.
Eph. 1:8-10.
2.
I Peter 1:18-25.
3.
Rev. 13:8.
4.
Rev. 17:8.
5.
Job 38:4-6.
6.
Paul to Titus 1:2.
7.
Pearl of Great Price, Book of Moses, ch. 5:6-8, Edition of 1902, quoted
throughout.
8.
Pearl of Great Price, Book of Moses, ch. 5:56-59.
9.
Pearl of Great Price, Book of Moses, ch 6:48-52.
10.
Gen. 5:24.
11.
Heb. 11:5.
12.
Pearl of Great Price, Book of Moses, ch. 7:69.
13.
Heb. 7:1.
14.
1 Cor. 10:1-4.
15.
Heb. 3:14-19 and 4:1-2. This cites the close of one chapter and the
opening verses of another, but it should be remembered that Paul did not
divide his epistle into chapters and verses; and this awkward division is
but one of the many divisions that exist in the Scriptures.
16.
Gal. 3.
17.
Doctrine and Covenants, sec. 84:19-28.
18.
Mark 1:15.
19.
Gal. 4:4.
20.
Heb 1:1, 2.
21.
I John 2:18.
22.
Acts 2:15-21.
23.
Joel 2:28-32.
24.
Isaiah 11:6-9.
25.
Matt. 24:29-31.
26.
Eph. 1:10.
27.
Dan. 2:37-45.
28.
Edition of 1878, page 622.
29.
Rev. 5:10.
30.
Rev. 11:15.
31.
Ibid. 11:17, 18.
32.
Ibid. 20:6.
33.
Matt. 21:43.
34.
Acts 13:46, 47.
35.
History of the Church, vol. 1, p. 6.
36.
Matt. 20:20-24.
37.
Matt. 26:69-75.
38.
Acts 15
39.
Galatians 2:1-14.
40.
Acts 16:1-4.
41.
Gal. 1:6, 7.
42.
Acts 13:13.
43.
I Cor. 1:12-13.
44.
I Cor. 3:3, 4.
45.
I Cor. 5:1-3.
46.
I Cor. 6:1-20, and Matt. 18:15, 17.
47.
I Cor. 11:2-22 and 29, 30.
48.
I Cor. 11:19.
49.
I Cor. 15:12-34.
50.
2 Cor. 11:21
51.
2 Cor. 2:17.
52.
2 Cor. 11:12-14.
53.
Gal. 1:6, 7.
54.
Phil. 1:15, 16.
55.
Phil. 3:2.
56.
Phil. 3:17, 19.
57.
Col. 2:8, 18.
58.
I Tim. 1:4-7.
59.
I Tim. 1:19, 20.
60.
I Tim. 6:20, 21.
61.
2 Tim. 1:15.
62.
2 Tim. 2:16, 18.
63.
2 Tim. 4:10.
64.
2 Tim. 4:16.
65.
Titus 1:9-14.
66.
2 Peter 2.
67.
Ibid. 3:16.
68.
I John 2:18, 19.
69.
I John 4:1.
70.
2 John 1:7.
71.
Jude 3, 4.
72.
2 Tim. 3:13.
73.
Vol. 1, pp. 656, 657.
74.
Lardner's Works, vol. 8, p. 330.
75.
Eus. Ec. Hist., bk. 3, ch. 32.
76.
Institutes, bk. 1 cent. 1, part 2, ch. 2.
77.
Jortin's Remarks on Ecclesiastical History, vol. 1, p. 248.
78.
Eusebius, bk. 3, ch. 39.
79.
Lardner Works, vol. 8, p. 418.
80.
Lardner Works, vol. 8, 449:470; also I Peter 3:18-21; Ibid, 4:6;
I Cor. 15:29.
81.
Lardner, vol. 8, p. 460.
82.
Ibid. p. 581-2.
83.
Lardner, vol. 8, p. 345.
84.
Held in 325 A. D.
85.
Jortin, vol. 1, p. 166, note.
86.
Lardner, vol. 8, p. 344.
87.
Lardner, vol. 8, p. 345.
88.
Neander's History of the Christian Religion and Church, vol. 1,
p. 191.
89.
Student's Eccles. Hist., vol. 1, p. 49.
90.
Gibbon's Roman Empire, Preface by Dean Milman, p. 15.
91.
Institutes, vol. 1, cent. 2, ch. 4.
92.
Ibid. cent. 3, part 2. ch. 4.
93.
Neander Ch. Hist., vol. 1, p. 253. Decline and Fall,
vol. 2, chap. 20.
94.
Eusebius' Life of Constantine, bk. 1, 27.
95.
Hist. Eccles., vol. I, bk. 1, ch. 17.
96.
Zosimus, bk. 2, p. 104.
97.
Neander's Ch. Hist., vol. 2, p. 8.
98.
Gibbon, Decline and Fall, vol. 3, ch. 20.
99.
Neander Ch. Hist., vol. 2, p. 23.
100.
Neander Ch. Hist., vol. 2, p. 21.
101.
Intellectual Development of Europe, vol. 1, p. 280.
102.
Gibbon, Decline and Fall, ch. 20.
103.
Neander Ch. Hist., vol. 2, p. 24.
104.
Mosheim's Institutes, vol. 1, p. 214.
105.
Lardner, vol. 4, p. 39.
106.
Lardner, vol. 4, p. 39.
107.
Lardner, vol. 4, p. 44.
108.
Neander, Ch. Hist., vol. 2, p. 25.
109.
Neander, Ch. Hist., vol. 2, p. 25.
110.
Draper, Intellectual Development, vol. 1, p. 283.
111.
Decline and Fall. ch. 20.
112.
Life of Constantine (Eusebius) I, ch. 2:44.
113.
Ibid, ch. 45.
114.
Life of Constantine, (Eusebius) I, ch. 4:23, 25.
115.
Lardner, vol. 8, p. 169.
116.
Neander, Ch. Hist., vol. 2, p. 26, 27.
117.
Lardner, Works, vol. 4, p. 49.
118.
Lardner, Works, vol. 4, p. 50.
119.
Lardner, Works, vol. 8, p. 169.
120.
In 353 A. D., according to Gothford.
121.
The law is extant in the Theodocian Code
122.
Neander, vol. 2, p. 34.
123.
Neander, Ch. Hist., vol. 2, pp. 88-110.
124.
Neander, Ch. Hist., vol. 2, p. 67.
125.
Lardner, Works, vol. 8, p. 164.
126.
Lardner, Works, vol. 8, p. 276.
127.
Decline and Fall, ch. 21.
128.
Decline and Fall, ch. 21.
129.
Decline and Fall, ch. 21.
130.
Lardner, Works, vol. 4, p. 36.
131.
Life of Constantine, Eusebius, p. 66.
132.
This event occured about 476 A. D.
133.
Decline and Fall, ch. 16.
134.
Luke 9:54-56.
135.
Matt. 10:34-36.
136.
End of Religious Controversy, Milner, Letter 26.
137.
I Cor. 6:9-11.
138.
Neander, Ch. Hist., vol. 1, p. 250.
139.
Neander, Ch. Hist., vol. 1, p. 259.
140.
Milner's Ch. Hist., vol. 1, cent. 3, ch. 6.
141.
Milner's Ch. Hist., vol. 1, cent. 3, ch. 6.
142.
Milner's Ch. Hist., vol. 1, cent. 3, ch. 8.
143.
Milner's Ch. Hist., vol. 1, cent. 3, ch. 17.
144.
Eusebius' Eccl. Hist., bk. 8, ch. 1.
145.
New Witnesses for God, pp. 75, 76.
146.
Eusebius' Eccl. Hist., bk. 8, ch. 2.
147.
Book of Martyrs, ch. 12.
148.
See Milner's Introduction to his Church Hist., vol. 1.
149.
Neander's Church Hist., vol 2, pp. 29-30.
150.
Neander's Church Hist., vol 2, p. 30.
151.
Decline and Fall, ch. 20.
152.
Augustine on St. John, tract 25, ch. 10.
153.
Neander's Ch. Hist., vol. 2, p. 120.
154.
Mosheim, book 2, cent, 4, part 2, chap. 3.
155.
Mark, 16:15-18.
156.
I Cor., 12:4-11.
157.
Gal. 5:22-24.
158.
Student's Ecclesiastical History, vol. 1, p. 62.
159.
Jortin's Eccl. Hist., vol. 1, pp. 134-6.
160.
John 10; Matt. 27; Mark 14:61, 62.
161.
For all of which see John 1:1-4, 14; Heb. 1:1-3; Matt. 28:18.
162.
Col. 1:15-19, and 2:9.
163.
Heb. 1:2, 3.
164.
John 10:30; 17:11-22.
165.
John 14:9.
166.
John 14:1-9; John 1:18.
167.
I Tim. 3:16.
168.
John 14:10, 11, 19, 20; also John 17.
169.
Eph. 3:14-19.
170.
Acts 5:1-14. To lie to the Holy Ghost is to lie to God, because the Holy
Ghost is God.
171.
Matt. 28:19, 20.
172.
2 Cor. 13:14.
173.
Phil. 3:20, 21.
174.
I Cor. 14.
175.
See Shedd's History of Christian Doctrine, vol. 1, p. 342, et
seq. and note.
176.
John 1:1-5, 14.
177.
Hist. Christian Councils (Hefele), p. 294.
178.
Catholic Belief (Bruno), p. 1.
179.
I.e. without materiality.
180.
Decline and Fall, 21.
181.
2 Peter, 2:1.
182.
Rev. 14:6, 7.
183.
I Cor. 12; Eph. 4.
184.
I Cor. 12.
185.
Matt. 20.
186.
Neander, Ch. Hist., vol. 2, p. 196.
187.
See pp. 73-75.
188.
This remark is quoted by Neander, Ch. Hist., vol. 2, p. 198.
189.
Matt. 20:26, 27.
190.
Acts 20:28-30.
191.
I Tim. 4:1, 2, 3.
192.
2 Tim. 4:1, 2, 3, 4.
193.
2 Tim. 3:1-5.
194.
See page 48, and 2 Peter 1:3.
195.
2 Thes. 2:1-12.
196.
Isaiah 24:1-6.
197.
Heb. 13:10.
198.
Rev. 13:6.
199.
Dan. 7:25; 8:25.
200.
Dan. 7:21.
201.
Dan. 7:25.
202.
Dan. 8:24.
203.
Rev. 13:7.